Results 31 to 34 of 34
Thread: Profiling
-
4th November 2010, 19:17 #31
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 3,189
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by glauistean
Ford survived the trashed economy quite well, of course to you that is non-sequitur, of course anything that does not agree with your baseless accusations is non-sequitur.
Obama pulls troops out of Iraq on -his- time-tables, but now HIS administration is worried about what Iran is doing concerning Iraq, the typical donkey chasing the carrot syndrome.
OK, now you can have another hissy-fit.
-
4th November 2010, 22:26 #32
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Posts
- 338
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
As for the "non-sequitor". Don't make me laugh. You I'm afraid have no idea of when it applies and more importantly what it means. If you read what I stated you would NEVER use it thus showing your ignorance.
Well done Bobby."Believers that socialism is a one aspect theory are deluded and do not comprehend it"
O'OC
-
5th November 2010, 06:12 #33
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Posts
- 3,189
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by glauistean
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
1
: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
You do seem to be fully immersed by number 2, as your trolling statements can be accurately described by it.
Please show me the accusation, if you would, especially how it relates to your rhetoric, after which you may return to your trolling hissy-fit.
-
5th November 2010, 06:47 #34
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Posts
- 338
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
As for the second part, where you try to ask a question pertaining to an accusation and in the middle of same you suggest it relates to my "rhetoric" is I would characterize as infantile.
When someone responds to a post and based within that post there is a cornucopia of information to address ,then, it is incumbent on you Bobby, to address the content.
You don't and you never do. You take a paragraph from a statement made through via the Senate in 2007 and try to refute the whole content by pointing out that "non-binding" in some form or fashion defeats the argument presented. If you can't understand the context of the statement that was made what is the point in me wasting my time on you just as your "teachers" obviously did?"Believers that socialism is a one aspect theory are deluded and do not comprehend it"
O'OC
formula e foruns talking more and more about a hyundai rumor. wec hyperclass also being talked around. could we lose factory team in wrc? they have this new costumer program so i think we could still...
WRC main class in 2025