The fact that you believe that says a whole lot about you.
Because apparently he believes that if a story is outrageous, it becomes more plausible the more outrageous it gets.
If I win the lottery (highly unlikely) is it more or less likely that a relative would die, leaving me a large inheritance, Elizabeth Banks would bump into me at the mall and fall madly in love, and my terminal cancer go into spontaneous remission, all on the same day?
He doesn’t believe that. You just want him to believe that.
You can’t see that winning the lottery is more likely than all of those other things happening on the same day? There’s the problem.
Hell, I’ve heard less absurd stores which weren’t true.
OK. I don’t know if he believes it or not, but he said it.
Of course I can. But winning the lottery *and *all of those other things happening on the same day is much less likely than winning the lottery alone. Being in a highly unlikely category doesn’t mean that other highly unlikely things suddenly become more likely.
I have no dog in this hunt, as I haven’t read the other thread. So, I’m not basing my opinion on whether I think cosmosdan’s story is true.
What cosmosdan seems to be saying is:
- My story may or may not be true but that’s not the point I was making.
- I only posted a short version of the story and left out some details. If you knew those details, you wouldn’t call bullshit on me.
- My friend told me this story, and I completely believe him, even though I realize he could have been exaggerating because of a personality quirk.
- It could be that some of the people involved in the story could have misrepresented the truth, but that’s not my fault.
- I can’t verify the story because it’s too much effort, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.
- You people were impolite for using such cross language with me, so you can’t challenge my sincerity.
Based on this, I’m of the opinion that comsmosdan is humiliated that he got called out in a lie and is doing everything he can to divert attention from it. It’s like his pants fell and he’s berating everybody for noticing it. He makes the assumption that if he yells enough, people will realize their error in judgment and believe him. While not admitting to the lie, he’s certainly circling around it and brushing it with a very light touch, hoping that it will be enough to get the skeptics off his back.
I’ve already covered this in the other thread. You’re simultaneously assuming my story is BS based on very sparse details while claiming as factual a teenager was laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood. Can you establish that as fact? I’ve read it a lot from posters who seem to decide what is factual based on personal preference rather than evidence, but haven’t seen clear evidence.
Let’s say the wounded perp was trying to get up but there was no gun in sight. Is a untrained civilian required to wait until he sees a weapon before he responds? We can’t judge a partially disabled druggist with the same guidelines as a police officer.
The point was much more general and easy to understand. A wounded criminal can still be dangerous. It takes very little imagination to grasp that obvious point.
C’mon! You were comparing winning the lottery against the other things combined.
That isn’t an understandable response. In fact it’s quite bizarre coming from a friend. He leaves you with your credibility in tatters when all he has to do is give a few verifiable facts?
That’s some friend you have there.
At the very least the bit about “fully automatic” gunfire is bullshit. The bad guys only have full auto weapons in the movies. Any crime involving honest-to-god SMGs would be national news, and would be cited by gun control advocates over and over and over and over and over again. But in reality, anti-control advocates repeat the “almost no crimes involve automatic weapons” point repeatedly.
So either the whole story is BS, or at least that one aspect is exaggerated for effect. Either way, not adding to the story’s credibility.
I liken this situation to an incident we had back in '57. Dude walks into the local bar (this was in Rutherford, NM) and tells us that he just shot Hitler for trying to steal his motorcycle. The guy is obviously wasted on peyote (still had the feathered headdress on), but we go outside to check. No Hitler, but there was Stalin. He was getting ready to rape the dude’s bike, even though he was bleeding from the hole in his lung. So we picked up our BARs and opened fire for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
It wasn’t until a few seconds later, when the firing stopped, that we realized our mistake. It wasn’t Stalin. No, it was worse. It was the Chupacabra. Fucker shrugged off our bullets like nerf darts and went after Injun Joe. But ol’ Joe was quick and managed to get his knife out in time, and he was an old hand at killing grizzlies in hand-to-hand combat from his time spent prospecting for alien artifacts up in the Bitterroot range in the thirties. Chupacabra ain’t got much on a grizzly, and 'fore long it gave up the fight and ran off, though without a couple of claws on one arm. Joe strung 'em up on his necklace right next to the bear claws.
Now, I don’t take no cotton to you naysayers. Chupacabra Stalin was a motocycle rapist, even after he was shot, and regardless of what you think about chupacabra, I’ll be a boar’s teat if you can deny that the story lends credence to my point that Chupacabra was in a few off-broadway musicals. Where the fuck else would he learn to disguise himself as Stalin? So stop your pinko commie thread hijacks, lest you end up like those Chinese river pirates we fought right before the big deuce…
Dipshit, it takes one click on the “replies” column to know who posted and how many times. Since I’d noticed a cascade of posts by you when I read that thread, I thought it curious you’d label others as “invested” in the matter, when, as proven, you are the one whose going bonkers posting to it.
To keep it simple: I was calling you on your bullshit. Capice?
Apparently, every time he opens his mouth. This is just his latest bullshit:
** Underlining mine, made-up bullshit all his.
Some facts about past mental problems and possible spousal abuse are also coming out:
Mental state may play into Oklahoma pharmacist’s case
Well, yupee kayhay motherfucker!! You are all ready to drop through a skylight and punish the bad guys!
If I needed his support in anything somewhat important I know he’d make the effort. Nameless strangers on a discussion board don’t qualify.
That’s interesting. I assume you had sufficient details to find it.
Dipshit, he said “Was it more or less unlikely that all those things would happen on the same day” he won the lottery. Read for comprehension, if that’s possible.
That’s yippee kiyay, motherfucker.
As I mentioned in the other thread, that doesn’t prove he was lying. That’s merely him recounting what he thinks happened in the heat of battle. He doesn’t have to lie about shooting first. It’s not breaking any law and it’s what you do to win a gun battle. Being hit by his own casings may have caused him to think he was grazed by a bullet.
The simple point made is relevant even if it’s anecdotal and or an imagined scenario. I preferred to discuss the point which was relevant to the thread rather than hijack that thread with an off topic argument about whether my story was factual or not.
I wasn’t giving statistical evidence or claiming my story proved anything. It’s merely an example of a point,that I happen to believe is mainly true. It doesn’t matter if others doubt it. The point made was the issue.
That’s the story I remember! There were these dogs that parachuted into a Howard Johnson’s through a skylight! The employees had guns but chose not to use them, and the dogs ate them, plus a lot of the food!
It was on Forensic Files. Or Most Shocking. Or maybe a FOAF told me, I forget.
Something that weird is bound to be the truth. No one would make that stuff up.
Here’s what he said:
If I win the lottery (highly unlikely) is it more or less likely that a relative would die, leaving me a large inheritance, Elizabeth Banks would bump into me at the mall and fall madly in love, and my terminal cancer go into spontaneous remission, all on the same day?
More or less likely implies comparing two different scenarios.
Contrapuntal already agreed to my catch and restated what he meant.
Sheesh wasted your free education huh, moron?
Don’t worry everyone, I can solve this deadlock lickety-split.
You see, just the other day I was talking to my cousin, and he got to telling me about a friend of his who works at a puppy store. Now, this friend was at the puppy store one day, and a puppynapper broke in through the ventilation shafts (which were in turn connected to the sewer system, through a particularly unique happenstance we won’t go into here). The puppynapper had a bazooka, and demanded that all the puppies in the store be put into his magic bag, where they would be whisked away to the Land of Killstonia, there to endure a lifetime of hardship and toil at the hands of the puppynapper’s employers, a sentient race of lintballs known only as The Collective.
Now, my cousin’s friend wasn’t about to take this sitting down, so he stood up from his stool and proceeded to shoot the puppynapper in the knees with an experimental ray gun he was building (he’s an inventor as well, he is). His lower legs obliterated, the puppynapper fell to the floor, crying in pain.
Now, here’s where things get relevant. My cousin’s friend was going to go in for the kill, but pity stayed his hand. And a good thing it did, because guess what! The shock of hitting the floor was just enough to dislodge the Controller Chip from the puppynapper’s brain, freeing him from The Collective’s control, and allowing him to leave his puppynapping ways behind him. He stood up as best as he could on his crippled, shinless stubs, shook my cousin’s friend’s hand and thanked him profusely. Then he pulled an infinite amount of hamburgers from his Magic Sack, and they dined as unto the kings of old.
And that’s my story. My cousin’s pretty trustworthy, so I think it should easily enter into the discourse as proof of why NOT finishing off an injured robber is the best tact. And, really, does it even matter that it’s true? In today’s helter-skelter modern world, what really matters is that it COULD have happened.
Also, you can’t look it up on Google, because it happened in the People’s Republic of the Congo. In 1860.
There. You see? I have matched cosmodan, plausible anecdote for plausible anecdote. The two opposing points can now cancel out, and the debate can be carried on on more relevant, fact-based terms.
Care to show how you established I assumed that? I didn’t. This is one more example of you reaching bogus conclusions with insufficient evidence. That’s the kind of faulty reasoning I’m talking about.