Are you done? C'mon, let out that air from your puffed up chest. Good. Feel better? Excellent. I am not going having a non-stop pissing match with you (which I know you would enjoy immensely based on your several waste-of-space ad nauseum attacks on Richard that appear on this thread). But I will finish with you with by making one last post (and then let you get in the last words, an opportunity which I know you will not be able to resist):1) Yes, using CAPS and multiple "????'s", as I did, is surely a sign of "brain-damage", right? What about italicized or bold-faced type, are those signs of brilliance????? Just checking, because you seem to have a propensity for using them. I just want to make sure that in future I mimic your style so everyone can think I am a genius like you. But since you are against CAPS so much, lets not forget your earlier oh-so-witty display of:"DING-DING-DING-DING-DING! we have a winner…." But I guess bold-faced type would not have worked for you in that moment of emphasis, was that it?? I’m just checking, since you seem to be authority on such matters. Actually, you seem to be a self-professed authority on lots of stuff, which leads me to believe you actually no very little about anything worthwhile. 2) Lets examine this statement of yours, which goes a long way in proving you like to spout off about things you know little about:
Equivocation meter wrote: Should I explain to you what "equivocation" actually means? To simplify, it means hypocrisy, something you seem to enjoy practicing.
WRONG.
Equivocation means:
"a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth (syn: evasion) 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous (syn: prevarication, evasiveness) 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language (syn: tergiversation)
SYNONYMS:
deception, deceptiveness, delusion, dissimulation, distortion, double entendre, double meaning, double talk, doubtfulness, duplicity, equivocality, evasion, fallacy, fib, fibbing, hedging, lie, line, lying, misrepresentation, prevarication, quibbling, routine, run-around, shuffling, song, sophistry, speciousness, spuriousness, stall, stonewall, tergiversation, waffle"
That is NOT "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy means:
"1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
Understand the DIFFERENCE?????? It may be somewhat subtle, but it EXISTS. Here you go:
To be an equivocator, is to be one who PURPOSELY and INTENTIONALLY is deceptive by making statements that are vague, or leave out key details, or distort realities. It’s basically clever lying, or evasive talk, or a sort of "beating around the bush" for the purpose of avoiding the reality or key issues that the equivocator knows will throw his arguments into disarray.
To be a hypocrite, is to be one who claims to be one type of person, while not actually being such a person. Often it is not intentional, since the hypocrite, like many people, can see others’ faults better than his own. Maybe on an unconscious level, the hypocrite knows he is such a person, but it is often not conscious. And hypocrisy ALWAYS deals with a falseness about one’s self. One can equivocate about ANY subject. When someone claims that Bush’s "Clear Skies Initiative" (or whatever BS name it has) is doing a lot for the environment, while it really is not, and defends this point of view by KNOWINGLY leaving out all sorts of important studies and data, and spinning the results of Bush’s policies this way and that to try and make the Clean Skies act look good, is this person being an "equivocator", a "hypocrite," or both?? He is being a EQUIVOCATOR. But if GEORGE BUSH says that his actions as president (Clean Skies and others) prove that he "greatly cares about the environment", and he tries to INTENTIONALLY be deceptive in his defense of his actions, he is being an Equivocator AND a HYPOCRITE, because his actions do not show him to have those qualities, and he knows it.
So basically, you don’t even know the meaning of the "big words" you like to use, even the ones you use in your posting name.
3) Continuing with this topic . You call me a hypocrite for attacking your use of "may typically," while immediately then using the line of "Oh, believe me, it has happened countless times" concerning my own "anecdotal observations" of runner who can’t handle lots of mileage.
And then you have the balls to write:
"Notice that I'm not pretending to be able to attach specific numbers of runners to this claim; I don't have to. There's no "bad science" about it because it's an anecdotal observation that anyone with opoen eyes recognizes as true. You know as well as I do that the overwhelming majority…….blah, blah, blah….."
You "don’t have to" attach #’s or %’s to your claims??? Wow, what a scientist you are!! And this is because "Anyone with open eyes", what, agrees with you……is that it?? Newsflash, LOTS of people with open eyes WAAAY smarter than you probably disagree with you concerning lots of your training beliefs. "Anecdotal observations" ??? Are you kidding me? So your "anecdotal observations" are valid, but mine or others are not, but are simply BS?
I can’t believe I have wasted this much dissecting the idiocy of your post. Yes, I brought myself down your pathetic level of debate. I kind of loathe myself right now for doing so, but its too late, what’s done is done.
Enjoy wasting YOUR time attempting to make me look silly now. Some people never learn.