NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

I had a guy that tried to argue that if we burnt a leaf from a tree it would be the same as burning a marajuana leaf without the THC. Same guy said there was tar in the wood fire.

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

I had a guy that tried to argue that if we burnt a leaf from a tree it would be the same as burning a marajuana leaf without the THC. Same guy said there was tar in the wood fire.

yes. I worked with a group of them. Even if you give them cold hard facts, they just argue and i want to kill them. This one guy, a manager of mine(a joke of one too), tries to argue politics with me, and i am a political science major and all, so i know a bit more than him, and he is completly rediculous. I will say something factual, and he will be like, "uh no, actually technically, it is this way"

That's what always happens when ever I try to debate anywhere but these forums. That's because most of the time it's a bunch of little kids who only know how to see the world in black and white. I've also experienced it here, too. *Cough* Soviestan *Cough*

That's what always happens when ever I try to debate anywhere but these forums. That's because most of the time it's a bunch of little kids who only know how to see the world in black and white. I've also experienced it here, too. *Cough* Soviestan *Cough*

I feel special, you mentioned me. Thanks

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

I had a guy that tried to argue that if we burnt a leaf from a tree it would be the same as burning a marajuana leaf without the THC. Same guy said there was tar in the wood fire.

i love 'em. They're just so much fun to lead on and on and on. As long as you don't take it as seriously as they do...

i love 'em. They're just so much fun to lead on and on and on. As long as you don't take it as seriously as they do...

Ahhhh, but they're so, frustrating!

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.No



















:D

No



















:D

Who killed JuNii in the living room with the revolver? :p

Who killed JuNii in the living room with the revolver? :p

...Was it Colonel Mustard?

Who killed JuNii in the living room with the revolver? :p
... the lead Pipe, the Rope, the Candlestick, the Knife, the minivan, and the Quisenart?


and who's gonna clean up that mess.... Not Me I would say!

(be glad, I was going to put up a series of "no"s

...Was it Colonel Mustard?

I thought it was Jimmy the Little Impaired Kid. But I never seriously thought about it.

Ah! It all makes sense now! The rectum stuffing and Mustards rectum cancer! Of course!

(be glad, I was going to put up a series of "no"s

Ahhhhhh, thank god for- HEY LOOK!*runs away screaming*

yes. I worked with a group of them. Even if you give them cold hard facts, they just argue and i want to kill them. This one guy, a manager of mine(a joke of one too), tries to argue politics with me, and i am a political science major and all, so i know a bit more than him, and he is completly rediculous. I will say something factual, and he will be like, "uh no, actually technically, it is this way"

Bill O'Reilly made a career out of that. He'll tell a "guest" something that he pulled right out of his ass and conclude with "now that's a FACT!" When, in fact, it isn't even remotly true. Like when he told a Canadian that France lost billions because he called a boycott on French goods (as if that many people even watch him, let alone listen to him) and then said that his source was "the Paris Business Revue." There's no such magazine as the Paris Business Revue.

btw, as a news Analyst, his listeners should understand that in usual parlance "analyze" comes from the Greek meaning "not to be made looser" or broken down as much as possible.

In the case of O'Reilly it comes from the Latin 'anal' and the suffix 'ize' meaning made to be that which is pulled out of the ass.

Bill O'Reilly made a career out of that. He'll tell a "guest" something that he pulled right out of his ass and conclude with "now that's a FACT!" When, in fact, it isn't even remotly true. Like when he told a Canadian that France lost billions because he called a boycott on French goods (as if that many people even watch him, let alone listen to him) and then said that his source was "the Paris Business Revue." There's no such magazine as the Paris Business Revue.

btw, as a news Analyst, his listeners should understand that in usual parlance "analyze" comes from the Greek meaning "not to be made looser" or broken down as much as possible.

In the case of O'Reilly it comes from the Latin 'anal' and the suffix 'ize' meaning made to be that which is pulled out of the ass.
That's beautiful, man.

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

I just smile and remember the Monty Python sketch.

"This is supposed to be an argument, you're just contradicting me. It's not the same thing"

"Well it can be."

"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."

I just smile and remember the Monty Python sketch.

"This is supposed to be an argument, you're just contradicting me. It's not the same thing"

"Well it can be."

"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."
"No it can't."
"Yes it can."

Benny Hill owns Monty Python. And that's a FACT.

Benny Hill owns Monty Python. And that's a FACT.

*thwap*

There are always those out there who will annoy you to no end. Then those who will try to make a weird arguement that will make you look at them like some exotic insect.

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

I had a guy that tried to argue that if we burnt a leaf from a tree it would be the same as burning a marajuana leaf without the THC. Same guy said there was tar in the wood fire.
I do indeed. There's a prominent one on these forums with the privilege of being the only member on my ignore list.

I'm am right you you suck and are completely wrong
Was the "I'm am right" done on purpose, d'you think?

I do indeed. There's a prominent one on these forums with the privilege of being the only member on my ignore list.
Today 3:45 PM
And who might that be?
*for some reason, never recieves reply*

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

Come on now, I can't hate my own sister! :p

But yes, it is very annoying :mad:

.
In the case of O'Reilly it comes from the Latin 'anal' and the suffix 'ize' meaning made to be that which is pulled out of the ass.

Yes Anal-ize "To pull from... one's Anus"

I do indeed. There's a prominent one on these forums with the privilege of being the only member on my ignore list.

Wouldn't be BAAWAKnights would it? Because he's my nomination for this little list. Just... just... just don't get me started basically.

Wouldn't be BAAWAKnights would it? Because he's my nomination for this little list. Just... just... just don't get me started basically.

The name is familiar. Wasn't there BAAWA too, he got very upset about the definition of atheism. Apparently unless you agreed with him you were totally wrong.

The name is familiar. Wasn't there BAAWA too, he got very upset about the definition of atheism. Apparently unless you agreed with him you were totally wrong.

Maybe it's something about the BAAWA bit? Brings out the arse in people? And as for Knights, it seemed that everyone except him was required to fully explain and expand every point made, with references to a dozen peer-reviewed sources, whilst imitating an orang-utan and singing La Marseilles in the style of Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald's bastard love child.

Wouldn't be BAAWAKnights would it? Because he's my nomination for this little list. Just... just... just don't get me started basically.
I was trying to be polite and not really name names, but I guess it was bound to surface more or less instantly anyway.

I was trying to be polite and not really name names, but I guess it was bound to surface more or less instantly anyway.

Manners? On NS Gen? Hehehe, ah that makes me smile :D At least save them for those as deserve them.

Do you just hate these people? And when you make an arguement they just starting saying "no" repetively.

I had a guy that tried to argue that if we burnt a leaf from a tree it would be the same as burning a marajuana leaf without the THC. Same guy said there was tar in the wood fire.

I really don't get the connection between these two paragraphs.

When you talk about a prerson saying "no" it depends on who the person is. A parent or boss can say no without explaination. If it's a NS debate, I would want a little more logic.

As far as the second is concerned, sure you could smoke tree leaves, and yes they would have "tar" (cig tar isn't really the same as other tar, it's really just everything in smoke). In fact you could smoke about any vegitation, and there are some common plants that will get you higher than Mary Jane, and some that will kill you. All will have "tar" just as camp fire smoke would have "tar".

Benny Hill owns Monty Python. And that's a FACT.

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.... I love the theme from that...