Engaged?

[athon]

This one will do for illustrative purposes:

Sad that it's sooo evident.

I didn't claim that you did not suggest using a representative sample.

If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

Really, it's pathetic that he can lie, and then lie about lying, and yet forgets the entire conversation is recorded. It's worse than woo - Claus is an embarrassment to skepticism. I feel like apologising to woos now.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, so 'engagement in Denmark is the same' is your definition? Seriously, that's it?

Obvious question, 'same as what'? Honestly, you've been debating woos for so long you're debating just like them. Getting information from you is like pulling teeth.

No.

All you had to do is read the thread. Read what I actually said. I told you and others, again and again, to do just that, but you didn't. Neither of you did.

It was so much easier to go with the flow, to follow the lead of those who also did not check.

Pfft.

I'll go out on a limb and assume you mean 'same as the rest of the world'.

I don't.

I cannot understand why you can even think of going out on a limb. I have made it crystal clear in two posts within the past couple of hours that I specifically don't consider local customs to be universal.

So engagement is just eth period of time between an agreement to marry and the marriage occurring. So what about engagement do you object to?

Take the lead and read what I have said.

Do you feel stupid now? Or awkward?

This one will do for illustrative purposes:

You know this, why you try and pretend not to is beyond me, but for the sake of anyone who might think it is a misunderstanding, here are the relevant posts, once again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=232

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=209

The links don't work.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's look at what else you said in Post #29...

No, let's just take a look at what I said about engagement.

Do you feel stupid? Or awkward? No?

So if his claim that engagement means the "same", then nobody in Denmark is getting married because people don't get engaged. (Or possibly they randomly turn up for weddings and marry whoever else happens to turn up because there is no prior agreement.)

Do you feel stupid? Or awkward? No?

Really, it's pathetic that he can lie, and then lie about lying, and yet forgets the entire conversation is recorded. It's worse than woo - Claus is an embarrassment to skepticism. I feel like apologising to woos now.

I'm an embarrassment to skepticism?

I disagree with you on what engagement means to different groups of people, and I'm an embarrassment to skepticism?

This is a skeptical issue? We can determine this skeptically?

I'll let you explain, because this, I gotta hear!

 

[brodski]

Take the lead and read what I have said.

Do you feel stupid now? Or awkward?

I don’t feel stupid, because as Ian Osborn has pointed out, your response was self contradictory- and it requires further clarification in order to be in any way meaningful. Your inability to clearly express yourself in this thread, coupled with your overwhelming arrogance does make me feel a little awkward and embarrassed for you however.

 

[athon]

All you had to do is read the thread. Read what I actually said. I told you and others, again and again, to do just that, but you didn't. Neither of you did.

Nobody can read something that simply isn't there, Claus. You say it over and over like that will make it magically appear, and sadly it doesn't. We then give you the benefit of the doubt and say 'where is it? - point it out', and you don't.

I don't.

Then it isn't clear. Be clearer than 'it's the same'. That's what 'same' means; engagement means the same thing in Denmark as it does elsewhere. And until you give us a contrary definition, the definition we're saying exists in our communities is the one we provided over and over.

I cannot understand why you can even think of going out on a limb. I have made it crystal clear in two posts within the past couple of hours that I specifically don't consider local customs to be universal.

And yet...

Engagement in Denmark is the same.

So, engagement is different all over the world, but it's the same in Denmark?

Crystal clear? What are you using; smoky quartz? Get real.

Do you feel stupid now? Or awkward?

For ever thinking you were a decent representative of skepticism? You'd better believe it. You're a joke Claus. And not a very amusing one.

The links don't work.

I made it clear for all to see in my above post.

Do you feel stupid now? Or awkward?

Athon

 

[Ian Osborne]

And Claus, what's you're definition of 'engagement'? Do you accept the one formulated earlier and accepted by the rest of this thread?

Casually looks at watch and whistles a patient tune...

 

[CFLarsen]

I don’t feel stupid, because as Ian Osborn has pointed out, your response was self contradictory- and it requires further clarification in order to be in any way meaningful. Your inability to clearly express yourself in this thread, coupled with your overwhelming arrogance does make me feel a little awkward and embarrassed for you however.

The answer was there, all the time.

You just didn't bother to look.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No.

All you had to do is read the thread. Read what I actually said. I told you and others, again and again, to do just that, but you didn't. Neither of you did.

It was so much easier to go with the flow, to follow the lead of those who also did not check.

Your claimed "definition" does not make sense when read in context. If engagement means the same, then Danes ARE getting engaged yet you claim they are not. Trying to argue that this means you have provided a definition is a new low, even for your level of argument in this thread.

The links don't work.

The links are fixed, I had just copied them from the previous time I supplied the same information to you.

 

[athon]

I'm an embarrassment to skepticism?

I disagree with you on what engagement means to different groups of people, and I'm an embarrassment to skepticism?

This is a skeptical issue? We can determine this skeptically?

I'll let you explain, because this, I gotta hear!

CFLarsen: writer of SkepticReport. A public face of skepticism. Arguing with woo tactics of evasion, lies and distortion.

Yup. Embarrassing that you are a public face of skeptical communication.

Athon

 

[Ian Osborne]

I don’t feel stupid, because as Ian Osborn has pointed out, your response was self contradictory

As did Jaggy. It really is quite funny that two people independently spotted the same flaw in his argument, posted simultaneously and were dismissed as not having read it properly with no indication of how it should've been read.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nobody can read something that simply isn't there, Claus. You say it over and over like that will make it magically appear, and sadly it doesn't. We then give you the benefit of the doubt and say 'where is it? - point it out', and you don't.

"It's not there".

O....K.

Then it isn't clear. Be clearer than 'it's the same'. That's what 'same' means; engagement means the same thing in Denmark as it does elsewhere. And until you give us a contrary definition, the definition we're saying exists in our communities is the one we provided over and over.

No, that's not what it means. Saying "it's the same in Denmark" does not mean saying "it's the same everywhere".

For ever thinking you were a decent representative of skepticism? You'd better believe it. You're a joke Claus. And not a very amusing one.

I await your explanation of how this can be settled skeptically with great anticipation.

I made it clear for all to see in my above post.

Do you feel stupid now? Or awkward?

Nope.

Casually looks at watch and whistles a patient tune...

I take it you are neither feeling stupid or awkward, despite the answer being there all the time.

 

[brodski]

I'm an embarrassment to skepticism?

I disagree with you on what engagement means to different groups of people, and I'm an embarrassment to skepticism?

This is a skeptical issue? We can determine this skeptically?

I'll let you explain, because this, I gotta hear!

Claus, have you noticed that even when people agree with part of your position they back away quickly when they see how you argue it? People are unwilling to be seen to agree with you because of the embarrassing, bizarre, dishonest and aggressive way in which you try and make your point.

If you wish to have people see the world your way, you really are going to have to change the way you interact with people- at the moment you just drive people away. I’ve tried to point this out to you before, as have many others, and it would be great if you would listen, but I doubt that it will happen.

 

[brodski]

The answer was there, all the time.

You just didn't bother to look.

No, your post was there, it contained no meaningful answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen: writer of SkepticReport. A public face of skepticism. Arguing with woo tactics of evasion, lies and distortion.

Yup. Embarrassing that you are a public face of skeptical communication.

Athon

That's your justification for calling me an embarrassment to skepticism?

Nowhere have I distorted anything. Nowhere have I lied. Nowhere have I evaded. The answer was there, all the time. I told you where to find it. Yet, for some reason, you didn't want to see it.

And that make me an embarrassment to skepticism....

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Athon

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Athon

Engagement in Denmark is the same. But - again, like I said - people here don't "get engaged". We skip that. No rings (or ring), no ceremonials. Couples live together, and at some point, if they decide to get married, they get married. But no formal announcements of "engagement".

A fuller context - so apparently the alternative to engagement, as defined by CFL, is the same as engagement, based on CFL's claim that "Engagement in Denmark is the same".

Amazing what emerges when quotes are seen in context, not selectively mined. It is also rather surprising that the previous claims about historical context which made up his claim to have provided his definition are magically absent from his new claim. It's almost like he went through the entire thread in the hope of finding anything he could claim he had provided as a definition. Rather sad that this is the "best" he can come up with.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you wish to have people see the world your way

I don't.

That's what you are missing. Contrary to you, I don't try to force my worldview onto others. I don't call people liars and worse things, just because they disagree with me.

I argue my case, and leave it to people to decide for themselves.

No, your post was there, it contained no meaningful answer.

You can do better.

 

[CFLarsen]

A fuller context - so apparently the alternative to engagement, as defined by CFL, is the same as engagement, based on CFL's claim that "Engagement in Denmark is the same".

Amazing what emerges when quotes are seen in context, not selectively mined. It is also rather surprising that the previous claims about historical context which made up his claim to have provided his definition are magically absent from his new claim. It's almost like he went through the entire thread in the hope of finding anything he could claim he had provided as a definition. Rather sad that this is the "best" he can come up with.

I take it you are neither feeling stupid or awkward.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I take it you are neither feeling stupid or awkward, despite the answer being there all the time.

THEN - SHARE - IT - WITH - US!

Restate your position, in terms us poor fools can understand. From my reading of the posts in question:

• Athon said in several territories, engagement is the period between agreeing to marry and actually marrying.

• You said, "Engagement in Denmark is the same".

From these two statements, I infer your position is that in Denmark (the subject of this thread) engagement is a state of preparing for marriage, post-agreement to marry, but pre-marriage or a change of mind. Am I correct?

If you hold this position, your statement that people don't get engaged in Denmark only makes sense if Danes don't marry or they marry without any forward planning whatsoever. Do you follow?

If my logic is in any way faulty, please explain it in simple terms; don't simply claim to have done so earlier in the thread without explicitly restating your position.

 

[athon]

"It's not there".

O....K.

This is so pathetic. Where - is - the -definition? Your most precise response (which took a number of pages of prompting itself) is 'post 29'. Which says 'engagement is the same in Denmark' in response to my definition. You then disagree with my definition.

Clearly, and articulately, give us a definition. Write it now; clear this up. Quote yourself if you've done it before. But, no matter how much you roll your eyes, it doesn't change the fact that not a single person here can find your definition for engagement. I beg you, show me I'm wrong - quote your definition here and embarrass me. Please!!

No, that's not what it means. Saying "it's the same in Denmark" does not mean saying "it's the same everywhere".

In the space of a single line you can't help but misquote me. How bloody dishonest do your tactics get, Claus?

I didn't say 'it's the same everywhere'. I said 'That's what 'same' means; engagement means the same thing in Denmark as it does elsewhere.' When you say 'it's the same in Denmark', I can only assume you mean 'it's the same in Denmark as elsewhere. If this is not what you mean, correct me.

I await your explanation of how this can be settled skeptically with great anticipation.

Irrelevant to what I said. You represent skepticism. You are an embarrassment as your arguing tactics are like those of a woo - evasive, full of lies and dishonesty. Why would a self-confessed skeptic need to argue evasive with lies?

Nope.

Well, we are on your behalf.

Athon

 

[brodski]

I don't.

You don't want others to share your world view, why do you publish your newsletter then?

I don't call people liars and worse things, just because they disagree with me.

Shall I get ShaneK back here to laugh at that? How about every “woo” you’ve ever bullied or ridiculed?

I argue my case, and leave it to people to decide for themselves.

and they do decide, they decide that you’re a dishonest debater

You can do better.

But I don't have to, your post contained no meaningful answer, and at every turn when you have been asked to clarify your position you have obfuscated.