How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

ccbatson · December-08-09, 09:10 PM

Not even going to give it an effort, are you Stosh?

Stosh · December-08-09, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Not even going to give it an effort, are you Stosh?

I'm mailing it in. You aren't worth the effort. ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ !

Lorax · December-08-09, 10:07 PM

Stosh, how'd we determine that Batts is Chinese? Curious.

Someone saw his IP address?

Interesting.

**rb336** · December-09-09, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Problem is..I don't do that, and you just did. Here is a hint, if you are going to make an allegation, it is best to do it in a timely fashion as I did...following the occurrence. That way you have proof. On the other hand, your "I am rubber, you are glue" approach is not very effective.

ok, bats, time to pony up here. when have you ever substantiated anything with credible FACTS? [[Guess what? a piece of trip that contains a bunch of non-substantiated claims and a bunch of thoroughly discredited ones [[like that Horner swill you keep pushing) is not substantiation, since it contains no facts that can be scientifically substantiated, and, in fact, contain many statements that can be [[and have been in previous posts of mine and others) thoroughly discredited by science.

oh. right. you don't believe in facts, just your sociopathic dogma

**elganned** · December-09-09, 10:24 AM

Cc believes in Universal and Eternal "axioms": A is A, existents exist, I am right.
All else is dross.

**Pam** · December-09-09, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Stosh, how'd we determine that Batts is Chinese? Curious.

Someone saw his IP address?

Interesting.

See the pizza thread.

ccbatson · December-09-09, 09:16 PM

Facts and logical reasoning Rb, sometimes one, sometimes the other...not just facts. On a discussion forum or a debate, primary evidence is not available, you must rely on compelling arguments...there is your error.

Stosh · December-09-09, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Facts and logical reasoning Rb, sometimes one, sometimes the other...not just facts. On a discussion forum or a debate, primary evidence is not available, you must rely on compelling arguments...there is your error.

I'll go one further, it's a Taiwanese address, huh CC?

**rb336** · December-10-09, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Facts and logical reasoning Rb, sometimes one, sometimes the other...not just facts. On a discussion forum or a debate, primary evidence is not available, you must rely on compelling arguments...there is your error.

bats, I asked you for one time when you have done so. It looks like you can't even do that.

ccbatson · December-11-09, 05:04 PM

LOL..the very example you quoted is an example of a string of compelling arguments from me....shot yourself in the foot again Rb.

Stosh · December-12-09, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Facts and logical reasoning Rb, sometimes one, sometimes the other...not just facts. On a discussion forum or a debate, primary evidence is not available, you must rely on compelling arguments...there is your error.

False statement. Primary evidence is ALWAYS available. It's just that you choose to ignore it, or change the subject.

ccbatson · December-12-09, 10:32 PM

Somewhat agreed...in philosophy and logic, the primary evidence is reality by observation...also known as axioms, truisms, or absolutes. Customarily however, these are so evident that most would not recognize them, or consider them as evidence.

Examples boil down to the primary axiom that existents exist...and the sanctity of an individual's right of ownership of his own thoughts.

Stosh · December-12-09, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Somewhat agreed...in philosophy and logic, the primary evidence is reality by observation...also known as axioms, truisms, or absolutes. Customarily however, these are so evident that most would not recognize them, or consider them as evidence.

Examples boil down to the primary axiom that existents exist...and the sanctity of an individual's right of ownership of his own thoughts.

Fine. Things exist, reality is by observation. So that means that by examining the evidence then it must be true?

Try this then.

AP verdict: Climate emails show science not faked, but not pretty either

http://freep.com/article/20091212/NE...-pretty-either

ccbatson · December-12-09, 10:39 PM

See my response on the other thread...the AP, Al Gore, and consensus have nothing to do with science. Flimsy attempt is being to kind...faked to be sure, and with no credibility. Even before this development, the whole thing was clearly a hoax...witness the hockey stick debunking which is the heart of the deception.

Stosh · December-12-09, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

See my response on the other thread...the AP, Al Gore, and consensus have nothing to do with science. Flimsy attempt is being to kind...faked to be sure, and with no credibility. Even before this development, the whole thing was clearly a hoax...witness the hockey stick debunking which is the heart of the deception.

Lies originated by the thieves of the e-mails themselves. Prosecution should follow.

ccbatson · December-12-09, 10:47 PM

Thieves? British freedom of information act my friend...just because Al Gore throws out a false allegation, doesn't make it so. No prosecution [[successful) will follow.

Even if it were stolen, does that make the crimes of the alarmists any less egregious? Should the saps that fell for the hoax be any less angry, and feel any less embarrassed at their gullibility?