Staredit Network

What Basan is saying is that you must substantiate (i.e. back up) your claims before you start repeating them over and over.

By backing up I mean 'backing up with logical argument and actual evidence,' not 'reiterate the same point until people get bored and give up on trying to point out the flaws in your reasoning.'

Try to be less of a Ferrous Cranus as well.

And where did you heard me stating such b**ls**t (Earth blow up)? I dare you to find it n' point it out. Answer: Nowhere.
Who really needs a tone adjustment here is you, not me. The flames came pouring from your end or don't you even recall your 1st post (quoted in my above post) refering to me? Get off that high horse 'cause it hasn't done you any good so far.

Now, I've found your posting type. And from that point onwards, I'll rest my case. *Meh*

Mt. St. Helens is not in California.

First of all Basan I never said YOU stated the earth would blow up. I said that was my argument. Second of all, in that response I wasn't flaming, more keeping you from flaming than anything. CaptainWill, I also never sid Mt St Helens was in Cali. I know more about it because it is near us. Other states don't hear much about it but California, Oregon, and Washington do because it effects us. So stop making inferences and read for once.

You made the inference that you lived in California. In fact, you make a lot of inferences, resulting in a lot of vagueness in your posts.

Of course, that means that when we challenge your point of view, you can easily say 'OMG that's not what I meant!

How can you think I thought Mt. St. Helens was in California by saying what I said? I never said "I live in California, home of that volcano." Or "Mt. St. Helens is in California." So don't assume what you think I mean. If you don't understand it ask me what I meant.

That implies that Mt. St. Helens is in California. Clarity is kind of important.

all of these are natural

Bah! Only saw that you posted the same link afterwards submitting my post. I can bet that you've seen it some place else. *Cough*WB's*Cough*

Again, tks for the defense Capt.Will.

ADDITION:
Add:


Best shifting the subject and circle logic seen by me in this forthnight... *Sigh*
Who started the mild flaming by infering that I don't do my reasearch before posting? Again, I rest my case.

TORNADO FROM QUEBEC...


10 years ago, we did not have any tornado in Quebec, and for 6 years had every summer we have at least between 5-10 tornado which appears on the province... Do it is A what you think?

I wasn't changing the subject. Had you read you would have seen that I was answering CaptainWIll's post. And I wasn't flaming by saying research your information. That isn't even near flaming. And if you are "resting your case" then shut the heck up and stop posting!

Was it a PM? No, so I can reply to it as other posters around can.
In your 1st post you said or implied that the Earth wouldn't become hardly affected just due to nukes. Then later on (last page), you state otherwise. What's your stand afterall? That, I can call shape-shifting mid debate for sure. And yes it could be considered flaming since you're discrediting my post for lack of substance, just for the heck of it. The "preventing me from flaming" excuse won't cut it, since I didn't flamed anyone, even after you started it. It's the incongruences that get to me.

And what happens when I ask you to backup your claims (since I backed mine before n' after you astounding posts)? *Meh* Zeppo, the close brother of zilch. Well... since you don't present any single shred of evidence to support your statements we can all assume that you're only doin' those to stir animosities (aka provocation). As you're currently doin'. See my drift? That bratty, "I'm right and you're wrong, 'cause I know all" hasn't done you any good so far... especially without evidences. *Sits 'round n' waits for the asked evidences*

Btw, I can be as much stubborn as you can... with a 'tiny' difference, I do it when am certain to be correct on my statements.
Grow up n' do a mature debate from now on, ok? If so, much obliged. If not, I guess that I won't bother wasting more of my time with circle logic debaters such as you.

Edit reason: Quick text posting typos fixed.

You guys have to all stop saying things like that. It's totally unneccesary and immature and stupid. You're all getting too offensive and are pushing to the limits of flaming people. Just present your facts/arguments, there's no need for censuring or cynicism over anyone's posts.


Actually, all of you guys are. You guys are all saying things which are inciting one another to start flaming/yelling and say some offensive stuff.


He actually made the fact that he lived in california.

And sometimes, inferences are neccesary. Only up to certain extents though, maybe not to those of some of yalls.


ONLY if we're all looking at this at an extremely interpretive level in which only liberal arts majors are capable of doing. But that's not what we're here for; let's stick to simple english.

Umm yeah what Army said...Basan, post the responses you think I made about contradicting myself. Also, I don't know what "evidence" I need. I alreayd showed you "evidence" if you want to get specific. And when did you come into the conversation anyways, I was talking to Will, and it was going well for a while. Then came the old "Grow up you are immature" speech. Well my beliefe on that is that someone must have told you that to tell someone else. Anyways, umm yeah.

Every post on this page is spam above this post.. err anyway I was checking out www.space.com last night because I was extremely bored (interesting site, check it out) and I was looking at these facts about earth. Since we all know stars go through phases, the sun will get hotter and hotter each year, and the earth will eventually burn up. This is billions of years from now though. They also said this will cause pluto to become a planet like earth temperature wise once the sun is hot enough.

So the earth will die eventually, but not anytime soon, please, do not be worried.

Heh that'd be pretty cool to be living out on Pluto, >.> When it gets to be Earth temperature

Earth is not infact trying to tell us anything. The cause of those mentioned natural disasters are the effects of what us, as humanity has done to our own soil. It is not 'earth' whom is trying to tell us, it is us who need to tell ourselves. All earth is doing currently is trying to keep ahold of the struggle in which we have put upon it. For example, it is the same as giving a baby a candy and then taking it away, for a short while, the baby would suspend from his sadness but at the final edge, what's the result? He cries since he is unable to subside it. In the same case does it occur with Earth. Earth is beginning to become unable to subside that of those 'things' we have done to it. Think of it this way, the only reason a natural disaster occurs is..? Anybody have any ideas?

It is simply because we are not treating earth to the limit or extent that us as the whole of humanity must be responsible for.

For example, we've all heard about why or how landsides occur, correct? Well simply to sticking to this fact, we can presume (Since nobody knows the extent of knowledge, as it is mentioned in http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=11415) that it is because there is not enough nutriences in the soil to be able to substain a large amount of force, well for honest's sakes, what do you expect? We cut down 70% of the world's trees every year simply to build houses and shelters to stop us from getting wet. Yet despite this, who even thought about the earth? When we are happily sitting on the couch at home in the wood that has been cut off and refined from the soils of earth..The earth is simply being striped of its protection.

So coming back to the beginning idea, no, earth is not trying to tell us anything, it is simply responding to what we have done to it.

Juk.

Side note: I'll stop when he does realize that he's going over the edge (lack of evidences and/or knowledge about the subject at hands and keeps repeating himself), since he started it. Got my point now?
As you can see for yourself it was is post(s) manner that got me into 'overdrive', since he seemed to be already or was in that gear. Again, I ask for his (IndecisiveMan's) evidences and/or based reasonings. Do you see a pattern here? Alas, I sure do.

We had lil' differences in our debating past, for instance, but we at least could compromise and see eye-to-eye. With him, it's way different. And unfortunetly, doesn't seem very feasible so far.



May I recall, again, that did presented proofs of what stated even before he started trolling me (and as well afterwards)? If he doesn't read or don't wanna do it, that's not my problem. Also what I've written is backep up by solid evidences and that's just not the case with him. I never saw him backing up once against what I've asked him to do.

I've only kept at it (replying) 'cause am sure to be right on what I stand for here. He might think he won this one due to exahustion from the other side and that's simply not gonna happen (unless I get warned by the staff or even kicked). Wich didn't happen so far, since I wasn't who started it. Let's please not blow things out of proportion without valid reason to it, ok? Tks.
If he does a valid debate (aka constructive) with backing up, that even Capt.Will noted already, as I have asked I'll drop (n' forget) the stubborn, unbased stance of his 'till now.



Just picked this as a mere fact clearer...
You've never saw me pick with his location, have ya? Never picked on it, 'cause this is the Net afterall.

As for the inferences bit they don't work vs. what I'm asking since I want some evidences not inferences that aren't at all correct due to lack of logic reasoning. This must be the 3rd/4th time I pick on evidences... by now at least you know (mainly due to past experiences with me) what I'm heading at. Facts/logic reasoning from his side n' that's what I haven't seen here, even in a mere glimpse.



And my simple English already asked him for evidences. Now waitin' for possible results... wich seem to be none at this point. *Meh*



Best shifting the burden of proof I've seen around here lately. Sorry, but it won't stick.
As for the rest of your post... no (freaking) comment. You're not getting to upset me with those uncalled for n' sorry excuse of replies. *Continues the waitin'*



Eh... it only derailed due to some sorry excuse of a post(s). And the rest as they say, it's history.
I'll check that site of yours. I'm never to throw away an oportunity to find new things. Tks for the link. *Winks n' smiles*

---------------
Jukuren, what a concise n' well explained post. *Pats on it's back and gives some imaginary kudos*

In order to provide evidence(which I already did in my dispute with Will) I need you to tell me how you think I am "contradidicting" myself. If you don't post it I will assume you have given up and don't want to know the truth. SO hurry up and stop typing and just post what you think I am wrong in.

Bah, this isn't even funny. When you don't recall to have posted a few pages back and are too lazy to go n' see it again (to even do a carefull reading).
Afterall the Earth is gonna blow or not? Decide yourself (not that I'm debating it, just pointing as a mere example).
And what are your knowledges about nuke tech/effects, products half-life, the Cuba crisis (that almost started a large scale war), etc. For sums, all of my post #47 in here. You haven't decently countered none of'em to this extent. Finally, let's see if you bring something up! *Eagerly awaits*

I am still confused on how I contradict myself. If you won't tell me how will I defend myself? Unless that is your plan, to try and make ME seem like the one who is confused when in actuality it is you who can't back your statements up. And if you want evidence World War Two. Hello, we dropped TWO Atomic Bombs. Did the world implode(or explode)? No. Did the environment shift? No. Did the animals all die out? No. Did ANYTHING at all effect our planet? No. So fix YOUR statements because I already provided this information quite a while back.

It's worthless. You don't want to grasp the concept, even when pointing (n' linkin') the post to whom I'm refering to all along. Lack of evidences of what you stated before, or do you want it even more highlighted than it already is?
I've never said you contradicted yourself but in my last post (read before this one), since M.Army brough it up, not me. And I've only used the Earth is blowing or not as an example to provide an answer to what he asked for.

And just as a fact clearer information isn't the same as evidences. I've made my burden of proof with the Chernobyl disaster link and now am expecting yours, that will counter my above mentioned post (nr. 47) in here. If you still you don't want see where I'm aiming at, it's indeed useless to continue further, since you won't even make the effort to counter my arguements with serious backing up (as Capt.Will said).

You do realize army was talking about BOTH of you, you do realize that you use the "Grow up you are immature" also. You do realize you only say you are confused so that the other person will have to post more so you can exploit it better.

Oh my goodness there you go again. If you are so sure I don't have evidence tell me on what you are not clear on! You have not stated it and I am just sitting here waiting because what else do you want me to do. I can't get evidence for something I don't even know I need evidence for. If you are talking about the earth won't be affected, well wth more evidence do you want then it alreayd happened! Seems like good evidence to me. If you want some stupid scientific report that says World War Two happened I'll get it but you need to tell me. And you did say I contradict myself.

"In your 1st post you said or implied that the Earth wouldn't become hardly affected just due to nukes. Then later on (last page), you state otherwise. What's your stand afterall? That, I can call shape-shifting mid debate for sure."

Hmm. If that doesn't mean I contradict myself I don't know what the ehck does. Also, after reading your little "link" and it actually proves that I am right. In the topic "Global Effect" it even says PLAIN OUT, "it did NOT have a global effect". Pretty sure in those exact words too. So let us think, who isn't doing there research eh? So again, unless you are going to tell me what I still need evidence for(which I have only one argument and I already showed you CONCRETE evidence) then just stop talking. How does it go....."much obliged"?

Is it just me, or must I say for the whole of SEN? you people are completely off the topic. Please run back onto the track and discuss how Earth is trying to tell us something.