Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
That was even clumsier. Do these actually sound sharp to you in your head?
Stop following Trump's twitter feed. It's starting to influence your thinking.
You guys need to go to school on the art of the insult. All you do is p*ss on your own feet.[/quote}
What has made you think you have mastered it past grade 2?(/quote)
You.
Still haven't figured how to edit and quote, oh superior intelect?
Synopsis
The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:
The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)
In common with Trump, Armstronglivs is now using number 14 extensively.
123 5 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You guys need to go to school on the art of the insult. All you do is p*ss on your own feet.[/quote}
What has made you think you have mastered it past grade 2?(/quote)
You.
Still haven't figured how to edit and quote, oh superior intelect?
"Intelect"? Part of yours seems to be missing something.
Armstronglivs wrote:
123 5 wrote:
Still haven't figured how to edit and quote, oh superior intelect?
"Intelect"? Part of yours seems to be missing something.
Do you want me to start listing your countless typos?
Or your total fail at French when you wrote "ca" instead of "ça"?
You lost this thread a long time ago.
You lost at life too.
Says the guy who was befuddled by the randy behavior of his "Mare".
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Synopsis
The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:
The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)
In common with Trump, Armstronglivs is now using number 14 extensively.
You tried this previously in the thread. It didn't work then. But learning from failure isn't within your skill-set. Quoting a superior mind doesn't improve yours. Schopenhauer despised his inferiors. He would have had you in mind.
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Intelect"? Part of yours seems to be missing something.
Do you want me to start listing your countless typos?
Or your total fail at French when you wrote "ca" instead of "ça"?
You lost this thread a long time ago.
You lost at life too.
You seem to have lost the thread of your arguments. Don't you mean "lyfe"?
It's a reminder for your declining brain and a public service announcement to others on here of your "method".
You've tried all of the methods on a loop. And that's why you've lost your argument.
Much like Trump, you'll eventually come to terms with it. The difference is that he'll be leaving a White House and you'll be going to one.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Says the guy who was befuddled by the randy behavior of his "Mare".
Whereas you know exactly what to do with a mare. Ride 'em, cowboy.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
It's a reminder for your declining brain and a public service announcement to others on here of your "method".
You've tried all of the methods on a loop. And that's why you've lost your argument.
Much like Trump, you'll eventually come to terms with it. The difference is that he'll be leaving a White House and you'll be going to one.
I have to say your aim is unerring in one respect - and one respect only - and that is you never fail to p*ss on your own shoes.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You need to stop repeating yourself. It's all you do. Of course there is never "sufficient data" to satisfy you - that is called denial. (Quite apart from your omniscience on these matters that always enables you to correct every other argument on doping. You make a narcissist look modest.) No one has made an argument here that you will accept and so dopers are always given a pass. By you. I look forward to the next vacuous repetition of what you have previously - and endlessly - said .
Can't you make up your mind? Which is it? Do I "evade the point" or do I repeat myself so much a narcissist is jealous?
In this instance, the repetition was directly responding to your repetition.
And no response to the dozen names you've been lamenting I never give? What will you do with these names now?
Once again, you have been directly proven wrong, but you circle back to some previous lame point.
By now you should know why your Nadal thread has failed to support your initial subject line -- for the same reason "dopers are always given a pass" fails -- if you had specific data, they would not get a pass. Otherwise they get the benefit of the doubt -- of which there is plenty.
Let me know when you are able to cure the defects in your data and your logic.
I think we have discovered the cure for insomnia.
Armstronglivs wrote:
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Do you want me to start listing your countless typos?
Or your total fail at French when you wrote "ca" instead of "ça"?
You lost this thread a long time ago.
You lost at life too.
You seem to have lost the thread of your arguments. Don't you mean "lyfe"?
Lyfe would actually valid as an archaic form. No wonder you prefer that, you old, archaic fart.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
It's a reminder for your declining brain and a public service announcement to others on here of your "method".
You've tried all of the methods on a loop. And that's why you've lost your argument.
Much like Trump, you'll eventually come to terms with it. The difference is that he'll be leaving a White House and you'll be going to one.
I have to say your aim is unerring in one respect - and one respect only - and that is you never fail to p*ss on your own shoes.
Everybody thinks your comebacks are lame. You are the only one thinking they are clever.
When you are the only one "who is right", that says it all.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Says the guy who was befuddled by the randy behavior of his "Mare".
Whereas you know exactly what to do with a mare. Ride 'em, cowboy.
Says the guy who engages with wet sheep. And admits it.
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You seem to have lost the thread of your arguments. Don't you mean "lyfe"?
Lyfe would actually valid as an archaic form. No wonder you prefer that, you old, archaic fart.
Still stamping your little feet.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Whereas you know exactly what to do with a mare. Ride 'em, cowboy.
Says the guy who engages with wet sheep. And admits it.
Your fixation with animals is becoming all too obvious. You are really on the wrong board here.
Armstronglivs wrote:
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Lyfe would actually valid as an archaic form. No wonder you prefer that, you old, archaic fart.
Still stamping your little feet.
Happy to keep your ego going, sad old man.
I am volunteering my time to keep a demented old person (you) from doing something even more stupid with their time.
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have to say your aim is unerring in one respect - and one respect only - and that is you never fail to p*ss on your own shoes.
Everybody thinks your comebacks are lame. You are the only one thinking they are clever.
When you are the only one "who is right", that says it all.
No, not "clever", not "right" - just stating fact. And now you're calling yourself "everybody" suggests a multiple personality disorder. Add that to your collection.
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Still stamping your little feet.
Happy to keep your ego going, sad old man.
I am volunteering my time to keep a demented old person (you) from doing something even more stupid with their time.
I look on what I'm doing as child-minding.
Armstronglivs wrote:
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Everybody thinks your comebacks are lame. You are the only one thinking they are clever.
When you are the only one "who is right", that says it all.
No, not "clever", not "right" - just stating fact. And now you're calling yourself "everybody" suggests a multiple personality disorder. Add that to your collection.
No dear. I can read. I can see many posters on different threads, saying the same things.
You create conflict. You attract conflict. You love conflict.
Again a lame comeback "Add that to your collection." You are an embarrassment.