I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
" wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his
known stores of WMD.

Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.

LOL. I think you'd better take a course or two in logic.

Actually, I have.

You should consult for the UN then, because /it/ sure "demanded"
evidence of the WMD's destruction. ("Demanded" being a rather loose
term for a toothless outfit like the UN.)

It is, again, demanding proof of a negative.

Even the U.S. Army can't account for every single munition ever
procured, up to and including some pretty darn big items.

It's not proof of a negative; it's proof of an ACT.

"Prove you don't have any WMD."

Yup, proof of a negative.

No, prove you /destroyed/ something. Simple.

BTW, we aren't so snarky here in AM-B; take your sarcastic bullying
back to RBM where it belongs.

If you or your pal Mark can't take the heat, don't participate in
threads where you might get burned.

Mark's pretty good at debating these things without getting personally
abusive. Try it some time.

HTH,

E.P.

We both use our names; why don't you? (I know you've told me; I must've
ignored it.)

B.S.

Bill Sornson wrote:

No, prove you /destroyed/ something. Simple.

At it's core (for those who understand logic) it's trying to prove the
lack of existence. Providing documentation is simple. Anyone can make
up any National Guard memo, after all. But proving that something
doesn't exist is *impossible*, no matter how you spin it.

BTW, we aren't so snarky here in AM-B; take your sarcastic bullying
back to RBM where it belongs.

If you or your pal Mark can't take the heat, don't participate in
threads where you might get burned.

Mark's pretty good at debating these things without getting personally
abusive. Try it some time.

Mark avoids being abusive? LOL.

You (and he) have your way(s) of doing things, and if you don't like
mine, get over it. Your smarminess on this is nauseating.

HTH,

E.P.

We both use our names; why don't you? (I know you've told me; I must've
ignored it.)

Because I choose not to. Get the **** OVER it already.

E.P. (Real name exists out there for folks who *really* care to look
it up)

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

No, prove you /destroyed/ something. Simple.

At it's core (for those who understand logic) it's trying to prove the
lack of existence. Providing documentation is simple. Anyone can
make up any National Guard memo, after all. But proving that
something doesn't exist is *impossible*, no matter how you spin it.

BTW, we aren't so snarky here in AM-B; take your sarcastic bullying
back to RBM where it belongs.

If you or your pal Mark can't take the heat, don't participate in
threads where you might get burned.

Mark's pretty good at debating these things without getting
personally abusive. Try it some time.

Mark avoids being abusive? LOL.

Re-read your reply to him a few posts up. Uncalled-for personal insults
suggesting that YOU take this stuff far too seriously (yet you tell him how
/he/ does stuff to feel better about himself). Some might call this
"projection".

Because I choose not to. Get the **** OVER it already.

Testee today.

E.P. (Real name exists out there for folks who *really* care to look
it up)

Life's too short.

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

Mark avoids being abusive? LOL.

Re-read your reply to him a few posts up.

Yeah? So what? WTF do you care?

Uncalled-for personal insults

Sigh. Like I said, if you don't like it, that's your own personal
problem. Your opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it. Save the
psychoanalysis for when you get your license.


Because I choose not to. Get the **** OVER it already.

Testee today.

No. It's some sort of hard-on you got after Jobst criticized you for
using "Sorni." His guilt trip might have worked on you, but I really
don't give a rip.

E.P. (Real name exists out there for folks who *really* care to look
it up)

Life's too short.

Then stop bitching about it. If you *really* wanted to know, you'd go
and find it. But you don't *really* care, it's just another usenet
distraction tactic.

Now, if you're done ****ing and moaning about the form of my replies,
maybe you can get on with your life.

E.P.

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

Mark avoids being abusive? LOL.

Re-read your reply to him a few posts up.

Yeah? So what? WTF do you care?

Uncalled-for personal insults

Sigh. Like I said, if you don't like it, that's your own personal
problem. Your opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it. Save the
psychoanalysis for when you get your license.


Because I choose not to. Get the **** OVER it already.

Testee today.

No. It's some sort of hard-on you got after Jobst criticized you for
using "Sorni." His guilt trip might have worked on you, but I really
don't give a rip.

E.P. (Real name exists out there for folks who *really* care to
look it up)

Life's too short.

Then stop bitching about it. If you *really* wanted to know, you'd go
and find it. But you don't *really* care, it's just another usenet
distraction tactic.

Now, if you're done ****ing and moaning about the form of my replies,
maybe you can get on with your life.

Nice snipping (and sniping). Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too). Anonymous posters /in
general/ are hard to keep straight -- especially ones with cryptic user
names and/or just initials: was he the one who flamed me that time, or was
he that funny guy...? I don't take notes, and my memory's not keen enough,
I guess.

Do whatever you want, but when you're a mean-spirited arrogant ass I'll
likely speak up. (Bullies push my buttons.)

Fair enough?

Bill Sornson wrote:

Nice snipping (and sniping).

I quoted the relevant stuff. You're just whining now.

Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too).

The real question: did they *care*?

Anonymous posters /in
general/ are hard to keep straight

See, now that's just a personal problem of yours. I really don't see
how that's relevant to anyone but you. And it isn't imperative for me
to cater to your lack of memory. It's merely a usenet tactic used by
those who wish to distract from any real discussion. Hell, that's why
Mike uses it...

Do whatever you want, but when you're a mean-spirited arrogant ass I'll
likely speak up. (Bullies push my buttons.)

Justify your smarmy self-righteousness any way that suits you. I can't
control how you post, or why.

Fair enough?

If you think you're justified, everything's A-OK with me. After all,
what can I do to make sure *your* standards of posting quality are met?
Your commentary on arrogance certainly is amusingly ironic, however.

E.P.

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Nice snipping (and sniping).

I quoted the relevant stuff. You're just whining now.

You deleted what I said about your taking this **** way too seriously and
resorting to personal insults with Mark while at the same time saying HE
does it to feel better about himself. People can read the thread and decide
for themselves.

Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too).

The real question: did they *care*?

Not a matter of caring; just knowing.

Last word's all yours (whoever you are), as always...

wrote:

At it's core (for those who understand logic)

What about understanding /grammar/?

eg you asked for it eg

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Nice snipping (and sniping).

I quoted the relevant stuff. You're just whining now.

You deleted what I said about your taking this **** way too seriously ...

Which WAS NOT RELEVANT to my reply. Get it now???

Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too).

The real question: did they *care*?

Not a matter of caring; just knowing.

Which satifies idle curiousity, but nothing more. There's really not
too much value to it, other than it gives ammo to folks who need to
distract the conversations that don't go their way. And if folks
*really* wanted to know - it's out there.

As I have told you previously, if you went and searched for the name -
how would knowing that tidbit clarify any discussion going on at that
time? Would it cange the parameters of the discussion? Would it
change the facts, the logic, anything? No, of course it wouldn't.
Which is why I don't assign it any real importance.

E.P.

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

At it's core (for those who understand logic)

What about understanding /grammar/?

eg you asked for it eg

Actually, I didn't. I never stoop to grammar/speeling flames.

E.P.