You, my friend, are totally drunk, trashed, smashed. You stumble through the door, slamming it behind you. “Shit!” you exclaim, angrily and long, somehow managing to slur even the simplest of words
( Read more... )
Indeed, you hypocritically grasp for the last word.Daniel, just keep rambling, maybe somehow you'll get it. We both get it; you're just trying to hide it from the rest of the audience.Nominalists, such as yourself, continuously belabor a slanted notion of logic as the paragon and means of all assertion. Hand-waving denials are a poor response to my having pointed to specific errors of logic on your part.Your drivel is becoming more and more tiresome. Once again: A sneer merits little refutation.However, I take a certain schauenfreude in watching you hang yr-self. As mentioned, I will relentlessly refute you. An odd combination of obsession and denial. Hand-waving, bald sneering, bad logic, and presumptions contrary to easily provided fact don't constitute refutation.You have no eye or ear, because, as of yet on this forum, you have not DEMONSTRATED an eye or ear. Such a claim is made by you in desperation; it is a principle neither of deductive nor empirical logic.See nominalist, it all comes back to realism. No. Neither a typical realist nor a typical nominalist woudl argue such a thing.Your comments lack any insight beyond a 12th grade level. Having been plainly refuted, you again resort to bald sneering. Anyone can sneer at anything; its a poor argument.I just enjoy stringing you out. You are a troll, gamahucheur, Ah, you describe your motives as those of a troll (perhaps seeking some rationalization for relentlessly failing in your arguments), and then claim that I am a troll.But you have *never* proffered any real literary criticism that wasn't veiled in an intestine of incoherent verbage. Now, that was another attempt at a bald sneer, but you contradict yourself. Were my words incoherent then you wouldn't be objecting to their content, which would remain mysterious to you. (You are relentlessly illogical.)Don't put an umlaut on the "a" in creative, oaf. That glyph isn't functioning as an umlaut, oaf; it's functioning as a diæresis. Apparently, you will illustrate that you are a sophomore as well as sophist.
you still haven't refuted anything Haha! What, what disputed claim on your part hasn't been refuted?
We've got you conceeding that the 69-word limit is demanded by the rules.
We've got your arguments of my lack of abilities exploded and abandoned.
Your original argument that I engaged in logorrhoea hung upon a definition of logorrhoea found neither in the OED nor in M-W (the dictionary used in American courts-of-law).
And attacking my metaphors as illogical condemns you to the mechanical nobody you apparently are. In a way, attacking metaphor as illogical is yet another straw man (metaphorically speaking, of course). Metaphors transcend logical norms. That's why computers don't understand irony.
Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet?
"Ah, you describe your motives as those of a troll" - similar to bandying about words such as logorrhea, sophism, and eristic?
"That glyph isn't functioning as an umlaut, oaf; it's functioning as a diæresis. Apparently, you will illustrate that you are a sophomore as well as sophist." To what end does a diaresis prove? What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea? Again, who, or what are you impressing? Ego fed pedantry will be your downfall. Sophistry, anyone?
Metaphors transcend logical norms. No, you don't have a royal road to truth by way of metaphor. A metaphor maps to a similie, and captures an analogy. That analogy is either valid or invalid.That's why computers don't understand irony. No, computers don't understand irony because what they do, while isomorphic to real logic in important ways, isn't real logic.Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet? Earlier you denied that I have an ear. Elsewhere you denounce ad hominem. Do you really think that you can produce a sufficient imitation of reason with a ball of contradictions?To what end does a diaresis prove?What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea? It's purely an æsthetic gesture.Again, who, or what are you impressing? No one. I would find it silly of anyone to be impressed by a diæresis or a ligature, just as I would find it silly for them to be impressed by a u in colour. Meanwhile, I would find it pathological for anyone presuming that I play with orthography to impress anyone. Once again, you're being illogical - here is thinking that something must be an attempt to impress.Ego fed pedantry will be your downfall. No, projection be yours.
We both get it; you're just trying to hide it from the rest of the audience.Nominalists, such as yourself, continuously belabor a slanted notion of logic as the paragon and means of all assertion.
Hand-waving denials are a poor response to my having pointed to specific errors of logic on your part.Your drivel is becoming more and more tiresome.
Once again: A sneer merits little refutation.However, I take a certain schauenfreude in watching you hang yr-self. As mentioned, I will relentlessly refute you.
An odd combination of obsession and denial. Hand-waving, bald sneering, bad logic, and presumptions contrary to easily provided fact don't constitute refutation.You have no eye or ear, because, as of yet on this forum, you have not DEMONSTRATED an eye or ear.
Such a claim is made by you in desperation; it is a principle neither of deductive nor empirical logic.See nominalist, it all comes back to realism.
No. Neither a typical realist nor a typical nominalist woudl argue such a thing.Your comments lack any insight beyond a 12th grade level.
Having been plainly refuted, you again resort to bald sneering. Anyone can sneer at anything; its a poor argument.I just enjoy stringing you out. You are a troll, gamahucheur,
Ah, you describe your motives as those of a troll (perhaps seeking some rationalization for relentlessly failing in your arguments), and then claim that I am a troll.But you have *never* proffered any real literary criticism that wasn't veiled in an intestine of incoherent verbage.
Now, that was another attempt at a bald sneer, but you contradict yourself. Were my words incoherent then you wouldn't be objecting to their content, which would remain mysterious to you. (You are relentlessly illogical.)Don't put an umlaut on the "a" in creative, oaf.
That glyph isn't functioning as an umlaut, oaf; it's functioning as a diæresis. Apparently, you will illustrate that you are a sophomore as well as sophist.
Reply
Reply
Haha! What, what disputed claim on your part hasn't been refuted?
Reply
Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet?
"Ah, you describe your motives as those of a troll" - similar to bandying about words such as logorrhea, sophism, and eristic?
"That glyph isn't functioning as an umlaut, oaf; it's functioning as a diæresis. Apparently, you will illustrate that you are a sophomore as well as sophist."
To what end does a diaresis prove? What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea? Again, who, or what are you impressing? Ego fed pedantry will be your downfall. Sophistry, anyone?
Reply
No, you don't have a royal road to truth by way of metaphor. A metaphor maps to a similie, and captures an analogy. That analogy is either valid or invalid.That's why computers don't understand irony.
No, computers don't understand irony because what they do, while isomorphic to real logic in important ways, isn't real logic.Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet?
Earlier you denied that I have an ear. Elsewhere you denounce ad hominem. Do you really think that you can produce a sufficient imitation of reason with a ball of contradictions?To what end does a diaresis prove?What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea?
It's purely an æsthetic gesture.Again, who, or what are you impressing?
No one. I would find it silly of anyone to be impressed by a diæresis or a ligature, just as I would find it silly for them to be impressed by a u in colour. Meanwhile, I would find it pathological for anyone presuming that I play with orthography to impress anyone. Once again, you're being illogical - here is thinking that something must be an attempt to impress.Ego fed pedantry will be your downfall.
No, projection be yours.
Reply
Leave a comment