What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I'm not here to change your mind. I'm just saying the evidence isn't that convincing. Maybe he is making fun of the guy, I certainly wouldn't put it past him. Maybe he's just flailing about. Do I really care one way or the other, not really. This pales in comparison to the "big lie."

Absolutely, but preponderance of evidence can tell the much bigger story about the person.
Any one of his singular "infractions" could be written off with some effort, but when there are just so damn many infractions, it makes it much harder for people to deny the really big stuff.

He's the criminal with a rap sheet the length of your arm, saying "I didn't do it. I'm innocent". Maybe, but the odds are against it.

He would NEVER grope a woman without consent.
He would NEVER say or do anything that could be construed as racist.
He would NEVER take donations to his legal fund and funnel them to his PAC.
He would NEVER take donations to his charity and use them to buy a painting of himself.
He would NEVER take classified documents to his home after leaving the presidency.
he would NEVER pay a woman to have *** with him.
He would NEVER mock a disabled person.

When someone DOES a whole lot of things he would "NEVER" do, it makes it hard to believe his defense.
And this goes for anything, not just this particular situation.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Sure and then I explained it so there should be no confusion and both of you continued to be smart *****. At that point both of you should move on because you are not having a conversation, you are being dicks to be dicks.

Explained WHAT? You have simply repeated over and over that you are right, and provided ridiculous "evidence" that you think proves it.

The confusion lies in you walking away from this topic, still believing that you are right. That's just downright weird, kid.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Explained WHAT? You have simply repeated over and over that you are right, and provided ridiculous "evidence" that you think proves it.

The confusion lies in you walking away from this topic, still believing that you are right. That's just downright weird, kid.

Thank you for proving that you aren't looking for facts you are only looking to argue. I explained "in" as in only passing through, not part of. You are ignoring what I say so you can keep talking ignorant shit. I am not interested in your ignorant shit so you can go fuck off.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Thank you for proving that you aren't looking for facts you are only looking to argue. I explained "in" as in only passing through, not part of. You are ignoring what I say so you can keep talking ignorant shit. I am not interested in your ignorant shit so you can go fuck off.

The problem is you're using a non-standard version of in. Nobody would claim there are not pipes in my walls. Much like the pictures of nerves within bones, we use can use a FLIR camera to reveal what is inside my walls. Furthermore, nerves don't just pass through the bone, there are nerve endings inside the bone.

Most people would accept that if something passes through something else it also is inside that something else. For example, there traffic and cars pass through the Eisenhower/Johnson tunnels, there is also traffic and cars in those tunnels.

Additionally, you seem to have conflated the "in" with through and possibly being of dissimilar materials or being embedded within a material, which is confusing to the reader. Something doesn't have to of the same material to reside within something else. For example, I recently returned a monitor to Newegg. I put the monitor in a styrofoam shell, which I then put inside a carboard box. Then I wrapped the carboard board in bubble wrap. Then I dropped off that package and it sat in a building made of brick, steel and glass. The point being all sorts of dissimilar items can reside within each other and none of the items were embedded into the others, yet there is no disputing these items resided within one another.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in <<---- 1a and 1b would be the relevant versions of in per this conservation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/through <<---- 1a.3 would be the relevant version

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Thank you for proving that you aren't looking for facts you are only looking to argue. I explained "in" as in only passing through, not part of. You are ignoring what I say so you can keep talking ignorant shit. I am not interested in your ignorant shit so you can go fuck off.

You explained "in" to me?
'Don't think so kid. Your discussion of the pin that was in your bone, and you didn't feel anything when it was removed because there "are no nerves in bone", blows your whole semantics argument of "in" right OUT of the water.

You used that personal anecdote to try to illustrate that nerves are not "in" bone, that nerves do not go "through" bone, that nerves are not "part of" bone. Your "proof" was that there was no pain when the pin/screw was removed.

Here are the facts:
You claimed there are no nerves in bone.
Several of us claimed there are nerves in bone.
We provided proof. You provided incorrect claims.

You were wrong.
Just admit it already.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Absolutely, but preponderance of evidence can tell the much bigger story about the person.
Any one of his singular "infractions" could be written off with some effort, but when there are just so damn many infractions, it makes it much harder for people to deny the really big stuff.

He's the criminal with a rap sheet the length of your arm, saying "I didn't do it. I'm innocent". Maybe, but the odds are against it.

He would NEVER grope a woman without consent.
He would NEVER say or do anything that could be construed as racist.
He would NEVER take donations to his legal fund and funnel them to his PAC.
He would NEVER take donations to his charity and use them to buy a painting of himself.
He would NEVER take classified documents to his home after leaving the presidency.
he would NEVER pay a woman to have *** with him.
He would NEVER mock a disabled person.

When someone DOES a whole lot of things he would "NEVER" do, it makes it hard to believe his defense.
And this goes for anything, not just this particular situation.

I'm not claiming he is innocent. I'm just saying if this were a court case I couldn't find him guilty. I find his defense questionable too. As a matter of fact, his defense is more damning than the video.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I'm not claiming he is innocent. I'm just saying if this were a court case I couldn't find him guilty. I find his defense questionable too. As a matter of fact, his defense is more damning than the video.

Same page.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Sure and then I explained it so there should be no confusion and both of you continued to be smart *****. At that point both of you should move on because you are not having a conversation, you are being dicks to be dicks.

That's not really what happened though. First you denied the presence of nerves in the bone. Then you said they only go through the bone. Then you moved onto this position that they're not embedded within the bone mineral itself, which I'm pretty sure could be disproved as well. At this point, I'm actually still uncertain what you meant when you said there are no nerves in the bones.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

He is trying to backpedal with semantics. There are no nerves "in" bone, yet he had "puncture wounds in the skin". He wants us to interpret and understand what he says when he posts, but he will cry like a child that you are "making shit up" if you interpret literally and logically, but the interpretation paints him in a bad light.

He's all over the map and can't even keep up with the tales he spins.
Funny, yet sad.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

He is trying to backpedal with semantics. There are no nerves "in" bone, yet he had "puncture wounds in the skin". He wants us to interpret and understand what he says when he posts, but he will cry like a child that you are "making shit up" if you interpret literally and logically, but the interpretation paints him in a bad light.

He's all over the map and can't even keep up with the tales he spins.
Funny, yet sad.

I don't mind somebody trying to clarify the intent of their original post, but please be clear in your clarification. I'm just more confused now. At least when Clinton tried to nuance the meaning of "is" it sorta made sense and it was just the single change; still got him impeached.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I don't mind somebody trying to clarify the intent of their original post, but please be clear in your clarification. I'm just more confused now. At least when Clinton tried to nuance the meaning of "is" it sorta made sense and it was just the single change; still got him impeached.

No, you got it right... Not embedded in bone.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

The problem is you're using a non-standard version of in. Nobody would claim there are not pipes in my walls. Much like the pictures of nerves within bones, we use can use a FLIR camera to reveal what is inside my walls. Furthermore, nerves don't just pass through the bone, there are nerve endings inside the bone.

Most people would accept that if something passes through something else it also is inside that something else. For example, there traffic and cars pass through the Eisenhower/Johnson tunnels, there is also traffic and cars in those tunnels.

Additionally, you seem to have conflated the "in" with through and possibly being of dissimilar materials or being embedded within a material, which is confusing to the reader. Something doesn't have to of the same material to reside within something else. For example, I recently returned a monitor to Newegg. I put the monitor in a styrofoam shell, which I then put inside a carboard box. Then I wrapped the carboard board in bubble wrap. Then I dropped off that package and it sat in a building made of brick, steel and glass. The point being all sorts of dissimilar items can reside within each other and none of the items were embedded into the others, yet there is no disputing these items resided within one another.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in <<---- 1a and 1b would be the relevant versions of in per this conservation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/through <<---- 1a.3 would be the relevant version

Cool, now tell me why, if you have this knowledge and know there are different ways to use words, can't you two use comprehension and common sense? Why must you try to educate people instead of going "Ahh, I see where you are going, however, what if...". Nope, you guys think we all need lessons in this and lessons in that. You first assume that whatever way you would use a word is the first and correct way to use it... even though you have this before mentioned knowledge. Unless you are both full of shit, just want to argue then find facts to support your arguments. I can see that being more true.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You explained "in" to me?
'Don't think so kid. Your discussion of the pin that was in your bone, and you didn't feel anything when it was removed because there "are no nerves in bone", blows your whole semantics argument of "in" right OUT of the water.

You used that personal anecdote to try to illustrate that nerves are not "in" bone, that nerves do not go "through" bone, that nerves are not "part of" bone. Your "proof" was that there was no pain when the pin/screw was removed.

Here are the facts:
You claimed there are no nerves in bone.
Several of us claimed there are nerves in bone.
We provided proof. You provided incorrect claims.

You were wrong.
Just admit it already.

So it's a numbers game for you huh? More of us said there ARE nerves in bones. That makes you wrong by default, just admit it. I admit that you **** dicks.

Cue the "ad hominem" crybaby bullshit.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So it's a numbers game for you huh? More of us said there ARE nerves in bones. That makes you wrong by default, just admit it. I admit that you **** dicks.

Cue the "ad hominem" crybaby bullshit.

"Ad hominem" describes the attempted insults you hurl every time you get proved wrong. You do it in place of trying to make a cogent argument to support what you say. And you do it almost every time. It's stale, but you seem to think it provides a real "punch" to your posts. Yawn.

That said, this is not a numbers game. It is simply proved and verified fact versus fantasy/feelings/opinions/beliefs, or whatever else you want to call your position. The facts do not change or become stronger based on the number of people that accept them as fact. They simply ARE.

Show me 50,000 people who believe the Earth is flat. That size sampling matters not a whit to the FACT that the Earth is not flat.

Medical science has known and proved extensively over time that there are nerves in bones. It was already a known and proved fact in a 1918 Gray's Anatomy that I referenced, has likely been verified multiple dozens of times, and it so widely accepted that it is taught and not questioned because no one has seen proof otherwise. It stopped being :theory" when they were able to physically prove it was real.
Just like it is not "theory" that there are electrical impulses occurring in our body, and that there are blood "types" that vary by person.

Facts are nice like that.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

"Ad hominem" describes the attempted insults you hurl every time you get proved wrong. You do it in place of trying to make a cogent argument to support what you say. And you do it almost every time. It's stale, but you seem to think it provides a real "punch" to your posts. Yawn.

That said, this is not a numbers game. It is simply proved and verified fact versus fantasy/feelings/opinions/beliefs, or whatever else you want to call your position. The facts do not change or become stronger based on the number of people that accept them as fact. They simply ARE.

Show me 50,000 people who believe the Earth is flat. That size sampling matters not a whit to the FACT that the Earth is not flat.

Medical science has known and proved extensively over time that there are nerves in bones. It was already a known and proved fact in a 1918 Gray's Anatomy that I referenced, has likely been verified multiple dozens of times, and it so widely accepted that it is taught and not questioned because no one has seen proof otherwise. It stopped being :theory" when they were able to physically prove it was real.
Just like it is not "theory" that there are electrical impulses occurring in our body, and that there are blood "types" that vary by person.

Facts are nice like that.

And if I provide facts that dispute YOUR facts then mine are wrong and I am wrong... funny how you work like that.