Lol. No double standard at all. I specifically and explicitly conceded the possibility that What Exit made his accusation of misquoting him in good faith.
Try reading the thread.
Lol. I guess that means you can’t QUOTE the actual post in the Al Gore thread where I supposedly promoted “misinformation.”
Keep up the good work, fucktard.
QUOTE! QUOTE! Lol! QUOTE! Polly is a fucktard! QUOOOOOTE!
I don’t have to. I have no dog in the fight. You claimed that What Exit was a liar. What was the lie he posted? If you’re going to point at the post where What Exit was less than precise with the term that he used - then it’s a no go. Everybody knows what he meant when he posted his response.
Now smile my little fucktard and enjoy the day.
(1) That I misquoted him in the AL Gore thread; and (2) that I promoted “misinformation” in the Al Gore thread.
Granted, he has finally admitted that I did not actually misquote him and I have conceded the possibility that he made the accusation in good faith. Nevertheless, as I recall, he accused me of lying in that thread. If he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, then so am I in terms of my paraphrase. Moreover, he has failed to susbtantiate the second accusation.
You too, fucktard.
Again, I have no interest in actually dredging all the misinformation and the mischaracterization you have made on that thread. He actually did substantiate the second accusation (at least partially). You did mischaracterize his post.
Brazil84 is fucktard personified. ( you know I had to do it…It’s the only place I’m allowed to do it)
Lol. i.e. you can’t back up the accusation so you will throw poop like a little monkey. Keep up the good work, fucktard.
Logical fallacy: just because someone refuses to do something does not mean he cannot. I thought you claimed that everything you posted was reasonable. Another lie.
Nope - simply that I have no interest and that What Exit already provided a partial support of his characterization.
Carry on with your insanity, fucktard personified (this was juvenile when I first posted it, but now it has transcended that) 
Funny that you continue to post in this thread, then.
Anyway, I’ll make it really easy for you. What Exit accused me of promoting misinformation in Post #222. My first post in the thread was #20. So this supposed misinformation must occur between Post #20 and Post #221 (my last post before post #222).
So the first step is to simply provide a number between 20 and 221, inclusive (but obviously excluding posts which were not mine.) The next step is to QUOTE the part of the post which supposedly promotes misinformation.
Such a simple challenge. And yet all you can do in response is to wave your arms and fling shit like a monkey.
Lol. Keep up the good work, fucktard.
I can’t be bothered brazil84. And besides, What Exit already posted partial support of his characterization. I’m satisfied with that.
Carry on, fucktard. (Don’t you just love this juvenile back and forth?!?)
No he hasn’t. Even if the post in question were chock full of misinformation (which it wasn’t), it ocurred AFTER he accused me of promoting misinformation.
So if that’s what he was referring to, he’s either psychic or a liar. And somehow I’m not expecting him to claim the Randi $1,000,000 prize any time soon.
Please keep posting, fucktard. Each time that you claim you are too busy to answer the challenge, and yet continue to post in the thread, it only helps to confirm my claims.
Brazil84, why do you think so many people make the same comments about your posts and debate methods?
Are they all wrong?
Oh, fine, if it’ll finally shut you up. Post #71 in the thread in question.
This is factually incorrect and demonstrates a marked failure to understand basic economic theory. Thank you, have a nice day.
pkd88, I’m getting a bit tired of trying to answer your questions while you fail to answer mine.
In any event, my general impression has been that the most common criticism of my debating style is that I engage in “nitpicking.” To me “nitpicking” means focusing on minor details while ignoring the best argument one’s adversary is putting forth.
While it’s true that I do focus on details a lot of the time, I always try to respond to the best argument being made by my opponent too. And I think that details are frequently more important than people realize. So I deny that I regularly engage in “nitpicking.”
On the other hand, if you define “nitpicking” as any kind of argument that focuses attention on details (whether or not one also address the larger picture), then I’m absolutely guilty as charged.
Please, I really would like to improve my understanding of economic theory. Let me ask you basically the same question I asked in that thread:
If a large percentage of owners of big houses decided to move to smaller houses, what could one expect to happen to the price of big houses, all things being equal?
Over time, what effect would one expect this to have on the decisions of real estate developers as to what size houses to build?
Not only are you a fucktard - you are an idiot or a liar! (Does this sound familiar to you?) You posted that I claimed to be too busy to answer the challenge. That is a lie. Please quote any comments I have made to support your accussation or else admit that you are a liar of extreme fucktardiness. I said, I was not interested and that I can’t be bothered (if you can’t understand the distinction then you are an idiot)
On the otherhand, pointing out your fucktardiness is something that I’m interested in doing (at least for now).
Stop. Irrelevant. We are addressing your specific post which I QUOTEd, per your challenge, which claimed that when ONE individual (Al Gore) gives up his big house he necessarily lowers demand by some amount.
Put up or shut up.
Your question was an attempt to nitpick your way out of another question. Let me help you out so you can move on. “No I don’t think you defeated them. I think they gave up talking to you because you have totally lost the point of the thread.”
Proof that you convinced someone else to change their opinion is very simple.
I think people see you picking little tiny things to argue with to make it so you aren’t losing. You have lost the point of the whole thread or discussion to argue about something that really doesn’t matter.
People are constantly telling you that this is what you do. You seem to be the only person who doesn’t feel that way. Perhaps a little honest, self reflection would help you.
If it’s irrelevant, then let’s agree for the sake of argument that
(1) If a large percentage of owners of big houses decided to sell and move to smaller houses, one could expect the price of big houses to drop, all things being equal.
(2) If the prices of big houses drop, one can expect that developers will build relatively more small houses and relatively fewer big houses.
Overall, one could reasonably say that the demand for big houses has dropped signficantly and that as a result, developers are building fewer big houses.
Thus, if one person decides to sell his or her big house and move to a smaller house, one can reasonably say that demand for big houses has dropped by a small amount. I suppose one could say that the supply of big houses has increased by a little bit, but the net effect will be the same: One can expect a slight increase in the market pressure on developers to build small houses as opposed to big houses.
Granted, the effect of one person’s decision will be pretty minimal on the overall market, but this doesn’t really matter. After all, environmentalists are constantly urging people to engage in individual conduct which – taken individually – won’t have much of an effect.
I trust this will help fight your ignorance of basic economic theory.