Comments
72,501 - 72,520 of 95,538 Comments Last updated 38 min ago

“Stop Whining, "Tea Partiers”

Since: Sep 09

You wanted SMALLER government!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76956
Feb 20, 2013
 
TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
You boast about nonexistent victories in nonexistent battles, and you do so for a valid reason—you're a simpleton. You're like the RB's in the NFL who never play a down in between the 20's, yet who come in at the last moment and score a two yard touchdown while the one who did the work gets a breather—you're a Poacher.
Yet truthfully, I see you more as a 'maggot', who feasts upon the dead, produces nothing but excrement and waste, and then spends a lifetime boasting about the meal as if you killed it yourself. You have never had an original thought or concept in your life because you're just a dullard. A follower. A maggot.
Keep wanking little man. You're impotent.
Have you ever considered writing short stories for your local weekly newspaper?

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76958
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Pascal's Wager (or, if you prefer, Pascal's Gamble) is a logical argument and is not a "maxim."
And, if you think about it for a while, Pascal's Wager has a devastating logical error. In other words, there is an error in the fundamental assumption, and thus the conclusion is untrue. That does not stop illogical people from pretentiously citing Pascal's Wager, thinking that they are wise.
I already told you 'I know Pascal's Wager/aka Pascal's Gamble'. I have taught the principle, and all so-called 'logical arguments' have a foundation in 'old maxims, old beliefs, old parables, or just old sayings'. So does Pascal's.

Having 'an error in any fundamental assumption' does not qualify as an argument for 'Pascal's Gamble'. That's why I corrected you entire premise. You chose to attack my choice of moniker's for the very same argument. There's a psychological term for that, as well. Look at 'avoidance'.

You cited Pascal's Wager/aka Gamble, I did not. I merely corrected your false premise. And now I have corrected you again. Study and stop bastardizing terms. I am not paid to be your 'phrase-keeper', but I will correct your obvious absurdities—no matter the topic.

Is all philosophical argument this damned elastic in your area of limited expertise, or did you just bastardize this premise for no damned good reason?

Please keep the hell up.

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76959
Feb 20, 2013
 
How in the hell do you think Pascal's came to be? By divine intervention? Nope. It was Pascal. He came to his ideas the same was as you—through the study of old ideals, old maxims, old premises, and old philosophical arguments—and Pascal's Wager is a VERY weak argument.

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76960
Feb 20, 2013
 
***your entire premise
Jaspan

Murrells Inlet, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76961
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There you go.

“Looking over the Fence”

Since: Sep 09

Sweet Valley Thunderdome

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76962
Feb 20, 2013
 
Hay Yellow Dawg! Just checking in and saying hello!

I see you are riding tall and herding cats like a boss. Keep on keeping on.

Kind regards,
HHD
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76963
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
You boast about nonexistent victories in nonexistent battles, and you do so for a valid reason—you're a simpleton. You're like the RB's in the NFL who never play a down in between the 20's, yet who come in at the last moment and score a two yard touchdown while the one who did the work gets a breather—you're a Poacher.
Yet truthfully, I see you more as a 'maggot', who feasts upon the dead, produces nothing but excrement and waste, and then spends a lifetime boasting about the meal as if you killed it yourself. You have never had an original thought or concept in your life because you're just a dullard. A follower. A maggot.
Keep wanking little man. You're impotent.
YAWN... you're just another Norton...except duller

you can pick your a@@ up in Arkansas...where I've kicked it!
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76964
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TripleNegative wrote:
***your entire premise
0 = your whole life

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76965
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TheJokster wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are lost. I made the post of "I would rather live my live believing he exist and die finding out he doesn't rather than living my life believing he doesn't exist and die finding out he does."
Yellowdawg said it is known as "Pascal's Wager."
Then you chime in with "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble."
So yes it was "Pascal's Wager" or "Pascal's Gamble" I was speaking of in that comment. Yellowdawg was correct and you Triple are,,,,, still very lost.
I respond to 'responses'. I typed 'That was hardly Pascal's Gamble'—and I was correct.

Then you insulted me because you had no clue it was the same as Pascal's Wager—wager and gamble are the same term, and regions decide which is used.

So tell me, what is your argument precisely, besides proving that you 'have no real clue'? This is why ad hominem is used, but it's hardly tenable in such an argument. You chose it. Deal within your limitations.

Now please, respond as if you know what in the hell you're responding to, and not just a knee-jerk reaction to your blatant nonsensical equivocations.

So, insult me poorly if you will, but just because you cannot keep up is hardly a valid reason. So what is your difficulty with my assertion: "This is hardly Pascal's Gamble"—again? Or do you have one?

I was succinct and correct. Try being both.
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76966
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
I already told you 'I know Pascal's Wager/aka Pascal's Gamble'. I have taught the principle, and all so-called 'logical arguments' have a foundation in 'old maxims, old beliefs, old parables, or just old sayings'. So does Pascal's.
Having 'an error in any fundamental assumption' does not qualify as an argument for 'Pascal's Gamble'. That's why I corrected you entire premise. You chose to attack my choice of moniker's for the very same argument. There's a psychological term for that, as well. Look at 'avoidance'.
You cited Pascal's Wager/aka Gamble, I did not. I merely corrected your false premise. And now I have corrected you again. Study and stop bastardizing terms. I am not paid to be your 'phrase-keeper', but I will correct your obvious absurdities—no matter the topic.
Is all philosophical argument this damned elastic in your area of limited expertise, or did you just bastardize this premise for no damned good reason?
Please keep the hell up.
?????
What the Hell is this old woman saying????

Total gibberish ...Is she speaking in tonges?
Hmmm ...maybe then Norton can interpret what she is saying

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76967
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GOP a OCEAN of STUPID wrote:
<quoted text>
?????
What the Hell is this old woman saying????
Total gibberish ...Is she speaking in tonges?
Hmmm ...maybe then Norton can interpret what she is saying
Of course you have no clue about what I am speaking. I've had nose-hairs smarter than you. I clipped those, too.

You keep 'hmmmm'ing', you dullard. Your limitations are obvious to anyone who sees you crawling out of a pile of dung. Even Old Yeller knows you're a blathering idiot.

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76969
Feb 20, 2013
 
GOP a OCEAN of STUPID wrote:
<quoted text>
?????
What the Hell is this old woman saying????
Total gibberish ...Is she speaking in tonges?
Hmmm ...maybe then Norton can interpret what she is saying
And dude: If you are going to use wit in a moniker, it's 'GOP an Ocean of Stupid'. That's called 'irony'. Now swim away quietly.

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76970
Feb 20, 2013
 
Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I always enjoy watching two clueless, uninformed "Christians" saying, "MY Christ is better than YOUR Christ!"
A difference in opinion doesn't require fifty Christs, now go back to bastardizing philosophy. You have far too many weaknesses to stick them all in the religious portion of discussions. Just continue fooking up philosophical argument. It's cute.

Have you ever considered going to college?

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76971
Feb 20, 2013
 
Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever considered writing short stories for your local weekly newspaper?
Have you ever considered submitting your posts to Penthouse Forum? Both have constant and impotent wanking, and nothing of any real substance—much like everything you post here.

“Samuel — Fondren”

Since: Oct 12

Port Byte Me Doofus, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76972
Feb 20, 2013
 
Hay Hugh Dumas wrote:
Hay Yellow Dawg! Just checking in and saying hello!
I see you are riding tall and herding cats like a boss. Keep on keeping on.
Kind regards,
HHD
Ah, so you're blind too? Feed the dog. Otherwise, you'll fall off the 'ends of the earth' where Old Yeller resides in his trailer.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76975
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan, how are you , hope all is well in your world.
Hello Barney. I am doing just fine. Good to see you again. How have you been?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76976
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
This is rich if you enjoy a bipolar response to a schizoid difficulty—you insult me poorly like a a really childlike Paul Reuben skit, and then when you get your proverbial clock cleaned, you begin a rather Mr. Rogers-esque version of condescending backpedaling in the mode of the pantywaist whining of a Valley Girl in the fifteenth trimester of pregnancy.
You have posted nothing of value in response to me, and frankly, I stopped reading your blathering nonsense about three paragraphs into the 'belly of the kindergarten beast' from the 'self-professed king of an atheist monarchy'.
You have typed nothing worthy of a thoughtful response, and to date, you have only been awarded that which you deserve—credit for your SpongeBob SquarePants ad hominem. Luckily, I do not do 'childish', so I simply gave you an example of why you should never attack anyone who is clearly your superior in any scholastic endeavor or venue—science, history, theology, governance and civics, literature, or anything beyond the scope of your obvious limitations.
So if you have the means to browbeat me into submission with your inferior intellect and obese ego, prove it. Otherwise, you can return to insulting Norton badly, and when you attack me in the guise of offending Norton, I'll return and rip you the new asshole you deserve.
It never ceases to amaze me when people insult me poorly, and then find themselves cowering in the corner, beaten senseless into within an inch of their intellectual life, and then they profess their innocence while bastardizing every rule of civil discourse known to humankind, all in a vain effort to save themselves from obvious ridicule, albeit expected and well-deserved.
So let me put this in the nonsensical rap terms you might be able to comprehend within the framework of your obvious Linus' Security Blanket personae.'You ain't no gangsta, Charlie Brown.'
Is there anything else you would like to add, or are you just going to sit their with your flaccid penis in one hand, and your Nero's fiddle playing in the other? I did not burn your Rome—you set it on fire while attempting to sharpen your baby-teeth of intellect on my shin, and all the while you're complaining about the smoke coming out of your arse and garret.
You're operating a wit without a license or a clue. Awaken me when you reach remotely funny. Then I'll chuckle, pat you on the head, and let you return to your delusional world where you reign supreme—with your ilk of liberal idiots and socialist reach-around buddies at your side while you hang upon your cross of blatant foolishness and they hang upon your every word for intellectual sustenance. That explains why they're emaciated.
Your vocabulary lacks more than anyone could teach you in three generations, your grammar is relatively 'ordinary'—acceptable for a 'forum comprehension', and your personae would fit in rather nicely with the fifteen other voices buzzing around just inside the foil hat you wear so neatly.
Yet I must admit I did grin a little when you mentioned your 'philosophical superiority'. Methinks the gangsta rap has infested your mind with delusions of punctilious-yet-trite grandeur.
Edited for space. See TN
I never wrote any of this, but whoever did has surely felt the sting of my incredible intellect. You can tell by the length of a rant like this. A person would concoct such nonsense to show everyone how much better they are than me if I had just pounded them into the sand.

If you are going to fake a quote, you better learn how to use Topix.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76977
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yellow Dawg Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism may not be "growing by leaps and bounds," but nevertheless it is growing, worldwide and in the United States.
According to a WIN-Gallup International poll reported August 2012, religiosity worldwide is declining while more people say they are atheists. In the United States, a growing number consider themselves non-believers.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/20...
(I will point out that "atheism" is not monolithic. There are various levels of non-belief. For example: agnostics,'weak' atheists, and 'strong' atheists. Simplistically, those levels correspond to "not sure there is a god," "possibly there is a god," and "no way is there a god.")
Thanks for the info Dawg. I need to update my knowledge of the trends in religion and belief.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76978
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TripleNegative wrote:
<quoted text>
That was hardly Pascal's Gamble.
It is more commonly known as Pascal's Wager as many have pointed out and you are as usual wrong. The Jokster is making Pascal's Wager.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76979
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

TheJokster wrote:
TRIPLE let me spell it out for you.
The Jokster wrote "As far as God goes, I would rather live my live believing he exist and die finding out he doesn't rather than living my life believing he doesn't exist and die finding out he does."
Yellowdawg wrote "the sentence is known as Pascal's Wager." (which is correct)
TripleNegative wrote "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble." (which shows you have no clue they were the same)
TheJokster wrote "Actually Triple, it is Pascal'a Wager. Which is "belief in God is rational whether or not God exists, since falsely believing that God exists leads to no harm whereas falsely believing that God does not exist may lead to eternal damnation."
TripleNegative wrote Actually it's called both 'Pascal's Wager' and 'Pascal's Gamble', depending on your region of origin. And I am familiar with the concept.(if you were familure with it as you say then you would have never said "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble"
Now after reading all that together you can see how ignorant you look.
From what I read, TN is just getting warmed up.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

18 Users are viewing the St. Louis Forum right now

Search the St. Louis Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 min Chuck 18,554
MO August 3 Missouri Primary Election: Did you vote? (Aug '10) Fri vote to vote 10,207
Narc in st charles Fri Terry 2
Saint Louis ties to Al Capone (Oct '10) Thu Early Ray 34
Buying old St Louis beeritems I.e. Hyde Park, G... (Dec '11) Thu BUYER 28
Blacks gangs Thu dolla bill 7
Why do white women love black men? (May '11) Thu st charles 210
•••
•••
•••
•••

St. Louis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

St. Louis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

St. Louis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in St. Louis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••