d34dluk3 wrote: Rock Chalk wrote:
LAWLAW09 wrote:(facts & figures)
Yeah, this is solid. I didn't really disagree with the other guy, I just hate unsupported assertions on principle
Citation needed? Seriously. Almost 400 posts and you only use the words "citation needed" twice? Both appearing in the same day and in response to the same poster?
But, since we can tell you really hate unsupported assertions, we look forward to you providing some evidence that you really do hate unsupported assertions and that your response was not what it appears: an unsupported assertion.
As it stands currently, you either a) have never come across an unsupported assertion on TLS before or b) developed this hatred the minute you saw his post or c) was prepared to let your final thoughts on his claim appear to suggest the statement he made was at best, doubtful, and at worse, inaccurate.
Right now you appear to the poster child of an unattractive conditional reasoning setup.
If A, poster is full of bs.
If B, poster is probably full of bs.
If C, poster is foolish, considering the subject matter being discussed.
I typically am against acting cute on internet forums so I'm going to give honor to your hatred by not violating your principle. Until you provide us with some support for the bolded assertion above, I pick D) Poster is inconsistent, should have honorably tilted his king when info was provided, and was just provided more support for this assertion than what he was willing to provide when he made his own.
Let's get back to playing nice and keeping it real shall we.