Any and all politics aside, I HIGHLY recommend and endorse their baseball sim game, and have heard great things about their other sport sims as well. If you're into sports history and historical sims CHECK THESE GUYS OUT. Dave himself handles most (all?) of the customer support personally and is a great guy, who's willing to cut some pretty good deals.
I'm currently replaying the 1952 Season, running the Boston Red Sox (who are now out of it) in the American League and the Brooklyn Dodgers (who I won the Series with in '51) in the National League.
And I'm playing a late season game against New York, and for the first time all season, I just noticed the names of my #2 and #3 starting pitchers:
Click to enlarge:
I guess William will be rooting for the Giants.
Or he might just side with Wade, assuming he knows the basics of the case. If he's even more intelligent about it, he won't even pay any attention to them, since the "Roe" in the lineup is an actual last name and not a pseudonym.
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm expecting that much, of course.
Shows how much either of you two know.
ReplyDeleteBTW, moron, "Roe" is an actual last name in your pseudonym.
Preacher Roe was an actual pitcher for the Cards, Bugs and Dodgers from 1944 to 1954.
DeleteThe "Roe" from Roe v Wade is a pseudonym used in the case for Norma McCorvey. Jane Roe is commonly used by plaintiffs who prefer privacy or who's identity is unknown. (Like the male version, "john doe.")
Do you ENJOY being wrong all the time, William?
I think what he's going to try to say is that the phrase "actual last name" supposedly meant that someone in the world has that last name. Which would be incredibly stupid of him, but it's the only way that the phrasing "an actual last name in your pseudonym" makes any sense at all.
DeleteBut... That's literally EXACTLY what YOU said.
DeleteWTF?
BTW, just so William can't accuse me of lying about baseball now, Preacher Roe was an actual pitcher for the Cards, BUCS (meaning the Pirates) and Dodgers from 1944 to 1954. Obviously (to everyone except William perhaps) there was never a "BUGS" team in professional baseball and that was, in fact, a typo.
DeleteAND yes, while there was never any BUGS, there were the Cleveland SPIDERS from 1887 to 1899.
Is this a detailed enough proof-reading, fact-checking, error-correcting and truth-telling job for you, William? Do you need me to do this EVERY FUCKING TIME, or do you think you can just KEEP UP?
"BTW, moron, "Roe" is an actual last name in your pseudonym."
ReplyDeleteAnd "Bachman" is an actual last name, but "Richard Bachman" is Stephen King's pseudonym. So, it's not King's actual last name. I hope that cleared that up for you.
Eddie is a real name as well. Its just not MINE. ;)
DeleteBut I guess that's me being dishonest. Lol
That's OK Eddie, I expect dishonesty from you ... you're a liberal. But, also remember, "niceguy" isn't you either.
Delete"Is this a detailed enough proof-reading, fact-checking, error-correcting and truth-telling job for you, William?"
Actually, no it isn't. You saying so doesn't make it true. Got any proof of what you say? I've learned from experience when you say something is true ... it usually isn't. And then, the more you cuss ... the more likely it isn't true. So, don't worry about me keeping up. It's hard to fall behind school children.
William, you don't even have an accusation that he's supposed to defend himself against. What's the theory, that he invented a baseball team named the "bugs" on the spot, while that pitcher coincidentally played for a team that's known as the "bucs"? He's supposed to come up with proof that didn't happen, when you don't even have a reasonable accusation against him? That is classic.
DeleteYou're so blinded by hatred, it's pathetic. Get therapy.
"William, you don't even have an accusation that he's supposed to defend himself against."
DeleteI'm not accusing him of anything other than not proving what he says. If you're too stupid to understand that, don't come crying to me. In fact you should keep your crying at home. When you come to a grown up's blog spot, you should act like an adult. Try it sometime.
BTW, reading comprehension is a giant failure of yours. Try to do better in the future.
"I'm not accusing him of anything other than not proving what he says."
DeleteIf you recognize the typo, then he doesn't need to prove anything, because you would know that it's an honest mistake. If you don't recognize the typo, then you need to explain what you think he did that's supposedly dishonest. There has to be some alternative to the possibility of the typo, or else there's no alternative possibility for him to disprove. Read that sentence twice if you need to. If there is no alternative possibility, then you're demanding that people prove everything at all times, whether you even dispute what they're saying or not. That's obviously psychotic on your part.
So, again, what are you saying might have happened here, that he's supposed to "prove" not to have happened? If you can't say, then this is going to be a very painful thread for you. Also, I notice that you failed to follow up on your comment about the pseudonym above. Did you forget, or did you actually realize your mistake for once?
Take your meds, William. You're off the fucking rails. And you used to be a lot more interesting.
DeleteMeds are for liberals. At least I don't lie and misinform, EDDIE. Of course, if not lying and not misinforming is being "off the fucking rails", then so be it. So, fuck you, Eddie ... the way you diss anyone who doesn't blindly agree with you, I'm not trying to be "interesting". I truly don't give a shit what you think of me. Just like you don't give a shit what I think about you.
DeleteOne thing I will give you though is at least you're man enough to admit where you live. Unlike your gay boyfriend who is terribly afraid of getting hit on the side of the head with a brick by anonymous bloggers.
"Meds are for liberals."
DeleteThat explains so much about your posts.
"One thing I will give you though is at least you're man enough to admit where you live. Unlike your gay boyfriend who is terribly afraid of getting hit on the side of the head with a brick by anonymous bloggers."
That's funny, since you're the one who's crying about a supposed "threat" from Eddie.
You reap what you sow, William; when you make assumptions that are convenient to your argument, then there's no reasonable way of convincing you that I don't live near an urban area. I could tell you that I live in Ohio, for instance, and you could just point out that there are large cities like Cleveland which I must be avoiding. The only possible way of proving that I don't live near a large city, as if it was relevant to begin with, is to give you my address. That's simply not going to happen. If you were more reasonable, then I would tell you what state I live in. If you were reasonable, though, we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.
So, quit whining because you created this situation and that I'm not going to violate my principles in order to make you feel better about it. You were wrong in every way imaginable. Deal with it.
"That explains so much about your posts."
DeleteAnd your illogical ones.
" I could tell you that I live in Ohio, for instance, and you could just point out that there are large cities like Cleveland which I must be avoiding."
Ok, so you live in Ohio? That must another reason why you're so antagonistic towards me. You know I'm from Michigan (originally).
"That's funny, since you're the one who's crying about a supposed "threat" from Eddie."
Which I coincidently proved to be a genuine threat in another article.
"And your illogical ones."
DeleteIt also explains how you don't understand logic. That much is true.
"Ok, so you live in Ohio?"
No, I don't.
"That must another reason why you're so antagonistic towards me. You know I'm from Michigan (originally)."
I'm from Michigan, originally. Even your idiotic generalizations aren't serving your cause.
"Which I coincidently proved to be a genuine threat in another article."
No, you didn't. Besides that, if the fact that someone was once hit in the head with a brick proves that Eddie was serious, then I must have a valid reason for not giving you my address. After all, there are any number of cases where people are targeted over the internet. The logic of "if it has happened, it will happen" validates my refusal to give you specific details about my location. That didn't work out for you at all.
I forgot to post this link at the time, but I got a good laugh at your charge of being "antagonistic". I'll just leave this thread here for everyone to see and share my amusement:
Deletehttp://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html
Read the top of the thread, from April 11th to the 14th or so. Then it starts back on the 16th with wild accusations of saying that jury trials aren't needed. Classic.
"Besides that, if the fact that someone was once hit in the head with a brick proves that Eddie was serious, then I must have a valid reason for not giving you my address."
DeleteApparently, his threat is serious and you have good reason not to tell where you live. Therefore, I'll continue to say you're from Jersey. And you can continue to be scared of Eddie's (apparently) genuine threat of physical harm using bricks.
"Apparently, his threat is serious and you have good reason not to tell where you live."
DeleteYou haven't substantiated that. What suggests that it's not hyperbole? Be specific.
"Therefore, I'll continue to say you're from Jersey."
You already admitted that you know that I'm not from New Jersey. Besides, it would hardly be fair to cling to that claim in the face of my denial and the fact that you just admitted that I have cause not to provide you with my address. It would actually be your fault for asking for that evidence, and you would be obligated to accept my authority on where I happen to live.
"And you can continue to be scared of Eddie's (apparently) genuine threat of physical harm using bricks."
What Eddie said never had anything to do with me at all. You're confusing two completely different situations.
"You haven't substantiated that. What suggests that it's not hyperbole? Be specific."
DeleteThe simple fact that people have been hit on the side of the head with a brick (just as Eddie threatened) is enough to show that it may not be hyperbole. Whether he did the hitting or not, I do not know, but it has happened ... just as he threatened for it to happen.
"You already admitted that you know that I'm not from New Jersey."
I have not admitted that. I don't know where you get that from. I guess you're just making shit up again, like Eddie does.
"What Eddie said never had anything to do with me at all. You're confusing two completely different situations."
Possibly, but you're scared just the same. You sure are scared of a lot of things.
"The simple fact that people have been hit on the side of the head with a brick (just as Eddie threatened) is enough to show that it may not be hyperbole."
DeleteNo, the question wasn't about "may not be" hyperbole. Almost anything is possible. What you would have to show is that you have a reasonable basis to conclude that he was making a serious threat, and pointing to separate cases where people were actually hit with bricks doesn't do that.
"I have not admitted that."
Me: "I don't live in New Jersey, and that isn't a matter of opinion."
You: "I don't know you don't."
"Possibly, but you're scared just the same."
No, it's just a good principle not to put personal information out onto the internet. But, you seem to have a need to spin anything that a liberal does into something negative, so smart suddenly equals "scared". You can't be taken seriously.
Anything else?
By the way, what was your earlier point about pseudonyms supposed to be about? You seemed so confident, yet you abandoned your claim. Why is that?
Delete"Almost anything is possible. "
DeleteThank you for admitting you are in the wrong for this line of demands that you are requiring.
"Me: "I don't live in New Jersey, and that isn't a matter of opinion."
You: "I don't know you don't." "
Reading comprehension 101. It means I don't know that you don't live in New Jersey. It certainly is not an admission from me that you don't live in Jersey. You really aren't too bright are you? Is this why Eddie lets you defend him all the time? Are you the smarter of the bunch? I sure hope not, because you can't even have a logical, rational or honest discussion with a simple conservative.
"But, you seem to have a need to spin anything that a liberal does into something negative, so smart suddenly equals "scared"."
You use that same excuse as you use your racist mindset to avoid areas inhabited by African-Americans. So ... you're a scared racist who is afraid to go to inner-city areas and afraid of the internet. I'll bet you were one of those people who would run away from trouble instead of facing up to it while you were growing up (and continue to do today). Did you hide behind mommy's skirt when the other kids picked on you? Do you weigh over 250 pounds? I'll bet you're 5' 8" and weigh 265 (fat little man). Because you try to act superior to others at all times (little man complex) and you're afraid to face reality (fat man complex).
"Anything else?"
Yeah, I've got plenty. How much longer do you want me to continue to make you look like the fool you are?
"Thank you for admitting you are in the wrong for this line of demands that you are requiring."
DeleteI admitted no such thing. You have to show a reasonable basis for interpreting a comment as a threat, not just that something is possible.
"It means I don't know that you don't live in New Jersey."
My error, I did misread that, somehow.
"You use that same excuse as you use your racist mindset to avoid areas inhabited by African-Americans."
That never happened. You just got caught lying again. I specifically said that I don't live near an urban area, so it has nothing to do with risk at any level.
"I'll bet you were one of those people who would run away from trouble instead of facing up to it while you were growing up (and continue to do today)."
Considering that I signed up in the military while troops were deployed, that charge doesn't hold up very well.
"Do you weigh over 250 pounds? I'll bet you're 5' 8" and weigh 265 (fat little man)."
5'8" is about average height. And no, the military doesn't have a great deal of tolerance for someone who would have that body fat percentage. I've never failed the tape test.
"Because you try to act superior to others at all times (little man complex) and you're afraid to face reality (fat man complex)."
That's hilarious coming from someone who clings to stereotypes about people that disagree with him in order to feel morally superior. And right here, you're coming up with fantasies about me in order to feel better about yourself. Your projection is beyond obvious.
What was your point about the pseudonym, again? Why did you abandon that?
"My error, I did misread that, somehow."
DeleteNot "somehow", that's a consistent habit of yours.
" I specifically said that I don't live near an urban area, so it has nothing to do with risk at any level."
You also said you wouldn't enter those areas because of the risk involved. Using your racist mind-set as the determiner for any perceived risk.
"Considering that I signed up in the military while troops were deployed, that charge doesn't hold up very well."
How are we to know it was voluntary and not a court ordered event?
"5'8" is about average height."
For a girl.
"And no, the military doesn't have a great deal of tolerance for someone who would have that body fat percentage."
For people in your MOS, it has more tolerance than ... say ...real men.
" Your projection is beyond obvious."
You admitted I'm right. So, it isn't projection. LOL
"Why did you abandon that?"
What topic are you trying to change it to this time?
"Not "somehow", that's a consistent habit of yours."
DeleteNo, it isn't.
"You also said you wouldn't enter those areas because of the risk involved."
That's a lie. I never said anything of the sort.
"How are we to know it was voluntary and not a court ordered event?"
I haven't met anyone who was ordered to join the military. And according to http://usmilitary.about.com/, AR 600-210 reads: "Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment."
"For a girl."
You're wrong: http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_height.php
"For people in your MOS, it has more tolerance than ... say ...real men."
There is no difference in standards based on MOS. Besides, my current MOS is 68W, which involves single-man carries of someone wearing full combat load. As usual, you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
"You admitted I'm right. So, it isn't projection."
No, I didn't.
"What topic are you trying to change it to this time?"
You've changed the topic to New Jersey and Eddie's nonexistent threat recently, so accusing me of going off-topic isn't going to work for you.
"You've changed the topic to New Jersey and Eddie's nonexistent threat recently, so accusing me of going off-topic isn't going to work for you."
DeleteThat's the only aspect of this conversation that isn't going well for me.
"That's the only aspect of this conversation that isn't going well for me."
DeleteThat's amusing, since you essentially just conceded everything that you ignored. Thanks for playing.
That's how you interpret that? Nothing unexpected there. You've never been very good at correct interpretation of statements.
DeleteYou're welcome.
"That's how you interpret that?"
DeleteWhen you abandon your arguments, then you concede my points. That's how it works.
I don't think so, but if that's what you want to believe ... knock yourself out.
DeleteOf course, because you believe that arguments that you don't make magically trump mine, right? If you can't stand the heat, get out, William.
DeleteYou're right, I believe logic trumps illogic every time. Which would explain me ignoring half your shit.
DeleteAnything else?
You haven't demonstrated any logic. If you could do that, then you would be able to do something other than to ignore what I posted.
DeleteSo, when you ignore what I post that is being logical, but when I ignore what you post it is illogical? Wow, that's a bit egomaniacal isn't it? Add that one to your many other mental problems. Turns out Michael Savage is correct: liberalism is a mental disorder. You sure keep proving that one true ... over and over again.
Delete"So, when you ignore what I post that is being logical, but when I ignore what you post it is illogical?"
DeleteWhat are you claiming that I've ignored?
"Wow, that's a bit egomaniacal isn't it?"
You don't demonstrate a rampant ego? You might want to think twice about that one. Meanwhile, all I do is refute your arguments. No ego is required to do that.
"What are you claiming that I've ignored?"
DeleteMy questions. Are you really that dense?
" Meanwhile, all I do is refute your arguments."
I think you misspelled a word there. You put "refute" but I'm sure you meant "misinterpret". Because that is what you really do.
"My questions."
DeleteSuch as what? Be specific.
"I think you misspelled a word there. You put "refute" but I'm sure you meant "misinterpret". Because that is what you really do."
Your empty assertions aren't compelling.
"Your empty assertions aren't compelling."
DeleteTruth and compelling don't necessarily go hand in hand.
"Truth and compelling don't necessarily go hand in hand."
DeleteThat doesn't really make sense. If you can demonstrate the truth, then that would be compelling. Otherwise, it's just your belief that it's "truth", which doesn't count for anything.
What are you claiming that I ignored, specifically? Your silence suggests that you were lying.
"That doesn't really make sense."
DeleteIt doesn't to you, but it does to someone (anyone) else.
"What are you claiming that I ignored, specifically?"
Questions you didn't answer. Are you expecting me to go back and re ask all those questions so that you can ignore them again? I think I'll let the original questions stand and see if you decide to answer them.
" Your silence suggests that you were lying."
You silence suggests my questions make you give answers you're afraid to give so you ignore them.
"It doesn't to you, but it does to someone (anyone) else."
DeleteYou don't speak for anyone besides yourself.
"Questions you didn't answer."
Such as what, again?
"Are you expecting me to go back and re ask all those questions so that you can ignore them again?"
No, I'm expecting that you'll confirm my suspicion that you're lying by not being able to come up with any examples.
"I think I'll let the original questions stand and see if you decide to answer them."
So, you expect answers for questions that you didn't ask? Good luck with that.
"You silence suggests my questions make you give answers you're afraid to give so you ignore them."
I didn't ignore your questions. You're just lying, yet again.
"You don't speak for anyone besides yourself."
DeleteThat's right. My words mean nothing to anyone but me. Get over it, crybaby.
"Such as what, again?"
I figured you'd expect me to do alo the work for you. You know, in youR MOS, there is no way in hell you EVER carried anyone with a pack on. You're a simpleton data entry guy. Get over you dillusions of grandeur. You never did anything like that (if) in Afghanistan or anywhere else. You simply enter data. That's why you're able to chat on this forum during work hours.
"No, I'm expecting that you'll confirm my suspicion that you're lying by not being able to come up with any examples."
You're calling me a liar? Prove it. Go through all the questions I asked you and prove that you replied to each and every one. What moron you are. LOL at your behavior
"So, you expect answers for questions that you didn't ask? "
No, I'm expecting answers to questions I DID ask. You're right .. good luck with that.
"That's right. My words mean nothing to anyone but me. Get over it, crybaby."
DeleteThat's not a problem for me at all. It is inconsistent with you testifying as to what makes sense to other people, though.
"I figured you'd expect me to do alo the work for you."
If I genuinely don't know what questions you're talking about, which is the case, then obviously it's up to you to explain what you're referring to. Quit whining.
"You know, in youR MOS, there is no way in hell you EVER carried anyone with a pack on."
Combat medics practice carries, for obvious reasons. Your ignorance regarding military matters would be embarrassing for the average civilian, never mind someone who claims to have once served himself.
"You're a simpleton data entry guy."
You've never shown me to be a "simpleton", but my MOS is still 68W. Did you not realize what that meant, somehow?
"You never did anything like that (if) in Afghanistan or anywhere else. You simply enter data."
I didn't maintain records until I came back from deployment. And my MOS hasn't yet changed for as long as I've been in the military. Besides, nobody in our unit deployed and "simply" did any sort of computer work, even if that had been my job at the time. Everyone went out on missions.
"That's why you're able to chat on this forum during work hours."
I'm in the Reserves, so there are few "work hours" outside of certain weekends.
"You're calling me a liar? Prove it."
You're proving it by not showing what questions you claimed that I had dodged. Did you think that making absurd assumptions about my military service was going to make me forget that?
"Go through all the questions I asked you and prove that you replied to each and every one."
You made the assertion, so it's your job to substantiate it. Besides that, even if I were to go through that process, you could simply say that I left some questions out without saying what they were. Sorry, no sale. If you have some questions in mind, you shouldn't have any problem citing them.
"No, I'm expecting answers to questions I DID ask."
You didn't ask any such questions until you prove it. Things aren't true just because you say that they are. Your behavior is egomaniacal.
" It is inconsistent with you testifying as to what makes sense to other people, though."
DeleteNot at all. Get over it, crybaby.
"
If I genuinely don't know what questions you're talking about, which is the case, then obviously it's up "
"Genuinely"? Changing the parameters again? Nothing unexpected there. Make up any kind of shit you want to to avoid the questions. Good for you ... a true liberal.
" Your ignorance regarding military matters would be embarrassing for the average civilian, never mind someone who claims to have once served himself."
Unfortunately for you, I have military experience so I can pretty well guess that you NEVER carried anyone (even in training). Pencil pushers don't carry people, they just brag that they MAY be asked to do so (which they would refuse to do, of course). Is that your case?
You've never shown me to be a "simpleton", but my MOS is still 68W."
So you admit you just a data entry guy (just not a simpleton)? LOL
"I didn't maintain records until I came back from deployment"
"Maintain" isn't the same. You simply entered data. I doubt you ever went to the field ... even in Afghanistan.
"I'm in the Reserves, so there are few "work hours" outside of certain weekends."
Ahh ... the reserves in Jersey, what could be better? LOL
"
You're proving it by not showing what questions you claimed that I had dodged."
What do you mean "not showing". You've seen every question that you've dodged. Time to back up your talk with some action.
"You didn't ask any such questions until you prove it."
You mean I didn't ask any such question until I ask it over and over again? Sorry not gonna happen. Answer the questions and move on or STFU.
"Not at all."
DeleteIf you don't speak for other people, then obviously it's inconsistent for you to try to speak for other people. It's not clear how you thought you were getting around that.
""Genuinely"? Changing the parameters again?"
How would "genuinely" be "changing the parameters" exactly? You won't be able to explain that one, I'm sure.
"Unfortunately for you, I have military experience so I can pretty well guess that you NEVER carried anyone (even in training)."
Prove that you have military experience. I can just say that it's my opinion that you never served, especially since you are woefully ignorant regarding military matters. And by your standard, that means that you never served.
"Pencil pushers don't carry people, they just brag that they MAY be asked to do so (which they would refuse to do, of course)."
My MOS is medical, not administrative. If you were familiar with the military, you might have grasped that by now. Besides, there is no segregation in BCT regarding MOS; everyone does carries, even those who are slotted for administrative jobs. You have no clue as to what you're talking about.
"So you admit you just a data entry guy (just not a simpleton)?"
The 68 series is medical.
""Maintain" isn't the same. You simply entered data."
No, that's merely your assertion. What you say isn't true just because you want to believe it.
"I doubt you ever went to the field ... even in Afghanistan."
Everyone went on missions in Afghanistan. The medic would obviously not be an exception to that, if you think about it for even half a second.
"Ahh ... the reserves in Jersey, what could be better?"
Your lame attempts at trolling only amuse me.
"What do you mean "not showing". You've seen every question that you've dodged."
No, I haven't. If you can't show them, then you never asked them.
"Time to back up your talk with some action."
That actually applies to you; if you want to assert that I dodged questions, you need to support the accusation with something of substance.
"You mean I didn't ask any such question until I ask it over and over again?"
I mean that the fact is that I never dodged any questions until you back up what you say. It doesn't magically become the truth just because you say it.
"Answer the questions and move on or STFU."
What questions? I can't answer what you haven't asked.
This isn't going to work out well for you, if you haven't picked up on that by now.
" You won't be able to explain that one, I'm sure."
DeleteGenuinely would require a little bit of honesty. Since you don't possess that quality, how could you be genuine about anything?
" I can just say that it's my opinion that you never served, especially since you are woefully ignorant regarding military matters."
YOU can say that, but I know the truth. You lose
"The 68 series is medical"
Ok, so the data you entered was medical data. Still a data entry guy.
"What questions? I can't answer what you haven't asked."
Answer the ones I have asked, then. And stop stalling.
"Genuinely would require a little bit of honesty."
DeleteThat doesn't explain any supposed "changing the parameters", unless you can find where I said something advocating dishonesty elsewhere. And you can't.
"YOU can say that, but I know the truth."
It's not a matter of truth, though, it's just your opinion until you prove otherwise. Those are your rules, civilian.
"Ok, so the data you entered was medical data."
No, 68W is a combat medic. It's not a primary care job. And as far as I ever saw, nobody was deployed just to deal with "medical data". You have no idea what you're talking about, but your flailing desperation is perpetually amusing.
"Answer the ones I have asked, then."
There are no questions that I haven't answered. Have you figured out that it's hypocritical of you to demand answers from me when you won't answer my question as to what you want answered? As I said, this isn't going to work out well for you.
"It's not a matter of truth, though, it's just your opinion until you prove otherwise. Those are your rules, civilian."
DeleteIt's truth to me. Just like the "truth" you say about where you live. Until you prove it then it's just opinion. So, you live in Jersey, civilian.
"There are no questions that I haven't answered."
So, when I find one (of the many), you will be proven a liar.
"Just like the "truth" you say about where you live. Until you prove it then it's just opinion."
DeleteNo, if it's opinion for me, then it's opinion for you. If it's a matter of fact for me, then it's the same for you. You can't have it both ways.
"So, when I find one (of the many), you will be proven a liar."
I'm basing that on your obvious fear of asking your supposed questions. If you really had them, you would have no problem explaining what you were talking about. If you come up with some random troll question that I rightfully ignored, then that's not going to qualify.
So, what answers are you demanding? You won't get them until you specify.
"I'm basing that on your obvious fear of asking your supposed questions."
DeleteHere's 2 pertinent questions that you ignored: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/03/couple-things.html?showComment=1425742076977#c5967624172524461358
Both questions were related to your comment about generational slavery. You ignored both. Even when I pointed out that you ignored those questions you continued to ignore them. This proves you are a liar because you just said you answered all my questions (non-troll type). Then you went on to say you didn't have to answer questions that aren't relevant (nothing about troll issues at that time). But, you failed to show how those questions were "troll" type questions. Do your standards change on a daily basis? One day you say you don't have to answer questions ... the next day you say you only ignore troll type questions ... then you say you've answered ALL of my questions (non-troll type). So, why are you not answering those questions?
You lose.
DeleteMe: "You would have to explain what your point is, especially since I already asked about the idea of your deity creating people who were unworthy of freedom. Why would slavery be a morally acceptable concept for any group of people at any point in time?"
Not only do you fail, since I invited you to clarify your supposed point, but you never answered my question. Your questions were void because you asked them while ignoring the question posed to you: "What's the theory there, that God made some people unworthy, just so that they could suffer as slaves?" Obviously, asking if I know any Levites doesn't address that. Was your point that they were created as inferior beings?
Sorry, you being scared to pursue your point doesn't qualify as my problem. I made the effort. You tucked tail and ran.
The conversation was about generational slavery. Eddie used the Book of Leviticus to help bolster his case. I asked a couple pertinent and related questions that YOU ignored. And are still ignoring. It obviously isn't a troll question or you wouldn't ask for a clarified point. So you lied when you said you answered all my questions (non-troll type).
Delete" I made the effort. You tucked tail and ran."
Ignoring questions is considered "effort" in your world?
"I asked a couple pertinent and related questions that YOU ignored."
DeleteThat's a lie. I asked you to clarify your point. You clammed up.
"It obviously isn't a troll question or you wouldn't ask for a clarified point."
Then you can't claim that I ignored you, obviously. You just admitted that I addressed your question. If you don't clarify upon request, then you can't blame me for not answering your questions.
You lose.
"That's a lie. I asked you to clarify your point. You clammed up."
DeleteYou did not. You ignored the questions even when I pointed out you ignored them you continued to ignore them. And "troll" type questions was not the issue.
"You just admitted that I addressed your question."
Liar. You addressed my statement about you ignoring the questions. You STILL have not answered the questions.
The facts are that you ignored the questions (still haven't answered them) and you said you answered ALL my questions (non-troll type). That makes you a liar.
"You did not."
DeleteYou: "It obviously isn't a troll question or you wouldn't ask for a clarified point."
You already admitted that I asked for a clarified point.
"You ignored the questions even when I pointed out you ignored them you continued to ignore them."
That's a lie. I said: "On the other hand, you haven't even explained what you imagine I'm avoiding. As far as you've demonstrated, your questions are meaningless."
You didn't respond to that. What more do you expect me to do in order to get you to clarify?
"Liar. You addressed my statement about you ignoring the questions."
Asking you for clarification is addressing your questions. It isn't "ignoring" them, by definition.
"You STILL have not answered the questions."
You still have not clarified your point. You ran away, and eleven days later you're whining about your abandonment of your argument?
"The facts are that you ignored the questions (still haven't answered them) and you said you answered ALL my questions (non-troll type). That makes you a liar."
If you don't clarify your questions, then they don't count as questions that I'm obligated to answer. If you need that explained to you, I'd be glad to humiliate you further.
"You already admitted that I asked for a clarified point."
DeleteNot to the questions, though. Sorry, you lose
"What more do you expect me to do in order to get you to clarify?"
Answer the questions. They aren't hard questions and they are related to the conversation as it was happening at that time. You STILL haven't answered them. So, you are a proven continual liar.
"You still have not clarified your point."
I don't need to. You need to answer the questions.
"If you don't clarify your questions, then they don't count as questions that I'm obligated to answer."
That isn't what you said here: "There are no questions that I haven't answered.".
"Not to the questions, though."
DeleteOf course it was. The quote that I provided was in response to your request for an answer to your questions. Read your own link.
"Answer the questions."
You can't demand that I answer questions that you aren't willing to clarify.
"You STILL haven't answered them."
You still haven't clarified. You still didn't answer the question that I asked you prior to yours, either.
"So, you are a proven continual liar."
No, you failed again. But even if you did have an argument, there's obviously no such thing as a "liar" by your standards. If you can claim to be honest while inventing an entire field of law, then there's no such thing as dishonesty at all.
"I don't need to."
Yes, you do. If you can insist on me answering your questions, I can insist that you answer mine.
"That isn't what you said here: "There are no questions that I haven't answered."."
As far as you showed, your questions had no meaning. At best, they're rhetorical. Besides, as I said, I was drawing a conclusion based on your obvious fear of backing up your accusation.
" The quote that I provided was in response to your request for an answer to your questions."
DeleteLiar. It was a statement that you have continued to ignore those questions. There was no request. Keep building up your lie count. In just a couple hours, you've lied more than I have in a couple months.
"You still didn't answer the question that I asked you prior to yours, either."
So what? I'm not the one who claimed to have answered all my questions. You haven't and that makes you a liar.
"If you can claim to be honest while inventing an entire field of law, then there's no such thing as dishonesty at all."
I haven't invented a field of law.
"If you can insist on me answering your questions, I can insist that you answer mine."
You can "insist" all you want, but until I claim to have answered all your questions then I am not obligated to answer them. You, OTOH, said there are no questions that you haven't answered, of mine.
" Besides, as I said, I was drawing a conclusion based on your obvious fear of backing up your accusation."
You came to the wrong conclusion, because I back up what I say. Unlike you who does not.
"Liar. It was a statement that you have continued to ignore those questions."
DeleteYou are a pathetic liar. I explicitly said that you needed to explain your point. Your failure to do so is your responsibility alone.
"So what?"
For one thing, my question precluded yours. It doesn't matter much if I know any group of people if slavery is always immoral. Also, it proves that you are a flaming hypocrite. You whined about me not answering your questions, when you admit that you avoid questions without a second thought.
"I haven't invented a field of law."
Then you can easily point to all of the legal scholars that have commented or written about "income law".
"You can "insist" all you want, but until I claim to have answered all your questions then I am not obligated to answer them."
You seem to forget that you were whining about my supposed dodging of questions before I concluded that you had no examples.
"You came to the wrong conclusion, because I back up what I say."
Your examples didn't work for you. Besides that, you were absurdly hesitant, almost as if you knew that you didn't have any valid complaint to make.
" It doesn't matter much if I know any group of people if slavery is always immoral."
DeleteIt isn't "always" immoral.
"You are a pathetic liar."
Prove I lied. Bring that "request" you say happened.
"Then you can easily point to all of the legal scholars that have commented or written about "income law"."
I don't need to do that. I was asked to provide evidence of income law. I did that. Stop crying.
"You seem to forget that you were whining about my supposed dodging of questions before I concluded that you had no examples."
So what? You were dodging questions and you got busted for it after claiming to have answered all of them.
"It isn't "always" immoral."
DeleteWhy not? Be specific.
"Prove I lied. Bring that "request" you say happened."
You: "I also noticed that you ignored my on topic questions about Levites."
Me: "You would have to explain what your point is, especially since I already asked about the idea of your deity creating people who were unworthy of freedom. Why would slavery be a morally acceptable concept for any group of people at any point in time?"
Obviously, my statement was not about ignoring your question. I invited you to clarify your point, and you wouldn't.
"I don't need to do that. I was asked to provide evidence of income law."
That's the only real evidence of "income law", though. You asserting that certain laws are those laws isn't evidence.
"So what?"
So if you think I'm supposed to answer your questions, then it's hypocritical to ignore mine. Ergo, you are a hypocrite.
"You were dodging questions and you got busted for it after claiming to have answered all of them."
You can't claim that I dodged questions if I asked you to clarify them. Keep banging your head against that wall as much as you like.
"Obviously, my statement was not about ignoring your question. I invited you to clarify your point, and you wouldn't."
DeleteYou just said: "The quote that I provided was in response to your request for an answer to your questions.". Where's the "request" you said was there? Are you lying again?
"That's the only real evidence of "income law", though."
So, NOW you're admitting that bringing that law was real evidence of income law? Why have you been crying all this time?
"So if you think I'm supposed to answer your questions, then it's hypocritical to ignore mine."
Not until I claim to have answered all your questions, like you have. So, in actuality, you are the hypocrite. And liar.
"You can't claim that I dodged questions if I asked you to clarify them."
Yes I can. Because you haven't answered them. And you claimed to have answered all my questions.
"Where's the "request" you said was there?"
DeleteYou: "I also noticed that you ignored my on topic questions about Levites."
What's your point, that you weren't saying that in order to get an answer to your questions?
"So, NOW you're admitting that bringing that law was real evidence of income law?"
Obviously not. The context was finding people that had discussed that law. You said that you didn't need to do that, and I pointed out that is the only real evidence that you could bring.
"Not until I claim to have answered all your questions, like you have."
No, it's hypocritical of you no matter what conclusions you led me to make.
"Yes I can. Because you haven't answered them."
Because you haven't clarified your point. When is slavery moral? And let's try to stick to actual slavery, not employment for pay that you don't have control over.
"What's your point, that you weren't saying that in order to get an answer to your questions?"
DeleteThat's right. Just like that was a reply to a statement you made where you expected no reply.
"Because you haven't clarified your point."
I don't have to clarify any point. You failed to answer the question, you have lied about answering all my questions. Ergo: you are a liar.
"When is slavery moral?"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery
"That's right. Just like that was a reply to a statement you made where you expected no reply."
DeleteSo you were whining that you didn't get an answer, but you weren't trying to get an answer? That doesn't make any sense.
"I don't have to clarify any point. You failed to answer the question, you have lied about answering all my questions. Ergo: you are a liar."
Since you abandoned your argument, I wasn't aware of any questions that actually required an answer. You do know that "lie" relies on intent, right? Since I made the effort to get you to pursue your argument, and you ran away, you can't assert any such intent on my part. You lose.
"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery"
Again, we're talking about owning other people. When is that moral, according to you?
"So you were whining that you didn't get an answer, but you weren't trying to get an answer?"
DeleteI'm not whining that I didn't get an answer, I'm pointing out how you lied when you said you've answer all my questions. My actions are not related to your lying efforts.
"Since you abandoned your argument, I wasn't aware of any questions that actually required an answer."
I didn't abandon my argument, you ignored the questions.
"Again, we're talking about owning other people. When is that moral, according to you?"
Fact: you asked when is slavery moral. Now you change that to "owning other people"? Ok, I take it that you just got beat down (again) and are changing your parameters. So, which is it? When is slavery moral or when is owning other people moral? Make up you mind and try to stick with you decision (for a change).
"I'm not whining that I didn't get an answer, I'm pointing out how you lied when you said you've answer all my questions."
DeleteYour opinion that I need to answer rhetorical questions doesn't prove anything about me.
Also, you: "You ignored both. Even when I pointed out that you ignored those questions you continued to ignore them."
Note the words "even when". As if you pointing out the supposed ignoring of your questions was supposed to prompt me to then answer them. But, at the same time, you somehow didn't say that trying to get an answer. How odd.
"I didn't abandon my argument, you ignored the questions."
You're a liar. I addressed your post, and you ran away. The link proves it.
"Fact: you asked when is slavery moral. Now you change that to "owning other people"?"
Fact: you were complaining about a picture where slaves where shackled. Ergo, we were never talking about "drudgery" or whatever else. The topic is actual slavery, as in owning other people. Your deflection is weak, even by your low standards.
"When is slavery moral or when is owning other people moral?"
I haven't contradicted myself, so you have no excuse to avoid the question. Note that my question isn't rhetorical in nature; it actually invites a response.
"As if you pointing out the supposed ignoring of your questions was supposed to prompt me to then answer them."
Delete"AS IF". Too bad I know why I did it. And I just told you why. So, your inaccurate assessment isn't of my concern.
"You're a liar."
I'm a liar? Where are the answers to those questions. Perhaps I missed THAT link.
"Fact: you were complaining about a picture where slaves where shackled. Ergo, we were never talking about "drudgery" or whatever else."
That's right. Wow, you got one right for a change. Too bad for you that helps bolster what I started out saying at the very beginning: the Bible isn't "OK" with that kind of treatment as depicted in Eddie's picture.
"I haven't contradicted myself, so you have no excuse to avoid the question."
Your "question" may not be rhetorical in nature, but it also isn't ONE question. You're asking 2 different ones. Do you demand that I answer the first or second or both? I think I just asked you which one you want me to answer, but you interpreted that as me claiming some kind of contradiction. See? No wonder I have a problem discussing with you. You can't understand simple English. I asked which one you want answered. So which is it?
"Too bad I know why I did it."
DeleteOf course, you have a secret way of making your comments sensible. Because that's how normal people have discussions, right? Hilarious.
"That's right."
I know it is. Which is why your dictionary definition didn't answer the question, obviously, and you must have known that at the time.
"Too bad for you that helps bolster what I started out saying at the very beginning: the Bible isn't "OK" with that kind of treatment as depicted in Eddie's picture."
The picture wasn't commenting on shackles, it was conveying the concept of slavery. Which the Bible condones, of course.
"You're asking 2 different ones."
No, you already admitted that you know what kind of "slavery" we're talking about. So, you can explain your assertion that slavery isn't always immoral.
"I think I just asked you which one you want me to answer, but you interpreted that as me claiming some kind of contradiction."
If there's no contradiction, then you could answer both.
Besides, you: "Now you change that to "owning other people"? Ok, I take it that you just got beat down (again) and are changing your parameters. So, which is it? When is slavery moral or when is owning other people moral? Make up you mind and try to stick with you decision (for a change)."
You were claiming that there was a contradiction, because you accused me of "changing" my "parameters". You claimed that the two questions were somehow inconsistent with each other.
Since "slavery" is "owning other people", as it has been throughout the conversation, you can explain when you think it's moral. Unless you feel a need to continue dragging your feet, naturally.
"I'm a liar? Where are the answers to those questions."
DeleteYes, your link proved that you lied. And rhetorical questions don't get "answered" the way that you're irrationally demanding. You didn't ask them expecting more than one possible answer; the purpose of them was to make a point, and you never clarified your point.
"The picture wasn't commenting on shackles, it was conveying the concept of slavery. Which the Bible condones, of course."
DeleteWhich is why I supplied the definition of "slavery". So, which version are you asking about? There's couple more questions you haven't answered. More lying? Hmm quite the habit you have there.
"No, you already admitted that you know what kind of "slavery" we're talking about."
That's right, I know what version you're talking about and the Bible isn't "OK" with that version.
"If there's no contradiction, then you could answer both."
Now, if you actually knew how to comprehend what is written you would have already seen that I HAVE answered both.
" And rhetorical questions don't get "answered" the way that you're irrationally demanding."
Just pointing out that you ignore questions after you said you answer all my questions.
"Which is why I supplied the definition of "slavery". So, which version are you asking about?"
DeleteWe're still talking about owning other people, as you admitted we have been from the start. So, nothing is preventing you from answering that question.
"That's right, I know what version you're talking about and the Bible isn't "OK" with that version."
But owning other people is just fine, apparently. Just as long as their wrists don't get chafed, right?
"Now, if you actually knew how to comprehend what is written you would have already seen that I HAVE answered both."
No, you haven't.
"Just pointing out that you ignore questions after you said you answer all my questions."
That doesn't include questions which aren't intended to be answered, obviously. There wouldn't be any reason for me to take them into consideration when making the assessment.
"But owning other people is just fine, apparently. Just as long as their wrists don't get chafed, right?"
DeleteThat's your opinion, not one from the Bible, or mine.
"No, you haven't."
Sure I have, I work for a living: a form of slavery and the Bible is OK with that. Chain and shackle implicates harmful treatment from another form of slavery: the Bible isn't "OK" with that. Try to follow along.
"That's your opinion, not one from the Bible, or mine."
DeleteThat's obviously not my opinion. The Bible condones slavery, while you're whining about the aspect of shackles in a picture.
"Sure I have, I work for a living: a form of slavery and the Bible is OK with that."
We're not talking about working for a living. The Bible specifically says that people can be owned and passed down from one generation to the next as inheritance. That isn't comparable to you having a job.
"Chain and shackle implicates harmful treatment from another form of slavery: the Bible isn't "OK" with that."
People were allowed to beat their slaves, according to the Bible, as long as they don't murder them in the process.
Exodus 20:20-21; 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Are you beaten with a rod at your job? Or is working for pay not comparable, after all?
So, since your diversion was easily dismantled, maybe you can finally clarify your point. Since actual slavery is always immoral, what difference does it make if I know any particular group of people or not?
"The Bible specifically says that people can be owned and passed down from one generation to the next as inheritance."
DeleteWhich is why I asked the 2 Levite questions. Questions you STILL haven't answered ... making you a liar. Which the Bible is also not "OK" with.
"Which is why I asked the 2 Levite questions. Questions you STILL haven't answered ... making you a liar."
DeleteIf that was your point, then your questions are irrelevant. The words of the Bible aren't going to change whether I do or do not know any Levites.
Also notice that your questions are still rhetorical in nature; it just took you twelve days to get to the argument that you had in mind when you made them. So, you aren't going to hold me accountable for rhetorical questions that you were scared of elaborating on. You lose.
It wasn't my point, it was a question about generational slavery among the people who are mentioned in the Bible verse that was brought. You keep raggin on me about "knowing" my Bible, well, if you going to be allowed to misinterpret the meanings then I can't help you. You can do like Eddie and just fly with your misinterpretation and I'll leave you doing it. I'll point it out, but I won't expect either of you to change.
Delete"It wasn't my point, it was a question about generational slavery among the people who are mentioned in the Bible verse that was brought."
DeleteYou said it was "why" you asked those questions, so obviously you thought it was relevant to your point. Again, the words of the Bible aren't going to change based on the answer to your rhetorical questions.
"You keep raggin on me about "knowing" my Bible, well, if you going to be allowed to misinterpret the meanings then I can't help you."
You haven't shown any misinterpretation. You seem to be having a problem with the process of actually making an argument, as opposed to simply suggesting that you have one available to make.
"You said it was "why" you asked those questions, so obviously you thought it was relevant to your point."
DeleteBut, we'll never find out because you refuse to answer the questions.
"You haven't shown any misinterpretation."
Yes I have. You agree that the Bible is "OK" with slavery as depicted in the picture Eddie brought. It does not.
"But, we'll never find out because you refuse to answer the questions."
DeleteYour questions are rhetorical. You keep forgetting that. I've also explained why they're irrelevant, which adequately addresses your questions.
"Yes I have. You agree that the Bible is "OK" with slavery as depicted in the picture Eddie brought. It does not."
That's a lie. I said that the purpose of the picture is simply to convey the concept of slavery, so the "as depicted in the picture" part is irrelevant. Besides that, the Bible allowed slaves to be beaten with a rod, so your objection doesn't even make any sense. Even further, you previously mentioned "generational slavery" in the context of my supposed misinterpretation, but now you seem to have forgotten that as well.
"Your questions are rhetorical."
DeleteThat's your second unrelated reason to not answer those questions. You've got to make up you mind as to why you won't answer them. No, wait, I don't care WHY, the fact remains that you haven't answered them and that makes you a liar according to what you said.
"That's your second unrelated reason to not answer those questions."
DeleteRhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered. That's why they're "rhetorical". You can't pretend that's "unrelated" to anything here.
"No, wait, I don't care WHY, the fact remains that you haven't answered them and that makes you a liar according to what you said."
Your opinion doesn't make my assessment false, much less dishonest. I do find your desperation amusing, though, so feel free to keep throwing your little tantrum.
"Your opinion doesn't make my assessment false, much less dishonest."
DeleteWahh! Doesn't it piss you off when you get so embarrassed that you need to resort to that kind of response?
"Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered."
DeleteYou haven't shown how they're rhetorical. Feel free to spend some time and do that.
"Doesn't it piss you off when you get so embarrassed that you need to resort to that kind of response?"
DeleteI'm not embarrassed at all. My response was perfectly reasonable, so it's not sure what "kind" of response you think that you're talking about. It seems likely that you're simply projecting, yet again.
"You haven't shown how they're rhetorical."
You didn't ask it wondering if I actually knew any Levites. When you could just as easily say something to the effect that "there are no Levites today", then obviously your question is rhetorical in nature.
But, there are Levites, today. You want another opportunity to answer those questions?
Delete"But, there are Levites, today."
DeleteWhere, and why would you think I would know any? You're still only hinting around at having an argument, instead of attempting to make it.
Well, if you're going to support the idea that Leviticus teachings are "generational" then you should be able to show that Levites still own slaves from previous generations. If you can't do that, then how does that verse help your case for agreeing that the Bible is "OK" with slavery (as depicted in Eddie's picture)? If you won't show the generational aspect still happening, then the verse that was brought was brought wrongfully.
DeleteAny intelligent person could have easily figured that out, on their own. But, I understand who I'm talking to, so the multitude of required explanations are not unexpected.
"Well, if you're going to support the idea that Leviticus teachings are "generational" then you should be able to show that Levites still own slaves from previous generations."
DeleteNo, even if traditions are abandoned, that doesn't mean that they weren't there to begin with. The Bible still says that slaves can be passed down as property, whether people still do that or not. Current actions don't magically alter the past, contrary to your belief.
"Any intelligent person could have easily figured that out, on their own."
Your argument has no logic behind it, so there's no way to assume that was your meaning.
"No, even if traditions are abandoned, that doesn't mean that they weren't there to begin with. "
DeleteSo you believe the Bible sometimes (when it suits your purpose) but not other times (when it says things you don't like). OK, that's a good practice to follow. Kinda hypocritical, but you are a liberal, so nothing unexpected there.
"So you believe the Bible sometimes (when it suits your purpose) but not other times (when it says things you don't like)."
DeleteYou're not even trying to make sense. What are you trying to claim is inconsistent? Be specific, for a change.
"You're not even trying to make sense."
DeleteWhat doesn't make sense? Be specific, for a change.
"What doesn't make sense?"
DeleteYour claim of selective belief, as indicated in the quote I provided. Now, focus, and explain what you think is inconsistent. You made the accusation, so now you have to back it up.
" You made the accusation, so now you have to back it up."
DeleteWhy do I have to back it up? You don't back up what you say. Be specific, for a change.
"Why do I have to back it up? You don't back up what you say. Be specific, for a change."
DeleteYou asked the question, and I answered it. You have to back up what you say, or else you admit that your accusation has no merit.
OK, here I explained your problem with the Bible: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/03/one-of-those-wtf-moments.html?showComment=1426952326452#c2956222409667043225
DeleteI quoted you from that. You didn't explain what you were claiming to be inconsistent. As it stands, your accusation has no merit.
DeleteTry again?
"I quoted you from that."
DeleteAnd yet you still don't get it. Go figure.
"And yet you still don't get it."
DeleteBecause repetition isn't an explanation.