I am quite sure that miracles happen.
But if you think it is okay to encourage magical thinking, I'll have to stand corrected.
I am quite sure that miracles happen.
But if you think it is okay to encourage magical thinking, I'll have to stand corrected.
Thank God for that! Which others I attacked and do you think they did mind?cousinbasil wrote:you are so quick to criticize.
I always had a good understanding with him and still have, outside the forum. Our exchanges as well as our real differences might have gone over your head though, I wouldn't be surprised.I. Alex runs rings around you, so fast that your "gooey" mind cannot keep up.
Interesting. You sound uncertain though using famous weasel words like "is common among".But this kind of hubris is common among autodidacts, as is the persistent, defensive projection of inadequacy.
You got to be kidding!The sense of humor is fine, thanks - which you would know if you had one. BTW - if you are going to lecture me on my own language, try not to say things like "misunderestimating,"
Your point?Beingof1 wrote:Cuzinbasil:I am quite sure that miracles happen.But if you think it is okay to encourage magical thinking, I'll have to stand corrected.
Famous weasel? Like Montagu Sylver?Diebert wrote:Interesting. You sound uncertain though using famous weasel words like "is common among".
How do weasel words get to be famous? Just curious. I mean, if there is a list somewhere of weasel words that somehow got famous, I'd like to see it so I don't make that mistake again. To think a simple phrase like "is common among" could be on such a list! Who knew?Deebs wrote:famous weasel words like "is common among"
No, I wrote they are to me not worth reading and also something about a filter active when I'm logged in to enable me to flip through long or boring discussions much easier.cousinbasil wrote:I thought you didn't read my posts, Deebs.
By being widely known, at least to those familiar with debating stuff, or with a dictionary!cousinbasil wrote:How do weasel words get to be famous? Just curious.Deebs wrote:famous weasel words like "is common among"
Yes, I did already link you to a page with a list of common examples. But try a few years of serious discussion and the list will not contain surprises anymore.if there is a list somewhere of weasel words that somehow got famous
No, what you wrote was this:cousinbasil: I thought you didn't read my posts, Deebs.
Diebert: No, I wrote they are to me not worth reading and also something about a filter active when I'm logged in to enable me to flip through long or boring discussions much easier.
One could assume if your settings filter me out, then you cannot actually read my posts. Would you say this is a logical inference? You cannot admit it because then you would have to take back this:When logged in you and many other posters who write too frequent and too irrelevant at this forum are filtered out by my settings.
This is a perfect example of the very thing I said you do all the time. You criticize others for the very things you do - it makes it so easy to pick out your mistakes in logic and faulty memory. You say I muddy the waters - that's because all I have to do is a little stirring and you trap yourself in contradictions like this one. You are easily confused, my friend. And obviously I know you read my posts because you are looking for things to pounce upon. I was being facetious - over your head?Can't you see how you subtly change your memory, my words even for this unimportant issue? It's called lying. That's what you are of course: a liar! Or at least very sloppy with truth.
First, most dictionaries do not label any words as "weasel" words. Second, a thing does not get to be famous by being widely known. That's what being famous means - but again, English is not your first language. It's like saying a thing gets to be big by being large.Diebert: ...famous weasel words like "is common among"
cousinbasil: How do weasel words get to be famous? Just curious.
Diebert: By being widely known, at least to those familiar with debating stuff, or with a dictionary!
Yes, I checked that list. If "is common among" was on the list, I must have missed it. Are you sure it was on that list? Maybe there is another list you are mistaking it for? My point was that if you accuse me of using "weasel words" and give one as a "famous" example of being one, you should be able to say why you think so. Otherwise, I could pick some expression you have used and claim the same thing. What's the point?Yes, I did already link you to a page with a list of common examples.
I have no doubt you consider yourself some kind of serious debater or thinker.But try a few years of serious discussion and the list will not contain surprises anymore.
Or perhaps you didn't think of the possibility that I might not be logged in all the time so that the filter is not always there. Apart from that I have still the possibility to click on the cloaked posts if I want to, for example when I try to track the context of a discussion. This doesn't change my opinion about your posts not worthy of reading. I think I will include as well " not worthy of pointing out the painful inconsistencies and nonsense in them". Of course only after this:cousinbasil wrote:One could assume if your settings filter me out, then you cannot actually read my posts. Would you say this is a logical inference?
I was talking about the definition of "famous". Another joke over your head I'm afraid. Why do I bother, as the Dutch saying goes:" you're looking for nails at low tide", thinking claiming a find makes you look clever somehow.First, most dictionaries do not label any words as "weasel" words.
You asked a rather lame question about how do weasel words get to be famous. As I wrote: try a few years of serious discussion,knucklehead!. When many people actually do that and compare notes, certain patterns get known and described. Perhaps you should study those more carefully.Second, a thing does not get to be famous by being widely known.
Another way is when a person is filtered out (paco, for instance) and cousinbasil replies to one of her posts then paco's quote would also show up.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Or perhaps you didn't think of the possibility that I might not be logged in all the time so that the filter is not always there. Apart from that I have still the possibility to click on the cloaked posts if I want to, for example when I try to track the context of a discussion.cousinbasil wrote:One could assume if your settings filter me out, then you cannot actually read my posts. Would you say this is a logical inference?
It's completely and utterly plain to anyone with even vaguely a half, a quarter, a tenth, hell, a billionth of an iota of idea of what Elizabeth is about that neither of you have the first hint of a scent of a whiff of a gist of a vague, floating, wishful henid as to who she really is. Sociopath or psychopath? You guys are so off the mark that it's sick. Really, there's nothing else that can be said. Categorising a person in the exact opposite way that they deserve to be categorised simply because you resent her approach can be labelled in no other way than sick.Blair wrote:Hey steady on, there is none smarter than I :).Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Blair is abusive but quite reasonable, while you are nicer, smarter but probably a psychopath.
JizaBelle has sociopathic tendencies, rather than psycho.
Paco is a she?Tomas wrote:Another way is when a person is filtered out (paco, for instance) and cousinbasil replies to one of her posts then paco's quote would also show up.
I was indicating your clumsy use of syntax, do not be so offended. I am actually doing you a favor. Your thinking is sometimes muddled and using proper syntax would help you express yourself more efficiently and assist you in figuring out what it is you are really trying to say before actually writing it.Diebert wrote:I was talking about the definition of "famous". Another joke over your head I'm afraid.
As I wrote, you are indeed a legend in your own mind.As I wrote: try a few years of serious discussion,knucklehead!.
I have not read many of Vicdan's posts, so perhaps I can be forgiven for not knowing what "kind of Jew" he is. But I have read Alex and maybe it's not clear to you how he toys with you. I hope he sees fit to return at some point as I do enjoy reading his thoughts.Indeed, I mean everybody knows Alex is a balking Jew while Victor was the crowing Jew. But they both are still operating in a way higher league than you are.
Laird, I'm not sure why you feel the need to go on about these off-the-cuff remarks as if they were suddenly some serious psychological assessments or character judgement.guest_of_logic wrote:Sociopath or psychopath? You guys are so off the mark that it's sick. Really, there's nothing else that can be said.