I don't really want to get involved, but are you joking? Do you remember your thread about the link plz fallacy? Surely that was inspired by the police discrimination thread. I'm not saying anything about whether or not you should keep it contained to a single thread, I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair for you to say that you were content to keep it to a single thread.IDupedInMyPants said:Don't look at me. I was perfectly content to keep it contained to one thread before Garbad decided we needed a New York Times poll about some obscure sub-sub-sub-point of the argument.
He's not getting my AIM name though. He's been bugging me for my number for a while and it's starting to creep me out.
Addddduuurrrrrr I'm DrunkCajun and I understand words good! Yes, numbnuts, everyone but you knows what tacit means.DrunkCajun said:You all do realize that by not voting yes, you're showing tacit approval for creating new threads to tackle sub-sub-sub points
No need to be nasty, Duped.IDupedInMyPants said:Well, if I really wanted to be a baby (possibly in an oven) about it, I'd be posting polls about whether or not intentionally misquoting a source constitutes academic dishonesty. I don't have a link to back me up, but I still have plenty of equally childish ideas that don't see the light of day.
Edit: Like this one -
Addddduuurrrrrr I'm DrunkCajun and I understand words good! Yes, numbnuts, everyone but you knows what tacit means.
See? I can be a baby a lot better than creating and supporting a new logical fallacy.
Not to mention being just downright mean. Here I am trying to poke fun about something, and Duped has to go and insult me. Bah.5Ws said:So you argue not for the sake of your ideology but for the sake of wining? That's pathetic.