Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RobGMN" data-source="post: 8913656" data-attributes="member: 683408">Jimi inferred it, and I responded to him.You chose to answer in his stead, but provided examples that do not speak to the challenge.Close, but no cigar.You, Thx, Jimi, Slapper, et al,&nbsp; all use that same line of nonsense. yet every time I ask for some shred of evidence of the &quot;proof that was given&quot;, the reply is always an evasion, diversion, obfuscation. Oftentimes, done with FAR more typing than simply linking to the post where the &quot;proof&quot; was provided.Why is that? Why not just do a simple link or a screenshot, instead of a whol paragraph that still doesn&#039;t provide any proof?Yes, I can provide plenty of examples. Want some?Speaking of changing the goalpost, you just did what you are accusing me of. Here are my words, verbatim: &quot;Can you tell me where in the Democrat platform they are pushing for gov&#039;t-owned grocery stores?Go back as far as Biden&#039;s first bid, if you need to.&quot;This was in response to Jimi saying: &quot;Just remember these are the same idiots that claim Trump is Hitler.v2, think rent control will work, want gov&#039;t owned grocery stores, believe Trump is a fascist dictator while being allowed to protest said dictator, etc, etc, etc.&quot;Jimi was speaking of the Democrat party and platform as a whole, and I was responding in kindSo again I&#039;ll ask: Are we going to discuss the party as a whole, or the use the few as representative of the entire party?Let&#039;s not play the apples and oranges game that some people here are so fond of.Make the choice.You mean like repeating the &quot;I already provided proof&quot; mantra enough times that the person uttering it actually believes it? Even when no such proof was ever given?As the guy who claimed he gave me &quot;the number&quot; multiple times as an answer to a half-dozen questions I asked of him.This ain&#039;t Hitchhiker&#039;s Guide to The Galaxy. There is no &quot;the number&quot; that could have answered all my questions.Ask the guy who has insisted dozens of times that he proved a mono amp has multiple outputs, yet when I ask for evidence that it was &quot;proved&quot;, the pat response is &quot;Why? You&#039;d just refuse to believe it anyway.&quot;, followed by a paragraph of ad-hominem.You want &quot;talking loud and saying nothing&quot;? Look at post 25,350</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RobGMN, post: 8913656, member: 683408"] Jimi inferred it, and I responded to him. You chose to answer in his stead, but provided examples that do not speak to the challenge. Close, but no cigar. You, Thx, Jimi, Slapper, et al, all use that same line of nonsense. yet every time I ask for some shred of evidence of the "proof that was given", the reply is always an evasion, diversion, obfuscation. Oftentimes, done with FAR more typing than simply linking to the post where the "proof" was provided. Why is that? Why not just do a simple link or a screenshot, instead of a whol paragraph that still doesn't provide any proof? Yes, I can provide plenty of examples. Want some? Speaking of changing the goalpost, you just did what you are accusing me of. Here are my words, verbatim: [I]"Can you tell me where in the Democrat platform they are pushing for gov't-owned grocery stores? Go back as far as Biden's first bid, if you need to."[/I] This was in response to Jimi saying:[I] "Just remember these are the same idiots that claim Trump is Hitler.v2, think rent control will work, want gov't owned grocery stores, believe Trump is a fascist dictator while being allowed to protest said dictator, etc, etc, etc."[/I] Jimi was speaking of the Democrat party and platform as a whole, and I was responding in kind So again I'll ask: Are we going to discuss the party as a whole, or the use the few as representative of the entire party? Let's not play the apples and oranges game that some people here are so fond of. Make the choice. You mean like repeating the "I already provided proof" mantra enough times that the person uttering it actually believes it? Even when no such proof was ever given? As the guy who claimed he gave me "the number" multiple times as an answer to a half-dozen questions I asked of him. This ain't Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy. There is no "the number" that could have answered all my questions. Ask the guy who has insisted dozens of times that he proved a mono amp has multiple outputs, yet when I ask for evidence that it was "proved", the pat response is "Why? You'd just refuse to believe it anyway.", followed by a paragraph of ad-hominem. You want "talking loud and saying nothing"? Look at post 25,350 [/QUOTE]

Verification