Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
`Admitting` implies I wouldn`t ordinarily be as willing to acknowledge what other people think. Frankly people will think what they do and there`s no harm or personal weakness in stating what indeed they think.
"i was starting to think i might have just jumped to conclusions"
You are only now considering the notion you jumped to conclusions? How dense can one be?
"it appears your approach of corecting every single mistake made by said person infact might lead to a suicide attempt."
"in this respect i have to say hats of to your technique, annoy the hell out of someone by being such an anal bastard its unreal"
My `technique` isn`t to deliberately reply to whatever someone posts, although I find in order to practice my true technique I am having to reply to whatever someone posts.
also it`s not like i`m attacking you because of criticism, it`s called self defense. yeah generally people do attack an attacker, i mean are you retarded. do you expect people to just take your crap like a little bitch, it appears your approach of corecting every single mistake made by said person infact might lead to a suicide attempt. in this respect i have to say hats of to your technique, annoy the hell out of someone by being such an anal bastard its unreal
As do many people. It`s their way of coping with being criticized: attack the attacker.
So long as you acknowledge that and try not to behave otherwise (as in attempting to intelligently argue for evolution), I`m happy.
"Therefore why don`t we just say enough is enough and i was rite."
You mean `right`? In that case, no, you are still wrong. Heh.
"I don`t give a toss anymore, arguements are fun but not when you have someone getting so petty over stuff"
I don`t consider it petty, which (as it is may or may not have occurred to you yet) is why I continue.
"i mean intoxicated. seriously it`s not even like that does generally mean drunk..."
www.dictionary.com: 1. to affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, esp. to excite or stupefy with liquor.
Note the `esp.`.
as i say i find your level of correcting people petty and childish to say the least, but as i say i am sure will point out why everything i have just said is wrong and how yet again i have missinterpretted all your random crap.
P.S. I love ya really xxx
Now you can see me as the fool if you like i don`t really care, personally im looking at you but hey i think we allready differ on opinions.
I am never going to care about what you have to say to me, and by the sounds of things you are never going to except anything i have to say without rebutting ever single bloody point. Therefore why don`t we just say enough is enough and i was rite.
I know you won`t be able to resist the urge to jump in with, ` oh but wait you missunderstand yet again it`s not that i don`t except your points they are just so flawed and blah blah blah`
I don`t give a toss anymore, arguements are fun but not when you have someone getting so petty over stuff,
Forgive me (or not) for feeling an obligation to make sure you interpret everything I say exactly as I mean it. I feel that whatever issues you have with my tone are those you are manifesting on your own through misinterpretation. And no, thanks, I don`t consider that being a "pathetic little bich".
"however when someone is spewing the sort of self righteous crap you are then i think your not really worth taking anything from"
I`m not being self-righteous, I`m asking that you be less self-righteous and admit you overstepped the line.
"your orignal response to me could have been more along the lines of, `i can see your arguement happyshopper but perhaps a more structured arguement might have helped your case`"
Ha, nothing would have helped your case. The person wasn`t attacking evolution and you presumed they were. End of story.
Indeed it is a "pretty unfounded remark", which is maybe why *I didn`t make it*? Why are you so intent to shove words into my mouth, and then diligently misinterpret them? I didn`t say much of anything, admittedly, but what I meant was that it is irresponsible to run at the mouth while intoxicated and feel you cannot be held accountable for what you said whilst intoxicated. Not owning up to whatever behavior you exhibited whilst intoxicated *is* irresponsible. You still have yet to apologize.
It *is* unproven. There is *no definitive evidence* that says "Evolution is absolutely, irrevocably true." Any scientific theory, by default, is left unproven and is still subject to dismissal, however gradually, in the light of new contrary evidence. Theories, in spite of this, are still *accepted* as true whilst still not being `proven`. That is why evolution as a viable theory is still around. That is how science works. If you don`t take my word for it, research and look around. The search alone will likely yield some insights into science whether I`m wrong or not.
For the most part it does. I went with what your use of the word was most likely to be. Do you really blame me?
"...besides that is niether here nor there."
Then why the hell did you bring it up?
"...bottom line you think your so damn perfect that you should somehow be better then everyone else."
The correct impression you should be getting is that I`m concerned how your preemption and the likely inaccuracies in your statements reflect on the rest of us who are more reserved and considerate of those with whom we argue.
"You seem like the sort of little git that in school would point out that the teacher was actually wrong because lightning doesn`t actually strike down or some crap like that, it`s pathetic."
I don`t correct the teacher so much as ask why they present material in a fashion contrary to what I`ve learned elsewhere. Almost always I`ve received satisfactory answers.
You seem like the sort of little git that in school would point out that the teacher was actually wrong because lightning doesn`t actually strike down or some crap like that, it`s pathetic. sure lots of what i said wasn`t actually said but not far off. i mean yeah originally that guy didn`t say evolution was unproven, you did. now that just makes you look bad.
anybody can say what they like, and i mean abything. no matter how `boorish` my approach i can say what i want. By the way saying how irresponsible of me to drink, what are you on, there is nothing irresponsible about going to the pub and having a few beers really is there, a pretty unfounded remark to make really
Besides i dont really care what you think about all this because i fear your vocabulary is what you are basing your intelligence on rather then actually knowing anything of real worth
The person you originally responded to wasn`t even debating the merits of evolution but was rather expressing a preference for Einstein over Darwin, for whatever reason. It`s presumptuous of you to think that person rejected evolution and irresponsible for you to yet push that notion.
"you know nothing of my knowledge..."
I don`t, and incidentally that`s not what I have an issue with.
"did you perhaps think i may be intoxicated when i comment on here and therefore my responses may be rather blunt"
I did not, and I now see you are more irresponsible than at first I thought you were. Like I said I don`t especially give a sh*t what your intent was; I`m criticizing your judgment and boorish behavior. Absent a response from the original person you responded to, I think an apology on your part is in order for your general lack of judgment and the rudeness that arose because of it.
But I didn`t say that, did I? I said it reflects badly on the rest of us.
"...im pretty sure that people can still understand my spelling mistakes."
Indeed they may, but that doesn`t mean your argument is any more eloquent or articulated, or that people should be bothered to read your posts if you do not take the effort to make them presentable.
"i happen to be interested in science and therefore feel i have as much rite to say what i like in the same way as people have the rite to say evolution is wrong."
Sure you have the right to accuse someone of some bogus claim based off little evidence, but are you any better off than if you hadn`t said it at all? My objection towards your post stemmed from your attitude and behavior, not your interests or intent.
However i digress from the main point which is Overmann, sort it out. i`m sure you are a very smart person but you know nothing of my knowledge, besides did you perhaps think i may be intoxicated when i comment on here and therefore my responses may be rather blunt
i happen to be interested in science and therefore feel i have as much rite to say what i like in the same way as people have the rite to say evolution is wrong. besides we know that evolution does exist, since darwin highlighted the idea we have had generations upon generations to study the changes of species and have found that they do evolve. for instance there was a kind of moth that had to sub species one with white wings and one with brown wings, due to the change in the enivironments colour as an effect of nearby logging polution the brown moth became more dominant.
Except that creation has no supporting evidence and is therefore outrightly rejected. Evolution is not rejected because it does have supporting evidence. There`s no need to `disprove` that which has no evidence to begin with.
To be fair Darwin never strictly "proved" anything but rather demonstrated that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not easily rejected. Actual proofs fall under the camp of mathematics but not science as a whole.
In any case, this link reminds me of a former math instructor of mine who, if ever she decided to get a tattoo, would be of the epsilon-delta definition for the continuity of a function. If ever I decided to get a tattoo, for the time being I would consider the limit definition of a derivative (I may find more powerful formulas or definitions the further in math I go that I would opt for instead).
Cool tattoos, I liked the turtle since it was both artistic and symbolic, and the (pi^ei)+1=0 one because I had never made that connection before.
This board won`t let me do the scientific symbols, but I hope you get my meaning.
and what idiot gets a heart tattooed on thier arm??
`Darwin sucks... But yea for Einstein!!!`
what the hell, im guessing your the sort of retard that thinks that evolution is wrong, like gummywurmz said at elast he could prove his stuff, Einstein however couldnt really prove much of his theories, hence the theory part. allthough yeah it was Darwins `theory` of evolution he did back it up with an awful lot of facts, if you are one of the religious creationist anti darwin types then you base your concepts on a slightly outdated book. grow up
nerds are hot