Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not desiring to debate is not synonymous with not wanting to learn, your first fallacy,
what transpires in other thread to other posters is also an irrelevancy, your second
fallacy and I could not care less whether you address the actual contents of the post or
not, i was merely pointing out your failure to do so on the basis of some irrelevant ...[text shortened]... ice
between that and remonstrating with you, Smita wins every time, have a pleasant
evening.
Not desiring to debate is not synonymous with not wanting to learn, your first fallacy,
where did I claim this? Can't you read?
I said “Mainly because you have already admitted you do not want to debate AND clearly implied you don't want to learn anything. “ (my emphasis)
the -”AND” is the operative word here. I am clearly NOT implying the two are the same.
what transpires in other thread to other posters is also an irrelevancy, your second
fallacy
it IS relevant IF you want me to address your 'points' for others in other threads have already debunked all of them and yet you ignore that thus don't see any point in addressing your 'points' if you are just going to ignore that as you have always done before.
and I could not care less whether you address the actual contents of the post or
not,
yes I knew that from the start and I didn't claim otherwise: can't you read? I said “IF”;
reminder:
IF you really want me to address the actual contents of the post then … (my emphasis and my quote)
“IF” is the operative word here. You do understand “IF” -right?
i was merely pointing out your failure to do so on the basis of some irrelevant
premise.
“ some irrelevant premise” for what argument/point? You didn't use it to make an argument/point.
Here is the proof: reminder of your previous post:
still unable to address the actual contents of the post, im changing your name to bumy!
-so where is your argument/point here that you use my “ failure to do so” as its “premise”?
Also, you said as your “premise” ( if it can honestly be called that ) that “still UNABLE to address the actual contents of the post (my emphasis) “
and then I pointed out the fact that I was not “ UNABLE” but rather “UNWILLING” thus debunking your “premise” as being severely inaccurate anyway.