|
Post by The Joker on Feb 23, 2014 1:23:37 GMT
Oh, and not to leave Monkeymind out. I see you posted since last time I checked. On the scientific method, no less. The thing is, everything you jokers say, is built around the same, lame argument about what exactly constitutes an object. We keep getting back to that, don't we? Please post that one up on your board, and I will be more than obliged to show you how stupid it is.
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 23, 2014 1:58:59 GMT
Aaaah, Mike. Spamming is it? Can you tell me what constitutes spamming? Just so I can be sure. I have been accused of 'spamming' by Fatfist just before he threw me off his forum too. In his case 'spamming' meant 'not changing my argument after his feeble attempt at refuting it'. As for you, Monkeymind. We have danced before, and I will admit I respect you as a comprehensive human specimen, but you have shit for brains, sir. I am afraid anyone that falls for Bill Gaedes' con, automatically qualifies. Mike, I have looked on your site for something to get my teeth into, but all I could find was a pile of shit that Fatfist left, where he babbles on, incomprehensibly, about rationality and logic. Is there anything on here that would represent an argument from you? If there is, please point me to it. so you went from saying, "you are an unbeliever my son" to this above? Weird.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 23, 2014 3:08:01 GMT
Can you tell me exactly what your point is?
I am saying that I will have to show Mike that he will call me an idiot for NOT understanding my argument. Meaning, he will call me an idiot because I don't AGREE with his argument, irrespective of whether my argument makes sense. So, he will call me an idiot because he is an idiot.
Can you point to the problem here?
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 23, 2014 5:49:02 GMT
TO Nicholas
Can you tell me exactly what your point is?
I am saying that I will have to show Mike that he will call me an idiot for NOT understanding my argument. Meaning, he will call me an idiot because I don't AGREE with his argument, irrespective of whether my argument makes sense. So, he will call me an idiot because he is an idiot.
Can you point to the problem here?
Sorry about that .....
|
|
|
Post by nicholashesed on Feb 23, 2014 16:33:56 GMT
TO Nicholas Can you tell me exactly what your point is? I am saying that I will have to show Mike that he will call me an idiot for NOT understanding my argument. Meaning, he will call me an idiot because I don't AGREE with his argument, irrespective of whether my argument makes sense. So, he will call me an idiot because he is an idiot. Can you point to the problem here? Sorry about that ..... My only point is that you seem strange man. Holy cow. How is this serving mankind?
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 23, 2014 20:23:55 GMT
Fuck you coward! Anyone that hides behind a sockpuppet is not a man! You're a wart on the ass of humanity.
You offer nothing at all to substantiate anything you say. You're a waste of bandwidth, a waste of air and a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 24, 2014 0:45:08 GMT
Awww, Monkey. You hurt my feelings ....... Like fuck! I am CanisLupus, also known as Andre' Jacobs. All you needed to do was ask. Happy now? I recently had a discussion with Paul James about your 'objects' and it reminded me of you guys. So I wanted to see what you are up to. So, if you have an argument, bring it. And stop bitchin .... it makes you look like .... a Bitch.
Nicholas. Serving mankind? Errrrm, don't you think it serves mankind to show an idiot that he is being an idiot? These boys should be able to take it, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 24, 2014 0:48:41 GMT
Mike. Here is the challenge then: Post up an argument, or no doubt from your perspective a 'definition' of what an object is, and let the fun begin.
|
|
|
Post by fatfist on Feb 24, 2014 0:53:44 GMT
Andre Jacobs's's's' all arguments about the definition of OBJECT can be found in my "What is an OBJECT hub". His shit has been refuted 1000 ways till Sunday ad infinitum. So yes, the butthurt little femtard is spamming for his own mental therapy
|
|
|
Post by The Joker on Feb 24, 2014 0:58:13 GMT
Fatfist! So they are letting you use the computer again ..... I guess you have been a good boy in that institution where you live. No dude, you have STILL not refuted jack shit. I have also added a few layers to my argument, since I spoke to Paul James, and I am getting closer to understanding exactly how fucked in the head you really are. Every time these boys have a spot of trouble, they call in the Fist. Isn't that sweet .....
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Feb 24, 2014 1:02:01 GMT
Mike, I (The Joker) registered. Dancing with the Fist would just be too much of a thrill to miss!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2014 2:37:20 GMT
Loki, formerly known as The Joker, you already have access to Fatfist's article on "What is an Object?" over at Fatfist's hubpages. If you disagree with it then start a thread in this board (The Ring) with your arguments against it using specific references to the article and we can get the debate on!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2014 2:40:31 GMT
In Rational Science, it is publicly known that we understand the only consistent way to define the term "object" is "that which has shape". If you wish to challenge it then the onus is on you to state your specific arguments against it.
Post a new thread with your arguments. This is not the appropriate thread to argue about it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2014 2:57:14 GMT
Loki, I also just made a thread in the Rational Scientific Method section which explicates the rational definition of object. Feel free to reference that as well.
|
|
|
Post by monkemind on Feb 24, 2014 13:24:16 GMT
Loki, Fenris, Joker Guest, Andre Jacobs, whomever you are today:
You're nothing but a piece of shit hanging from a hair that's attached to a mosquito which is sucking on the inner rectum of humanity.
Refute that!
|
|