Lies more lies and Trollish behaviour

The title of this thread is taken from the private title posted by Giftedone in a thread that was recently closed. That closing was effected prior to me having a chance to allow Giftedone to respond to a challenge to his posting. His posting follows and the link to that posting is: http://www.politicalforum.com/1060822798-post315.html

I am doing a direct copy and paste of that post without any modifications of the text or html that is involved in that thread:

"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incorporeal View Post
Another lie. I have never said that the freezing point of water is arbitrary. I stated that the numbers on the various scales used to measure that freezing point are arbitrary. If you are going to be making false claims, at least display the intellectual capacity to get the facts straight. No-one on this forum has yet proven that those numbers are NOT arbitrary. So quit printing lies.
I laugh in your general direction .. You claimed numerous times that because the numbers on the scale are arbitrary the freezing point of water was arbitrary.

Then upon seeing that you were wrong you tried to switch sides and claimed that I was claiming the freezing point of water was arbitrary.

Not one lie .. but two !!

The first lie:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incorporeal View Post
The freezing point is arbitrary when it is stated that the freezing point is 32 F and 0 C.... Arbitrary because of the arbitrary numbers. Don't you understand what you are writing?
Indeed you did claim that the freezing pont of water is arbitrary.

Then in the next quote, after I had proven you wrong, you change your tune and start accusing me of your folly. The second lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incorporeal View Post
I claim that use of a standard does not make the freezing point of water arbitrary. (because the freezing point is independent of the standard)

You were the one claiming that use of a standard makes the freezing point arbitrary. This is not true because the freezing point is independent of the standard used.
Here we see me trying patiently to get across why the freezing pont of water is independent of the scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giftedone View Post
Indeed the numbers were chosen completely at random so why would I try to prove otherwise ?

Perhaps you are unclear on what the meaning of " under equivalent experimental conditions" means.

This means that you must use the same measurement scale when repeating the experiment.

Regardless of the measurment scale chosen, as long as you conduct the experiment using the same measurment scale as in the previous experiment you will achieve the same result for the freezing point of water.

The fact that the numbers on the scale were chosen randomly does not affect the ability to produce repeatable results by independent observers.

Using the same scale, and the same experimental conditions, the freezing point of water will always be the same.

It is not arbitrary.
You show no understanding of what I say but repeat your claim that the freezing point of water is arbitary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incorporeal View Post
It is quite arbitrary when you have already admitted to the 'random' nature of the selection of numbers to be used on those scales.
Again here is me trying to bring you up to speed .. clearly I am claiming the freezing point of water is not arbitrary. Yet you lie your face off in the end (quote #3) by stating that it was I who was claiming that the freezing point of water was not arbitrary. Liar Liar pants on fire !!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Giftedone View Post
I certainly have no contention with the dictionary definition of "fact".

It is a fact due to information based on real occurrences that the freezing point of water is not arbitrary or subjective.

Water, when subjected to freezing under equivalent experimental conditions, by independent observers yeilds a non arbitrary result.
To my completely logical post you respond with rubbish still trying to maintain your claim that the freezing point of water is subjective/arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incorporeal View Post
Then PROVE that the numbers on the thermometer (in their original use) were not chosen as random numbers, or based on no facts pertaining to the freezing point of water.

Until you can prove that those numbers were not subjectively chosen, then your argument amounts to nothing to but harassment and if you continue that argument without providing any substantial PROOF, then you will be reported for further harassment and obfuscation of this thread.
Busted
Last edited by Giftedone; Today at 03:53 PM. "

My challenge is for Giftedone to PROVE the alleged 'lies' that he has asserted. Because he is calling my writings to be lies, he is in effect calling me a 'liar' which is a violation of the TOS.

 

i still don’t get why you claim all beings that are conceived of are real and that fictional characters can’t exist as fiction
Now saying you know god doesn’t exist because you know he doesn’t exist or that you know god doesn’t exist because you have not found a trace of it seems dumb and like bad thinking
But it doesn’t seem inconsistent with itself

 

The freezing point of water will be less at high altitude and low pressure. But this effect is small.

 

That depends on whether the change in pressure is small.

 

the OP fits the op

 

this thread dont meet any criteria of religion either

 

What is arbitrary here is the employment of what has latterly become known as the "numerology tactic", i.e., to say that scales by which to describe measurements such as pressure and temperature - and atom numbers - are arbitrary. A scale is not arbitrary when it is well defined to suit a measurement. On the contrary.

 

I wouldn't say that, seeing that the excercise consists of reinforcing a poster's faith through the self-inculcation that the endeavors of man are more arbitrary than the arbitrariness of his adherence to an absolute truth.

 

It isn't. Its just another atheist refusing to acknowledge context.

Indeed, flowing water freezes at a lower freezing poing, as does salt water - which is why we use salt on our streets during the winter.

Yet someone pointing these everday realities out is doing it JUST to bugger atheists, who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge a simple point.

 

This thread is the equivalent of watching water freeze.....

 

This thread is amusing.

 

You know there is a specific rule about what is called metaposting.

Which is funny, considering that the documentation of atheist abuses results in blown stacks.

http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-help-feedback-etc/219610-how-far-can-we-divert-debates.html

SO tell us atheists, why should we not view this kind of behavior, this chronic flame baiting and smug denial as anything other than standard trolling?

And the better question? Why do SO many atheists think this kind of metaposting BS is what should pass for an actual discussion?

Seems the only goal of far too many atheists is to provolk a rise out of people and then sit back and act derisive - their own temper tantrums leading to the confrontation forgotten about.

 

Just to clear the air on this issue at this time: The thread speaks about one of the ten Commandments... Thou shalt not bear false witness...

 

This thread is like hot greasy foods that tear up the insides while going through the system.

 

The following extract from the TOS, IMHO, will apply to a few other postings within this thread as well as the one quoted above.

"14. Off Topic Posts, Trolling, Metaposts and Thread Disruption: While a certain amount of natural ‘topic drift’, particularly on longer threads, is inevitable the golden rule is IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC, DON’T POST IN THE THREAD! Posts which are ‘Off Topic’ posts, 'Trolling' posts, ‘Metaposts’ (e.g. ‘This thread is rubbish’ or ‘Fail Thread’), or chronically pointless posts (e.g. multiple posts with the same meaning, posts using excessive amounts of blank space, irrelevant or oversized text, etc.) may be deleted without notice. Chronic violations of this rule that in the opinion of the moderators would lead to thread destruction, disruption or derailment of the thread can result in warnings, infractions, thread bans and/or eventual banning from Political Forum. "

 

The following extract from the TOS, which will (IMHO) apply to the title and first post of this thread:

Calling out another memember in the first post of a thread with the title of "Lies more lies and Trollish behaviour" is hardly 'respectful' debate. Perhaps the OP should understand the TOS before reciting it.

 

Funny, neither is telling someone that they should seek help. Doesn't stop you atheists from selectively quoting the 'standard' when confronted on your behavior though does it?

If you wish 'respectful' debate, it would be nice to see you engage in it even once.

After all, you atheists are consatly lecturing us about what wonderful and honest people you are - so perhaps instead of playing games you could conceed a point?

I doubt it.

 

Perhaps the originator of that title should have considered the same thing before it was posted as a title to a posting of his own.

 

Right back at ya

PS: A good start might be having atleast ONE post that doesn't mention atheists

 

Funny, you are the originator of this thread. It seems like you should take your own advice.

 

Is the subject of atheism off limits in the religion section?

Man, you guys wil lmake up just about anything won't you?

Notice how you skipped out on everything else in the post ... as is your want ... which, generally paints of picture deliberate pevishness rather than an attempt to engage in respectful debate.

And of course, that is YOUR standard, correct? BY all means, I would certainly appreciate a civil, thoughful, post from you on why it is so terribly difficult to discuss atheism in this forum without atheists feeling like thay are being attacked by the criminally insane?

Seems down right uncivil does it not? So what gives?

 

Yeppir I am the author of the opening of this thread. Did you even read the very first sentence of this thread? Here, let me repeat that first sentence:
"The title of this thread is taken from the private title posted by Giftedone in a thread that was recently closed."

So, if you have a problem with the title, then take it up with the author who coined the title.

It really seems that you should take your own advice.

 

Absolutely not. However, you have no understanding what atheism is.

Also, no matter the thread, you turn each and ever post into an attack on atheists.

I can put up a thread on a dog saving a child’s life, and you would post some BS like:

"That dog is clearly not atheist. Atheists have no morals and would never save that child" or something stupid knocking atheists. Ive seen this time and time again from you. This is hardly respectfull debate.

Make what up? This is exaclty what I am talking about...Who is 'you guys'?

No one else is bringing TOS but the OP. Find me others who did. I'll be waiting.

**YOU** are the reason one cannot discuss atheism in a civil manor. Not I.
**YOU** are the one who simply cannot grasp, that atheism is nothing more than a lack of a belief in any and all dieties.

BY the way, thank you for proving my point on what I said about no matter the thread, **YOU** will bring up atheism. “Lies more lies and Trollish behaviour” <--- this has what to do with atheism?

 

Does anybody know why Neutral hasn't been banned for his trolling by now?

And is anybody else sick of him turning any thread into a rant about atheists and how all atheists are evil and his utter absolute obsession with them?

I know I am.

He complains about not being able to have a civil discussion, but that's his own (*)(*)(*)(*)ed fault for his trolling and bag of dirty tricks.

He should be thankful I'm not a mod. I would've banned him. I see right through his lies and obfuscations.

Not everything has to do with atheism, and atheists are not evil people nor do they do anything he claims they do.

 

Nope, I didn't. No need to.

I am just showing the hypocrisy of showing TOS violations, when this thread that you created is a TOS violation to begin with.