View Single Post
  #194 (permalink)  
Old 12-29-2007, 06:48 PM
nonsqtr nonsqtr is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Burbank CA
Posts: 6,049
nonsqtr has disabled reputation
Credits: 59,049
Angry ..

Quote:
Originally Posted by glitch View Post
I've gotta totally agree with Blade on this one. You don't make up your own definition of terms on a board and then expect everyone to use your definitions. That would be the ultimate in pretentious stupidity. You use the dictionairy definition - period.
Glitch, you're a fool with that attitude, buddy.

That's what I've been trying to tell you, friend.

You're just being stupid assailing me with that "orthodoxy" crap.

I'm tellin' ya bud - listen very carefully now -

==> your model doesn't work.

Your "orthodox" model, is incorrect - invalid - non-operational.

If you're sittin' there tellin' me it's the "natural order of things", I'm gonna come right and tell you: "BS, and I can prove it".

So don't sit there and feed me any of that "orthodoxy' BS.

You come to the table with evidence, or don't bother coming at all.

And specifically, keep your stinkin' morality out of the world of science.

We don't like conjecture and arbitrariness.

We like evidence, and things that are real, and that work.

(*)(*)(*)(*) moralists..... they're gonna be the death of mankind.

Moralists are dangerous people.

And here, you have direct evidence.

Glitch is trying to tell me I'm supposed to be restricting my behavior on the basis of a LIE.

He's got no evidence - nothing to back it up - and he's gonna sit there and try to coerce my behavior over some idiotic moral standard.

Case in point? You bet!

Last edited by nonsqtr; 12-29-2007 at 06:51 PM.
Reply With Quote