Jenna Elfman.
Oh, crap. :smack:
“Larry” was the cute hippie chick’s burned out hippie dad.
You know, she’s got an online fan club? 
And I never claimed you did. Neither did anyone else. Rolleyes to infinity. This is exactly what I am talking about. You are arguing against a position no one has taken, while refusing to support a position that you have taken. It’s just silly. Here is the post where you used your .000009 per cent figure. The word "minuscule’ does not appear.
This is a straightforward as it can be. You are not comparing one set of numbers to another, and evaluating them for their relative amounts. You have made a simple, unqualified assertion. And were simply asked whether any other circumstance should be afforded the same consideration. You then screamed “hypothetical” in giant letters. OK, came the response, hypothetically, does any other circumstance fit the criteria? ‘Analogy’ you screamed, although clearly there is no analogy present.
FYI, the simple presence of the word “if” in a sentence does not place the entire concept into the realm of the hypothetical. “If you are happy and you know it, clap your hands,” for example. Or, “If you want to be taken seriously, stop being such a dumbass.”
We’ll never really know, now will we, since another question you refused to answer, although pressed repeatedly, was how many of that 4% were tardy as a result of ADD. That was the significant number, not the raw 4%. Data about people who are not tardy is completely meaningless, although you seem to believe otherwise. **tomndebb **made the case quite well, in this post.
This point was made, and accepted, in the other thread. That you continue to pretend that it was not says quite a bit about your integrity as a debater.
Ill join. If he uses the sit com argument ,I lose. What if he ups it to Friends. (i didn’t watch that either). Then the wookie argument. Followed by if the glove does not fit you must acquit.
gonzo, do you think that you could post in English once in a while? Because I’m having pretty serious problems understanding your posts, and my English is fairly decent, so I have to assume that you’re posting in another language.
Or is it me?
Not just you. Gonzo’s posts are often unintelligible.
Thanks for the sanity check, Captain!
I believe gonzo was joking in a free association type way- translation (of sorts) - tieing together the faux concept of a ‘sit com ’ defense strategy by making references to Dharma & Greg would lead to an uping of the ante to "Friends’ references, neither of which gonzo has seen, much like the joking about the OJ defense of ‘if it doesn’t fit you must acquit’ vs. the “Wookie” defense.
OK, I’ll bite: what’s the Wookie defense?
OK, and thank you, wring.
That’s an hour of my life I’ll never get back again…
I know the feeling
OK, so let me get this straight. gonzomax justifies the unwarranted blaming of tomndebb for the manifold sins of the RCC by virtue of OJ Simpson’s acquital for a murder he obviously committed?
God, and I thought I was confused before!
No, I suspect it’s more of a “frantic hand waving look over here instead” of a deal. In other words, when there’s no real defense, you attempt to confuse the issue in any way possible.
OK, so that makes sense then. 
Did you check out her links page?
You might have to buy an “I heart L. Ron” t-shirt.
Aw shit. 
Been lusting after Dharma for years, and now I learn she’s played by a wingnut.
sigh
No south park
Or your handle, which means “many fish”. Or mine, which means “please demonstrate to Daniel”.
Regards,
Shodan