Plow says the entire article is bullshit (seemingly he read it all) and then points out why it is bullshit, except that the author did not say that (which means he did not read the article itself, and yet claims the article is bullshit in its entirety), so him saying the entire article was bullshit is baseless. After being called out on his baseless claim he, instead, brushes it off, and says that my intentions are DUBIOUS for quoting something i found interesting with nowhere in this thread me commenting on the validity of that specific segment and then he has the nerve to say i portray him as being wrong. PORTRAY him, as if he did not do that himself.
Who does this man think he is kidding?
If you want me to read the article, don't quote 90% of it in your op.
And keep acting like you didn't quote it as if it was the author's statement.
Beyond that, the point of that statement is the entire point of everything posted in your op, which is, in fact, retarded and wouldn't be used as some kind of valid reasoning by anyone that actually knew wtf they were talking about.
Ladies and gentlemen, after looking at the article, does it look like i quoted 90% of it, or are we dealing with the time honored exercise of made of percentages?
Apparently Plow is now psychic and can know my most intimate intentions, furthermore, the author of the article now speaks of himself in the third person.Originally Posted by Plow
Plow, get out of my thread.
Actually, looking back at it, it really doesn't matter at all who said it. It's used as an argument, and, like I said, would not be touched by someone with a clue.
Also, I really, really like how you ask how it's wrong, I explain it simply and concisely, and you immediately attempt to change the subject to "but that was a quote of a quote of a quote," which doesn't matter in the least.
Pro trolling fo sho, guartz.
What's about the global warming? Now that the number of pirates is rising, should we expect a temperature drop?