Bin Laden's dead

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Gwence [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll supplement my last post by saying context makes no difference when talking about factual information that no one can question, like for instance Newton's 2nd law of motion or things of that nature.

actually context does matter for newton's 2nd law

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, for the love of God, if you're going to insult someone else: learn the difference between "there", "their", and "they're". It's shameful. I pointed it out earlier in the thread, and you're still making the same f*cking mistake.

You're losing bro, you can't attack the argument so you're resorting to ad hominem and playing the role of grammar nazi... Man, to think all that money spent at Ivy League but you still couldn't cut it on the debate team.

[Turtles]

Originally Posted by Abacab "The REAL truth" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're losing bro, you can't attack the argument so you're resorting to ad hominem and playing the role of grammar nazi... Man, to think all that money spent at Ivy League but you still couldn't cut it on the debate team.

Haha, no -- I've already won that argument. The guy has resorted to arguing that there's no saying who's an "innocent civilian" and that it's all a matter of context. International law disagrees. There's no context to be heard. The people in the WTCs were innocent civilians. They were non-combatants. It was murder.

But you're clearly butt-hurt enough to keep jumping in to bait me. Sorry man. My Ivy League education clearly intimidates you since you feel the need to keep mentioning it. If it makes you feel better, pretend I'm a butt-ugly 90-pound hipster with an 8th grade education, a fundamental inability to rap, and a dozen memes to resort to when I've run out of intellect. That way we can start on a level playing field.

[Turtles]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And guess what, here's an MIT engineer Jeff King saying the exact opposite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCLHL5iToJ8

By the way, I just re-read and felt the need to comment on this. Jeff King is not an "MIT engineer". He's a family physician that graduated from MIT 35+ years ago. Thomas Eagar graduated with an S.B. and a Sc.D from MIT. He's served as a professor and department head at MIT for decades. He's worked on the National Research Council and done research for the US Congress and US Department of Energy. He's taught a dozen graduate and professional level engineering courses. He's one of the most accomplished engineers in the world.

It's not point and counterpoint. It's like quoting J. Scott Armstrong (from Wharton) on a business proposal, then countering by quoting a guy that graduated from Wharton in the '70s and has been working as a police officer ever since.

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha, no -- I've already won that argument. The guy has resorted to arguing that there's no saying who's an "innocent civilian" and that it's all a matter of context. International law disagrees. There's no context to be heard. The people in the WTCs were innocent civilians. They were non-combatants. It was murder.

But you're clearly butt-hurt enough to keep jumping in to bait me. Sorry man. My Ivy League education clearly intimidates you since you feel the need to keep mentioning it. If it makes you feel better, pretend I'm a butt-ugly 90-pound hipster with an 8th grade education, a fundamental inability to rap, and a dozen memes to resort to when I've run out of intellect. That way we can start on a level playing field.

Nah I'm baiting you because you try to hard, you attempt to be clever and intellectually juggernaut your way through this thread in some vain attempt to showcase your knowledge. It's like you expect people to applaud you for using proper grammar and sophomoric rhetoric? It's almost a joke as everyone on this forum watches you and Wehrmacht write these 500 page essays over and over but no one reads them because they're the same pseudo-intellectual tripe that we've read from you for over 10 pages now.

With minimal effort on my end, I've managed to make you pound F5 to vociferously defend yourself over and over from several people attacking you, so why would I feel intimidated when I'm the one controlling this debate? It's pretty obvious that you can't help responding because your sheer narcissism can't handle criticism and you'll fight tooth and nail til this thread is locked defending your talking points, can't have your ego bruised now can we?

So before you give me some paragraph long retort over why I'm wrong and you are right, take time to reflect and formulate your words carefully and precisely, god forbid you make another boastful claim with zero substance.

[purist]

Originally Posted by Turtles

It's not two sides to a story. It's two interpretations of the same story.

Another rich kid with an inflated sense of entitlement inversely proportional to his intelligence. Might want reconsider the smug gloating over your SAT scores, 'cause even an aspie in a community college knows that the above quote is patently retarded.

[Turtles]

Originally Posted by Abacab "The REAL truth" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nah I'm baiting you because you try to hard, you attempt to be clever and intellectually juggernaut your way through this thread in some vain attempt to showcase your knowledge. It's like you expect people to applaud you for using proper grammar and sophomoric rhetoric? It's almost a joke as everyone on this forum watches you and Wehrmacht write these 500 page essays over and over but no one reads them because they're the same pseudo-intellectual tripe that we've read from you for over 10 pages now.

With minimal effort on my end, I've managed to make you pound F5 to vociferously defend yourself over and over from several people attacking you, so why would I feel intimidated when I'm the one controlling this debate? It's pretty obvious that you can't help responding because your sheer narcissism can't handle criticism and you'll fight tooth and nail til this thread is locked defending your talking points, can't have your ego bruised now can we?

So before you give me some paragraph long retort over why I'm wrong and you are right, take time to reflect and formulate your words carefully and precisely, god forbid you make another boastful claim with zero substance.

You give yourself way too much credit. I responded to you because you addressed me. Is that not the point of a message board? I have hardly posted here in the past, and I'll likely not post much in the future. I have strep throat and I have nothing better to do. In the meantime, this fills my time with lively banter and saves me from watching Full House reruns. Don't worry about my ego -- it's doing fine. The only thing that has actually made me angry thus far is the fact that people feel the need to defend Osama bin Laden. I don't mind being called an idiot or being told I'm wrong. There is ample documentation to the contrary.

And everything I say is substantive. That's why I say it. It's why I've provided facts, links, and research whereas you've made comments like "Ivy League is a sham". I know, I know. "Trolled". That's cool. If I didn't want to google it and link it, I wouldn't. You're not baiting me into doing anything I mind doing.

[purist]

Originally Posted by Turtles

The guy has resorted to arguing that there's no saying who's an "innocent civilian" and that it's all a matter of context. International law disagrees. There's no context to be heard. The people in the WTCs were innocent civilians. They were non-combatants. It was murder.

Actually, a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. That's what we would refer to as "command and control infrastructure" and therefore a legitimate military target for us to drop a two-ton bomb on, if it belonged to one of America's enemies. The 1,000s of innocent civilians killed in the process of taking it out? That's another thing we like to call "collateral damage." The U.S. should stop using its civilians as "human shields."

Sucks when the standards the U.S. Defense Department applies to the rest of the world is applied to us by Islamic terrorists, doesn't it?

[Turtles]

1 - Not rich.

2 - Still haven't mentioned my SAT scores, let alone smugly gloated over them.

3 - The aspie might want to be more careful in his judgments. Having two people claim different events is two sides of a story. It's a disagreement over the event in question. Having two people agree on what happened (planes meet towers) and who was responsible (Al Qaeda) = one story. The only difference is each side's view of the context, which is largely irrelevant.

[purist]

Originally Posted by Turtles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not two sides to a story. It's two interpretations of the same story.

Translation: "I'm going to take a popular idiom, duplicate it and substitute one word with its identical synonym, then sit back as if I have managed to prove some kind of point. "

The only thing you're proving is that taking $100,000+ in student oans for an undergrad in History at Cornell doesn't make you intelligent. And arguing on an Everquest emulator server after getting your fifth rejection-of-transfer letter from Harvard won't console your ego, 'cause you're getting put in your place by a bunch of state school grads.