ronthenekred Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 You didn't ask me a question, you told me to supply a link to the website that I quoted from, I explained to you in detail how to find it yourself in seconds by using Google. JFK has explained to you his reply is in the thread..go find it, it'll only take you a few seconds. A lot faster than me trawling the internet to find the exact link of yours I requested. As I said, you're a hypocritical coward who makes demands, not requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 A lot faster than me trawling the internet to find the exact link of yours I requested. I explained how Google works, I explained how to find the website where a quote originates, there is no trawling the internet involved. It really is that simple that even an 5 year old could do and find the website in seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I explained how Google works, I explained how to find the website where a quote originates, there is no trawling the internet involved. It really is that simple that even an 5 year old could do and find the website in seconds. Crap reply, I know how google works. You asked me to type in certain words which would result in a plethora of websites with same theme. I asked for your SPECIFIC link.You ran away like a dog with its tail between its legs. By not providing, all that is left is the assumption your a coward who actually enjoys "dragging it on". You do this in the hope it'll get lost in the discussion and all will be forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Crap reply, I know how google works. You asked me to type in certain words which would result in a plethora of websites with same theme. No I didn't, I said if you copy my quote and paste it into Google search with " at either side it will find the website from which the quote came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 If you don't answer all that is left is assumption. You are just making stuff up about previous discussions you think you've had in order to avoid having to change your opinion. The previous exchange between us shows why I don't want to debate with you, as you constantly play these little games making up my position and then expecting me to defend it. It is interesting that on the death penalty thread you claim that with modern technology convictions are usually conclusive, but on this thread you claim not to trust our legal system. Those alarm bells that rang with your previous identities are alarming again! Is it time for a new identity for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 The previous exchange between us shows why I don't want to debate with you, as you constantly play these little games making up my position and then expecting me to defend it. It is interesting that on the death penalty thread you claim that with modern technology convictions are usually conclusive, but on this thread you claim not to trust our legal system. Those alarm bells that rang with your previous identities are alarming again! Is it time for a new identity for you? For someone who's only reason for not answering my question is that you don't want to get into a discussion with me, you sure are doing a lot of discussing. Modern technology convictions are usually conclusive, but not always so there is no contradiction when I also say I don't have 100% trust in the system so would prefer not to be charged for something I didn't do. Some cases also rely of different levels of deviance. For instance, some people have been found guilty of crimes despite their being no forensic evidence to support the conviction, the jury just believed someone over someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 For someone who's only reason for not answering my question is that you don't want to get into a discussion with me, you sure are doing a lot of discussing. Modern technology convictions are usually conclusive, but not always so there is no contradiction when I also say I don't have 100% trust in the system so would prefer not to be charged for something I didn't do. Some cases also rely of different levels of deviance. For instance, some people have been found guilty of crimes despite their being no forensic evidence to support the conviction, the jury just believed someone over someone else. Fine, i really do believe that it is possible that you do hold two opposing views on the same subject at the same time. As to your claim about our "discussion" if you actually read my posts you'd have noticed that i said this. Now, I do not believe that I am debating with you, all I am doing is restating a position over and over again because of your insinuations that I'm avoiding the question. Maybe the problem is that you believe that restating a position over and over again is debating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Fine, i really do believe that it is possible that you do hold two opposing views on the same subject at the same time. They are not opposing views. The clue is in the word "usually" conclusive, which means most of the time or in most cases, but not always conclusive, hence the reason I wouldn't have 100% trust in a court to find an innocent man, not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I always knew Kevin Webster would come out smelling of Rosie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.