 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." Não pode escrever mensagens neste fórum. O nível mínimo de inscrição para o fazer neste fórum é Nível Peão. Modo de acesso: Qualquer um pode escrever
5. Março 2009, 02:17:21  Take your pick. Most of your posts contain a  or two. 5. Março 2009, 02:34:15 Assunto: Re: Artful Dodger: A wicker man? The original flick (1974) is really pretty good. :o) 5. Março 2009, 02:38:36 Assunto: Re: The Usurper:Seriously you jest. 5. Março 2009, 02:40:04 Assunto: Re: Artful Dodger: I jest seriously. There's a difference. Just don't ask me to explain it. 5. Março 2009, 02:41:59 Assunto: Re: The Usurper:Next time I'll use this  so there's less confusion. 5. Março 2009, 03:02:50 Assunto: Re: Artful Dodger: I read your exchange below with (V) so wasn't really confused. But my response just seemed so appropriate...lol 5. Março 2009, 03:05:05 Assunto: Re: The Usurper: That's fine. I have fixed the problem with a new pic and and explanation. Just so there's no more confusion.  5. Março 2009, 03:45:37 Assunto: Re: Artful Dodger: Now I'm doubly confused. I'm afraid you'll have to put the two pics side by side and explain more fully. Preferably you'll back up your explanation with evidence & links to the source. I still believe those are Wicker Men! Just an aside....if the arguments are straw men, in what way are they so? Ought a picture really to be considered a thorough refutation? I mean, I know that works for O'Reilly & Hannity, but come on... :o) 5. Março 2009, 04:13:13 Assunto: Re: The Usurper: Clearly you know what a strawman is? If so, then you understand that there is no refutation required on my part. If someone refutes and argument I'm not making, all I need to do is point that out. If then, they insist that I am making that argument, I can ignore them. The onus is upon the other to show I have actually said what they say I've said. The smart thing of course, is to ask for clarification, instead of building a straw man and then blowing over. If I say, "I'm against gun control." and you say, "Oh. So you're in favor of criminals murdering innocent citizens then." you get one of these: Strawman Your argument didn't address my own, but nice try. no refutation is needed as your argument speaks for itself 5. Março 2009, 04:29:23 Assunto: Re: Artful Dodger: Actually, I must confess I wasn't following the argument to which your straw man was a reply. A bit befuddled & off-focus. I was mostly just teasing..... About MSNBC....you are correct. Likewise, Fox News is the Bush channel. 5. Março 2009, 04:32:53 Assunto: Re: The Usurper:I don't agree with your Fox analysis. I've seen Bush's policies smacked around plenty. O'Reilly routinely criticized his administration for the blunders in Iraq. |
Data e hora
Amigos online
Fóruns favoritos
Clubes
Dica do dia
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, todos os direitos reservados. Voltar para o topo |