Mother Terisa gets there at last

[aleCcowaN]

So we agree. Progress!

It's only left that you learn the difference between a transitive and an intransitive verb and correct you original sentence to something grammatical in English.

I never doubted what decimate means. That's why I'm asking you to link here three posts where such claims have been "decimated". Don't try to slip panegyrics and texts in religious vignettes as it is usual in you. Just direct testimony.

 

[The Big Dog]

I never doubted what decimate means. That's why I'm asking you to link here three posts where such claims have been "decimated". Don't try to slip panegyrics and texts in religious vignettes as it is usual in you. Just direct testimony.

Curious that you don't ask the same from others and warn them not try to slip anti-panegyrics and texts in anti-religious vignettes.

pick any three aids hospice posts, the leprosy medicine post (which should count as five), the posts about the limited availability of morphine in Calcutta. and the posts about the facilities in Tijuana.

Go forth and learn!

 

[Slowvehicle]

So we agree. Progress!

The tiresome dishonesty continues...

 

[aleCcowaN]

anti-panegyrics

philippics

pick any three aids hospice posts, the leprosy medicine post (which should count as five), the posts about the limited availability of morphine in Calcutta. and the posts about the facilities in Tijuana.

Go forth and learn!

I read some of your posted "evidence" and it was a waste of time as no piece was "it". So, select yourself the three that you consider they can stand criticism. It's not difficult, as you carefully selected them and you remember where they are.

 

[The Big Dog]

I read some of your posted "evidence" and it was a waste of time as no piece was "it". So, select yourself the three that you consider they can stand criticism. It's not difficult, as you carefully selected them and you remember where they are.

Oh well in that case! let me just jump right up and try to figure out what you consider a "waste of time" there and then page through the thread to jump through this here hoop, and that hoop.This hoop too!

You say jump sir, I'll say How High!

 

[Dr. Keith]

You say jump sir, I'll say How High!

So we agree. Progress!

 

[aleCcowaN]

Oh well in that case! let me just jump right up and try to figure out what you consider a "waste of time" there and then page through the thread to jump through this here hoop, and that hoop.This hoop too!

You say jump sir, I'll say How High!

Summary, you didn't have any valid evidence.

My evidence on any topic I document is available as many times as it's asked. That's why they don't ask for it. Here I'm just an observer, but I couldn't help noticing from the beginning that you are the kind of poster that makes and assertion first and go look for evidence later. That sarcastic style in the quote above is also typical of such kind of poster when the evidence found shows not to meet the expectation of the original assertions.

 

[The Big Dog]

So we agree. Progress!

Oh sorry, that was what we call "sarcasm" because I was a bit stunned that someone actually thought it was not grossly unreasonable to ask me to page back through the thread to find and present posts again that he was unable to effectively criticize in the first place.

Bit silly, innit?

 

[The Big Dog]

Summary, you didn't have any valid evidence.

My evidence on any topic I document is available as many times as it's asked. That's why they don't ask for it. Here I'm just an observer, but I couldn't help noticing from the beginning that you are the kind of poster that makes and assertion first and go look for evidence later. That sarcastic style in the quote above is also typical of such kind of poster when the evidence found shows not to meet the expectation of the original assertions.

Forgive my sarcasm.

Your request is utterly ridiculous and is unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Curious that you don't ask the same from others and warn them not try to slip anti-panegyrics and texts in anti-religious vignettes.

pick any three aids hospice posts, the leprosy medicine post (which should count as five), the posts about the limited availability of morphine in Calcutta. and the posts about the facilities in Tijuana.

Go forth and learn!

Curious that you dismiss the eyewitness accounts of casual hygiene and prophylaxis, and of intentional rejection of available relief, as "anecdotes". Even more curious is your fanboi selectivity in ignoring, or glossing over, Bojaxhiu's own words glorifying the suffering (of others).

All for a "good cause", eh?

 

[Slowvehicle]

philippics



I read some of your posted "evidence" and it was a waste of time as no piece was "it". So, select yourself the three that you consider they can stand criticism. It's not difficult, as you carefully selected them and you remember where they are.

A paean has no need of (nor any real place for) "evidence". It is what it is, ding an sich.

Unlike, for instance, eyewitness accounts...

 

[aleCcowaN]

Forgive my sarcasm.

Your request is utterly ridiculous and is unworthy of any consideration whatsoever.

You mean, it's unfulfillable. Don't think I don't understand your predicament.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Summary, you didn't have any valid evidence.

My evidence on any topic I document is available as many times as it's asked. That's why they don't ask for it. Here I'm just an observer, but I couldn't help noticing from the beginning that you are the kind of poster that makes and assertion first and go look for evidence later. That sarcastic style in the quote above is also typical of such kind of poster when the evidence found shows not to meet the expectation of the original assertions.

A style of argument much employed by "defenders of the 'faith' "...no?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You mean, it's unfulfillable. Don't think I don't understand your predicament.

¡Que mugrero! ¿No? Es lastima...

 

[aleCcowaN]

A style of argument much employed by "defenders of the 'faith' "...no?

It's the problem with things "well known", "widely accepted" and "always been that way". They don't become "freed from the need of presenting evidence". Babies grab objects and let them drop, and do it again, and again, and again. One day they understand causality and they no longer release things to see if they still drop to the floor. When they are 12 they grasp the concept of "law" so they understand how gravity works, but by then they'd have forgotten they have tried and tried the concept before. Not even gravity is freed from scrutiny. Magical thinking, on the other hand, considers itself free from such annoyances.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You mean, it's unfulfillable. Don't think I don't understand your predicament.

It is odd that your English vocabulary is growing at about the same rate as the list of words not understood by some native English speakers.

 

[The Big Dog]

You mean, it's unfulfillable. Don't think I don't understand your predicament.

Oh dear.... I am beginning to think that you do not understand just how silly and utterly ridiculous your post was.

wow.

 

[aleCcowaN]

A paean has no need of (nor any real place for) "evidence". It is what it is, ding an sich.

Unlike, for instance, eyewitness accounts...

Thanks for those new words (paean, ding an sich). We're trying to learn if Mother Theresa was so worth of encomium as some say. So far her image is some sort of chiaroscuro.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is odd that your English vocabulary is growing at about the same rate as the list of words not understood by some native English speakers.

amen bro! We won't ever have to hear that silly definition of decimate ever again.

 

[Giordano]

Oh well in that case! let me just jump right up and try to figure out what you consider a "waste of time" there and then page through the thread to jump through this here hoop, and that hoop.This hoop too!

You say jump sir, I'll say How High!

When I stated up-thread that I was tired of playing the monkey for you by paging through the thread and quoting posts that you could simply look up yourself, you took great umbrage at the very idea and accused me of having no evidence for my claim. And yet now...

Well, in my case I had played the simian enough to present several of the relevant posts before I "manned up" and stopped dancing to your tune. Perhaps in solidarity with me you might be willing to offer just a few specifics yourself now, because I too am having trouble finding the posts that you claim contain the evidence aleCcowaN seeks.