• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Engaged?

You haven't responded to post 461, BTW, Claus. How do you explain that lie?

Athon
 
If anyone else finds this train wreck somewhat bewildering, check out my entry for this month's Language Award, where I offer a rather good send-up of Claus' debating style. Oh, and vote for me while you're there! ;)
 
athon said:
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!!
Click to expand...

It's there, as clear as it can get.

athon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just did. Strangely enough, that means I "misquote" you, and make my tactics "bloody dishonest".

Sheesh, I can't do anything right, can I?

athon said:
Irrelevant to what I said.
Click to expand...

No, it's not irrelevant. Clearly, you don't feel that other people can be right, if they think engagement means something else than you do.

So, if people disagree with you on what social customs mean, you pronounce them to be an embarrassment to skepticism. But when you do that, you take skepticism hostage: You say that, in order to be a skeptic, we have to agree with you on everything, even the things that cannot be settled skeptically.

By thinking that your opinions on social customs are validated by critical thinking, you elevate your opinions to facts.

They are not. Just accept that other people have other ideas of what engagement means. And respect it.

athon 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?
Click to expand...

I represent skepticism? Since when?

brodski said:
You don't want others to share your world view, why do you publish your newsletter then?
Click to expand...

I want them to think for themselves.

Do you really want me to force my views on others?

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

Using evidence, yes.

brodski said:
and they do decide, they decide that you’re a dishonest debater
Click to expand...

Ignoring the evidence that was there, all the time.

brodski said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I can't be any clearer.
 
athon said:
You haven't responded to post 461, BTW, Claus. How do you explain that lie?

Athon
Click to expand...

It's not a lie, and I responded to it before.

Yes, do what you should have done before: Read what I have said.

Then, you can come back and claim that I didn't say what I said....
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
He has. He pointed out that the links were broken.

You didn't expect him to deal with the substance of the claim did you?
Click to expand...

I have already, and you know it.

If you are so fond of context, extend that to my posts as well.
 
CFLarsen said:
It's not a lie, and I responded to it before.

Yes, do what you should have done before: Read what I have said.

Then, you can come back and claim that I didn't say what I said....
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Jaggy
If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
I didn't claim that you did not suggest using a representative sample.
Click to expand...

Oh, its a lie alright. Not surprised you can't admit it though.
 
CFLarsen said:
I have already, and you know it.

If you are so fond of context, extend that to my posts as well.
Click to expand...

The context is there for all to see - I provided the links to the posts, not selective quotes unlike you.

Lets have a little poll:

Who thinks CFL told the truth when he made his statement in post 232:

Originally Posted by Jaggy
If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!
Originally Posted by CFLarsen
No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And who thinks he lied?

I'll start - score one for "lie".
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
The context is there for all to see - I provided the links to the posts, not selective quotes unlike you.

Lets have a little poll:

Who thinks CFL told the truth when he made his statement in post 232:



And who thinks he lied?

I'll start - score one for "lie".
Click to expand...

What you are doing, is exactly what Creationists are doing: You actually think that reality can be determined by a poll.

That is scary. And it does put your arguments and claims in a different light.
 
You know I think in the beginning, all Claus was saying was that though people in Denmark agree to marry, they don't go through all the rigmaroll that people seem to do in other countries. he designated the second as "getting engaged" (as opposed to just getting engaged...) Do the silly finger quotes - it works! I think at some point he realised an actual conversation about this would be rather boring, so he decided that if he included the rigmaroll inside the definition of engaged, he would get a silly nitpicking argument, which would amuse him much more. At some point he could then switch back to his original stance of not saying that the definition of engagement included the hullabaloo, just to annoy people further.

So I'm not playing anymore.
 
CFLarsen said:
What you are doing, is exactly what Creationists are doing:
Click to expand...

Says the man who lies, selectively quotes, diverts, claims to have defined terms he hasn't and then changes the meanings of words to mean what he wants them to mean never mind what they actually mean.

You actually think that reality can be determined by a poll.
Click to expand...

More mindreading! You really should get your application for the million in - you've certainly got the lying bit mastered.

That is scary. And it does put your arguments and claims in a different light.
Click to expand...

I can understand why you do not wish people to respond as it is unlikely that anybody will agree with you. Try and not be scared about that however, but see it as a reason to examine why you feel compelled to lie so often.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
You really should get your application for the million in - you've certainly got the lying bit mastered.
Click to expand...

I thought that too - Randi says the most difficult part of testing psychics is getting them to clearly and unambiguously state what they think they can do. It's the same here. The most difficult part of holding a discussion with Larsen is getting him to clearly and unambiguously state what he means by the word he used for the bloody subject line!
 
Ian Osborne said:
I thought that too - Randi says the most difficult part of testing psychics is getting them to clearly and unambiguously state what they think they can do. It's the same here. The most difficult part of holding a discussion with Larsen is getting him to clearly and unambiguously state what he means by the word he used for the bloody subject line!
Click to expand...

It really isn't convincing.

First, you - and others, I give you that - don't read what I say. Despite repeated encouragements from me, you refuse to read what I say.

Then, when I point out that I have, in fact, explained long ago what I mean, you - and others, I give you that - resort to "well, it isn't clear what Claus means".

It's not convincing. OK?
 
CFLarsen said:
It really isn't convincing.

First, you - and others, I give you that - don't read what I say. Despite repeated encouragements from me, you refuse to read what I say.

Then, when I point out that I have, in fact, explained long ago what I mean, you - and others, I give you that - resort to "well, it isn't clear what Claus means".

It's not convincing. OK?
Click to expand...

To you maybe.

Once again you have concluded that you are right and everybody else is wrong.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
To you maybe.

Once again you have concluded that you are right and everybody else is wrong.
Click to expand...

On the contrary: I am pointing out that customs mean different things to different people.

You once again refuse to read what I say.
 
CFLarsen said:
On the contrary: I am pointing out that customs mean different things to different people.

You once again refuse to read what I say.
Click to expand...

No I read what you say.

For example when you said "No, you didn't." immediately after quoting me saying "If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!", I read it.

Unfortunately I speak English whereas you appear to be writing in Larsenese where the phrase "No, you didn't." can have many meanings, including "Yes, you did."

At least that is the only explanation I can think of for why you think that you did not claim that I had not suggested a representative sample. Unless of course, you were lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom