Oh, for heaven's sake.

Flame » in reply to Another actual dictionary- not looking good for you, "Bunkie"...

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Mary Anne — 1/8/2007 2:28:55 PM (archived)

Please note that you are hanging your assertion on items 3 and 6 in the definition string. The farther down the line the definition is, the farther it is from common usage.

I can also use the word "pin" to refer to a firing pin or a move in wrestling, but if we're talking just generally, the word "pin" will be taken to mean the simple machine you use to attach one thing to another.

Please also note the prevalence of words that convey deliberate intent in the definition, all of which you avoid when you highlighted your preferred definitions. This deliberately falsifies the content of the entire definition by cherry-picking, that is, deception by omission.

You wish to make a case for being correct by losing the case for being reasonable. You will win the battle but lose the war.

The whole thread (109 posts)

Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism. - Johannes - 1/3/2007 4:02:47 AM
- re: Symptoms of Pathological Behaviour (n/t) - Take two - 1/10/2007 12:04:26 AM
  - AGAIN-what would you do about it? - R.L. - 1/10/2007 3:04:15 AM
- Just for the record: - Hank - 1/9/2007 1:35:49 PM
  - Yes; and the imposter is Lindy - Robert Shepherd - 1/9/2007 5:35:06 PM
    - re: Yes; and the imposter is ........... - Lindy - 1/9/2007 9:42:07 PM
      - Who's who? - Jasper Sitwell - 1/10/2007 4:34:12 AM
        
        Chester...is that you? (n/t) - P. Rock - 1/10/2007 5:17:00 AM
      - Reluctantly.... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 9:57:20 PM
        
        You really think Lindy is a... - alcaray - 1/9/2007 10:24:54 PM
        
        See below- her post proves it... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:31:00 PM
        
        Come on, alcary - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:54:53 PM
        
        As the one who immediately said: "don't worry about it" when you published info about my identity... - alcaray - 1/9/2007 11:32:54 PM
        
        Don't be such a dunce - Lindy - 1/9/2007 10:01:55 PM
        
        I thought it was Hank. It wasn't. Not cool. - podrock - 1/10/2007 3:04:01 AM
        
        Let us examine this.... - ReaLy disgusted - 1/9/2007 11:42:13 PM
        
        I was willing to give you the benifit of the doubt - DISGUSTED R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:29:26 PM
        
        It seems the "ubermoderator" defends this... - double standards - 1/10/2007 2:47:32 AM
        
        You have lost your mind.... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:06:53 PM
    - "what would you do about it?" - R.L. - 1/9/2007 7:37:58 PM
      - re:A pleasant reply, in which I do not use the word MORON (aside from the title) - R.L. - (n/t) - Johannes - 1/9/2007 9:14:37 PM
        
        This makes sense in what way? (n/t) - R.L. - 1/9/2007 9:20:09 PM
        
        re:Does your ranting and raving here make any sense? (n/t) - Johannes - 1/10/2007 5:42:55 AM
      - re: "what would you do about it?" - gbaikie - 1/9/2007 9:05:23 PM
- No... - R.L. - 1/3/2007 10:03:55 PM
  - re: What do you consider as "irrefuteable evidence"? (n/t) - Johannes - 1/4/2007 12:21:25 AM
    - Evidence that does not have a more logical explaination, evidence that PROVES the claim... - R.L. - 1/4/2007 12:26:05 AM
      - re: How do you know that all these people are lunatics. - Johannes - 1/5/2007 3:15:17 AM
        
        re: How do you know that all these people are lunatics. - R.L. - 1/6/2007 8:43:05 PM
        
        re: IF you were a scientist - Johannes - 1/7/2007 10:49:20 PM
  - Wow! - alcaray - 1/3/2007 10:08:55 PM
- In Defense of Pathological Skepticism. - Hank - 1/3/2007 2:33:16 PM
  - That's not "pathological" skepticism - Robert - 1/3/2007 6:56:46 PM
    - Hoagland, the one thing you can't say about him is that he doesn't Believe. - RL - 1/3/2007 11:12:16 PM
      - "Semantic"? - Robert - 1/4/2007 1:49:01 AM
        
        'Argument by dictonary definition' isn't an argument - Yeti - 1/8/2007 7:08:57 PM
        
        "And there, bunkie, I got ya: My definition of "lie" can be found in a dictionary. Where in the universe did you get yours?"..... Does the Mirriam-Webster dictionary count? You will, of course apolog… - R.L. - 1/8/2007 2:47:54 AM
        
        BTW - Robert - 1/8/2007 6:10:26 PM
        
        Robert, admit it... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 9:11:58 AM
        
        Listen to the Yeti - Robert - 1/9/2007 6:20:01 PM
        
        Don't come tapping me on this - Yeti - 1/9/2007 6:33:45 PM
        
        What? - Robert - 1/9/2007 7:37:00 PM
        
        Yeah, Okay, yer right - Yeti - 1/9/2007 8:09:40 PM
        
        The moving hand, having writ, moves on... (n/t) - Robert - 1/9/2007 9:29:55 PM
        
        re: The moving hand better do something - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:37:34 PM
        
        re: Don't come tapping me on this - Paul - 1/9/2007 7:05:31 PM
        
        oooookay, 'Paul' - Yeti - 1/9/2007 7:15:51 PM
        
        [deleted message] - Robert Shepherd - 1/9/2007 9:28:30 PM
        
        You might want to check out 'community' - ReaLly wondering - 1/9/2007 8:58:13 PM
        
        Attention Robert S, moderator: Cleanup on isle 'Flame' requested. - Yeti - 1/9/2007 8:12:40 PM
        
        re: Robert, admit it... - Yeti - 1/9/2007 4:32:20 PM
        
        re: Robert, admit it... - Paul - 1/9/2007 1:53:20 PM
        
        What a loon - Robert - 1/8/2007 6:07:11 PM
        
        OED online costs too much.... - R.L. - 1/8/2007 3:36:25 AM
        
        Another actual dictionary- not looking good for you, "Bunkie"... - R.L. - 1/8/2007 3:14:05 AM
        
        Oh, for heaven's sake. - Mary Anne - 1/8/2007 2:28:55 PM
        
        Merriam-Webster's dictionary (n/t) - R.L. - 1/8/2007 2:54:35 AM
        
        Here is the link, "bunkie" - R.L. - 1/8/2007 2:51:10 AM
        
        Symptoms of Pathological Behavior (n/t) - Hank - 1/8/2007 3:47:37 AM
        
        Shame on you. - Friend of Hank's - 1/9/2007 2:19:44 AM
        
        Correction: - Friend of Hank - 1/9/2007 2:22:40 AM
        
        Yes, Damn it.... - R.L. - 1/4/2007 5:55:16 AM
        
        Nope - Robert - 1/4/2007 4:26:17 PM
        
        re: Nope - R.L. - 1/6/2007 8:25:34 PM
        
        Maybe "chronic gullibility" is the term we're looking for. - TB - 1/4/2007 11:50:49 PM
        
        I know you did not... - alcaray - 1/5/2007 8:29:07 PM
        
        Don't assume all statements are reversible. - TB - 1/6/2007 6:38:23 AM
        
        Love to see your statistics on that assertion. (n/t) - alcaray - 1/6/2007 7:38:33 AM
        
        re: I know you did not... - gbaikie - 1/6/2007 3:07:48 AM
        
        or vice-versa. (n/t) - podrock - 1/5/2007 5:05:15 AM
    - On the other hand... - TB - 1/3/2007 7:01:54 PM
      - Interesting question - Robert - 1/4/2007 1:24:13 AM
  - re: Perhaps you are not a PATHOLOGICAL skeptic. - Johannes - 1/3/2007 4:32:29 PM
    - Easter has been cancelled this year. They found the body. - Hank - 1/3/2007 6:26:25 PM
      - re: Perhaps I was wrong. - Johannes - 1/4/2007 12:15:08 AM
        
        No, I don't concede that. - Hank - 1/4/2007 2:14:57 PM
        
        re: You said: - Johannes - 1/5/2007 2:49:10 AM
        
        Unwilling suspension of belief - Hank - 1/5/2007 1:51:20 PM
        
        re: That is a good and rational post, except for - Johannes - 1/6/2007 12:45:00 AM
        
        re: Unwilling suspension of belief - Lindy - 1/5/2007 5:55:50 PM
        
        Anecdotal evidence - ER - 1/5/2007 11:27:46 PM
        
        re: Anecdotal evidence - Lindy - 1/6/2007 2:19:22 AM
        
        re: Unwilling suspension of belief - McFly - 1/5/2007 7:02:24 PM
        
        C'mon McFly - Lindy - 1/6/2007 2:28:50 AM
        
        My bad - McFly - 1/6/2007 8:11:32 PM
        
        "The evidence we do have of UFOs is all unverifiable, from unqualified witnesses" - Lindy - 1/4/2007 4:23:17 PM
        
        re: "Do you concede that UFO's don't necessarily violate any known physical laws?" - alcaray - 1/4/2007 1:02:19 AM
        
        re: You say that..... - Johannes - 1/4/2007 6:37:50 AM
        
        I said nothing of the kind. - alcaray - 1/4/2007 4:30:06 PM
        
        re: The question was... - Johannes - 1/4/2007 10:50:28 PM
        
        You need to read the sentence after "Well of course they do!" as well. (n/t) - alcaray - 1/5/2007 12:16:12 AM
        
        And now that I think of it, go back and read what I said about hovering again. - alcaray - 1/4/2007 4:34:20 PM
        
        re:It seems obvious that you misunderstand me totally. - Johannes - 1/5/2007 1:18:01 AM
        
        Where I stand on UFOs (rec room, usually), and 2 !great! links - alcaray - 1/5/2007 8:09:16 PM
        
        Did you read Professor Lilienfeld's piece that I linked to? - alcaray - 1/6/2007 12:07:03 AM
        
        re: I found it interesting - Johannes - 1/6/2007 5:28:01 AM
        
        Yes, a little more than half - Lindy - 1/6/2007 12:31:28 AM
        
        re: Hey Lindy I need your advice - Johannes - 1/6/2007 1:57:33 AM
        
        Your question - Lindy - 1/6/2007 2:02:42 AM
        
        re: Why ask you? - Johannes - 1/6/2007 4:22:39 AM
        
        Of course it's always good to quote a skeptic when you're trying to prove your point - Lindy - 1/5/2007 10:35:37 PM
- The burden of proof is, as it has always been, on the most extraordinary claims. (n/t) - TB - 1/3/2007 5:33:47 AM
  - Results of the CNN polls - And so it begins - 1/3/2007 3:39:28 PM
    - Sorry, reality is NOT a democracy - R.L. - 1/3/2007 10:14:23 PM
    - Tom spoke of proof. Your response was about public opinion. - alcaray - 1/3/2007 6:06:10 PM
      - Play-doughs proof of God - Yeterator - 1/3/2007 10:35:46 PM
        
        An interesting idea - TB - 1/4/2007 3:44:40 AM
        
        It's a well-loved fictional device - alcaray - 1/4/2007 6:26:59 PM
        
        Which presumes - Fox - 2/5/2007 3:18:20 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Flame

The whole thread (109 posts)