WRL62

[Fawlty]

what a bizarre...oh nevermind

 

[EGarrett]

@EGarrett

This is all revolving around definition. Have you tied a specific event Clinton has done to your definition? I think this would get the ball rolling and possibly in time fix the disagreement on the way each of you are defining the term.

It's revolving around the definition because this started originally when I said to someone else, "Hillary's rap sheet of corruption is a mile long. " and he challenged me to make the case for it. So I started with a definition of corruption (which he didn't realize was a definition) and he thus saw that I could make the case easily and he literally has been ducking and trying to falsely discredit that definition ever since.

 

[Lead]

It's revolving around the definition because I said "Hillary's rap sheet of corruption is a mile long. " and he challenged me to make the case for her being corrupt. So I started with a definition (which he didn't realize was a definition) and he thus saw that I could make the case easily and he literally has been ducking and trying to falsely discredit that definition ever since.

Okay. Let's table that he doesn't agree with your definition. List some those things you mentioned since you said they are numerous. Examples will help move this forward.

 

[EGarrett]

Okay. Let's table that he doesn't agree with your definition. List some those things you mentioned since you said they are numerous. Examples will help move this forward.

We can't have a discussion if he won't acknowledge when he's wrong. He'll just throw something else out, I go to the trouble of showing it's incorrect, and he'll ignore it again (then talk around it, try to pretend he's smart and eventually make an excuse to run away and act like he won).

 

[Fawlty]

I have Bailey Jay over at the house tonight, and she's really enjoying this argument.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Which one of are posters are from Ireland? I need to find something out about their country.

@Rimbaud82 doesn't post here but I haven't tagged him in a while, so

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Debate thread Debate thread Debate thread Debate thread Debate thread

 

[Lead]

We can't have a discussion if he won't acknowledge when he's wrong. He'll just throw something else out, I go to the trouble of showing it's incorrect, and he'll ignore it, talk around, try to pretend he's smart and eventually make an excuse to run away.

Remember I'm trying to move the conversation here forward. To do that, we have to stop making these comments above projecting on the person and what may or may not happen. You said you want to move forward with this.

List some those things which make Hillary corrupt by your definition provided. You aren't conceding anything by doing this as you are still using your definition.

 

[Limbo Pete]

 

[EGarrett]

Remember I'm trying to move the conversation here forward. To do that, we have to stop making these comments above projecting on the person and what may or may not happen.

I understand what you're doing and it makes sense. But let me say that this isn't projecting, he did this in the last thread and he's done it several other times. He finds out he's wrong, and he responds by trying to duck the point, then when that doesn't work, making an excuse to block the person and then later, outright lying about it and saying he "won" the debate. It's ridiculous.

You said you want to move forward with this.

List some those things which make Hillary corrupt by your definition provided. You aren't conceding anything by doing this as you are still using your definition.

I'm happy to discuss it with you if you're interested, but I can't have the discussion with Jack unless he's willing to actually acknowledge that he's wrong and the definition does not apply to everyone. It's stuck at that point and I can't let him engage in his dishonest dodging.

But if you'd like me to talk to you about it, that's fine. A good example is Hillary contradicting herself on gay marriage (she held office at both times she changed her position, and she didn't change her opinion because she told an interviewer that she didn't, that's the key).

 

[Fedorable]

Daycare fire, 5 small children dead. 3 belonged to a fireman.

 

[Lead]

I understand what you're doing and it makes sense. But let me say that this isn't projecting, he did this in the last thread and he's done it several other times. He finds out he's wrong, and he responds by trying to duck the point, then when that doesn't work, making an excuse to block the person and then later, outright lying about it and saying he "won" the debate. It's ridiculous.


I'm happy to discuss it with you if you're interested, but I can't have the discussion with Jack unless he's willing to actually acknowledge that he's wrong and the definition does not apply to everyone. It's stuck at that point and I can't let him engage in his dishonest dodging.

But if you'd like me to talk to you about it, that's fine.

Sure, go on

 

[Fawlty]

Daycare fire, 5 small children dead. 3 belonged to a fireman.

Were they always his or did he adopt them while he was fighting the fire?

 

[Trotsky]

Who do you guys think would win in an IQ test competition between @EGarrett, Donald Trump, and Jeanine Pirro?

 

[EGarrett]

Sure, go on

I added to it. One good example is Hillary flip-flopping on gay marriage, she was in a political office when she changed her opinion at both ends, and, the key here, is that she didn't just change her mind, she literally told an interviewer that she hadn't changed her mind.

 

[NoDak]

Already the WOAT Lounge thread.

 

[BarryDillon]

Who do you guys think would win in an IQ test competition between @EGarrett, Donald Trump, and Jeanine Pirro?

 

[Fedorable]

Were they always his or did he adopt them while he was fighting the fire?

daycare, not orphanage.

 

[Fawlty]

daycare, not orphanage.

Yeah I know, but they can expedite the adoption process if the kids are in an unsafe environment. A fire certainly qualifies.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I added to it. One good example is Hillary flip-flopping on gay marriage, she was in a political office when she changed her opinion at both ends, and, the key here, is that she didn't just change her mind, she literally told an interviewer that she hadn't changed her mind.