gbaji wrote:
You kinda have to also apply some kind of logic/reason to those facts to draw a conclusion.
Just because you're too dumb to figure out what the reason behind those facts to draw a conclusion doesn't mean everyone ... or
anyone else is, sweety. I do apologize for not holding your hand and walking you down the path, though. See, you said you "posted a lot about Romney when he was still running." I kind of figured that the quote would have at least put you on the right hemisphere, but alas ... Anyway, I just pointed out that no, you did not "post a lot about Romney."
Ever.
gbaji wrote:
How do those numbers you just posted refute my claim that Romney was my preferred candidate back in the 2008 run?
Multitasking too hard, short stack? I didn't refute it. I just disproved your claim you posted a lot about Romney. So simply, even a you should be capable of following. Though, in your defense I guess if you try to obscure arguments you can use your "Argument A" on "Discussion B" and hope everyone else is stupid enough to get confused.
It must hurt you to know that you've picked the wrong place to try such infantile argumentative tactics. You're the only one stupid enough to fall for
that.
gbaji wrote:
Facts are useful if the facts refute something directly
You mean like if someone claims to have done something, but the facts don't back up that claim? Thanks, I'm glad you agree I was right, too.
Edited, Jan 31st 2012 3:55pm by lolgaxe