[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
…and a blonde whose name has now escaped me…
[/QUOTE]
Jenna Elfman.
Oh, crap. :smack:
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
A sitcom. Cute hippy chick from wacky family marries Old Money lawyer from uptight family. Comedy ensues.
[/QUOTE]
“Larry” was the cute hippie chick’s burned out hippie dad.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Oh, crap. :smack:
[/QUOTE]
You know, she’s got an online fan club? 
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
No. I. Did. NOT. And this is the problem with you; your utter inability to comprehend what went on. FOUR PER CENT of people have ADD. Somebody said 4% was a ‘miniscule’ number. I said it was not a ‘miniscule’ number and that .000001 would BE A MINISCULE NUMBER. I did NOT say that .000001 people had ADD. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Squink]
You know, she’s got an online fan club?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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!
[QUOTE=Oy!]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=wring]
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.
[/QUOTE]
OK, I’ll bite: what’s the Wookie defense?
[QUOTE=Oy!]
OK, I’ll bite: what’s the Wookie defense?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=wring]
Wookie defense
[/QUOTE]
OK, and thank you, wring.
That’s an hour of my life I’ll never get back again…
[QUOTE=Oy!]
OK, and thank you, wring.
That’s an hour of my life I’ll never get back again…
[/QUOTE]
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. 
[QUOTE=Squink]
You know, she’s got an online fan club?
[/QUOTE]
Did you check out her links page?
You might have to buy an “I heart L. Ron” t-shirt.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
Did you check out her links page?
You might have to buy an “I heart L. Ron” t-shirt.
[/QUOTE]
Aw shit. 
Been lusting after Dharma for years, and now I learn she’s played by a wingnut.
sigh
[QUOTE=Oy!]
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!
[/QUOTE]
No south park
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
He isn’t due to make the bi-annual post explaining this yet, so let me summarize it: Back in the Clinton era, a married couple signed up for AOL; their names were Tom and Deb B. Deb has found better ways to occupy her time than making posts on a message board, but Tom continues to do so, using the same name he has used since before this board was founded on AOL. Every two years, he explains that to someone who wonders about it. There are a few others around in the same boat: Gusnspot comes to mind (Spot, being a motorcycle, has never attempted to post). I’m not sure about Kimstu. And we won’t mention Heffalump and Roo.
[/QUOTE]
Or your handle, which means “many fish”. Or mine, which means “please demonstrate to Daniel”.
Regards,
Shodan