I want to point out that since you know what a false equivalence is, you should recognize that is also applies to the first part that I quoted.
This post read in isolation is a good argument for bolding usernames.
solonecashew won’t get the message unless we boldly go?
Dude, if I say, “You can assault someone either by grabbing them and yelling at them, or by hurting them,” then it’s idiotic to come back and say, “You grabbed me, therefor your hurt me, therefore you assaulted me!” If I wanted “grab” to be a subset of “hurt”, I wouldn’t have bothered mentioning the “grab and yell” option.
Similarly, if I say, “you can assault someone either by carrying a weapon and accosting them, or by threatening to hurt them,” it’s idiotic to come back and say, “You carried a weapon, therefore you threatened to hurt me, therefore you assaulted me!” If I wanted “carry” to be a subset of “threaten,” I wouldn’t have mentioned the “carry and accost” option.
And if you trim the “carry and accost” option from the definition of “assault” in order to make the idiotic “carry=threat” argument, you’re lying.
Also, there have been multiple oblique references to solosam being a sock for the lone cashew. I honestly have no idea whether there’s any truth to this, but if you want to make that claim, folks, can you just make it? All the hints make my head hurt.
I didnt write it, dont be mad at me for what the thing says…im just simply noting the thing says ‘or’, not ‘and’
I think he’s a sock.
He is not mad at you. He was just trying to say that the reason “c” exists is to specify that carrying a weapon is not on its own assault, but it must be accompanied by accosting, begging, or impeding. If carrying a weapon on its own was assault because of letter “b”, then “c” would not be needed. Therefore, the existence of “c” implies that simply carrying a weapon is not assault.
What evidence do you guys have for this?
Your noting is noted. I’m simply noting that the word “or” has, for the reasons I described, no relevance to either my argument or his dishonesty.
The “princess” thread and the sudden and conspicuous absence of both after being called out for posting under two usernames.
So you are suggesting an assault must include both b AND c?
Post 11, Troppus said:" I thought solosam would be the one lone nut etc"
I *think *this has been spun into the lone cashew jokes.
I could be wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.
No. See Anonymous User’s post for clarification.
I saw the “princess” thread by JohnClay. Yeah, I see what you guys mean; so, is anyone going to take this suspicious behavior to ATMB?
OT (Edited to add: and also now ninjaed by the question-asker) but what the hell.
Evidence for the prosecution:
Quoting this, ladyfoxfyre responds:
Quoting this, the lone cashew responds:
Both of these were the screenames’ only posts in the thread.
Circumstantial evidence may be that both their screennames refer to loneliness/solitude.
(Of course it’s hilarious that in that icky thread where ubercreep JohnClay admits to his 18-year-old self having solicited a porn-watching session with a 13-year-old girl for quite literally no reason whatsoever (the admitting, that is–I think we can guess at the reason for the would-be porn session), it’s the possible outing of a link between the lone cashew and solosam that might be more of a cause célèbre. 
I do love this place!)
Sorry, yes, it’s a sock accusation based on he JohnClay thread choie linked to.
You really relish your self-appointed role as hall monitor, don’t you?
It could very well be there to allow a difference between shoulder carrying a rifle, casually carrying a firearm without a holster or other benign carry vs. seeing someone enter an elevator, unholstering your weapon and holding it in a ready position.
I just thought that in such a stupid thread “my wife wants to be a princess”, when someone brought another topic into play and to that someone responded to that with “threadshit much?”, which of course is a bigger threadshit than the original threadshit, I just thought I would turn the cheap, transparent attempt to pick a fight, in into some nonsense humor. I knew the post was not directed at me, was just horsing around and this seemed as an appropriate time to horse around than any other.
It’s bizarre to now view this thread, see all the brilliant wheels turn, all the SD geniuses coming up with their own conspiracy theories concerning some kind of sock puppet issue.
LadyFoxFyre, since you brag and apparently get your rocks off with the identity you’ve created and nurtured of being some kind of self righteous asshole, “queen bean bitch” or whatever you claim to be, I am reluctant to reinforce your stigma.
But I am truly glad to see you have found a place here at this message board, a place that you can feel safe and protected from your outside/real world, a place to unleash your absolute shit personality… with prospect that perhaps your participation here will likely spare some of the people in your real life, the ones that actually have to deal with you - you worthless piece of shit of a human being - the full brunt of your personal stench.