Originally Posted By jonvn That's nice. I suggest you invest 32 cents and get yourself a pocket calculator. And this is also why it is plainly ridiculous to bother trying to respond to you. There is a list of specific numbers, and yet you argue about them and still demand "evidence" or "proof." It's a tired game, that no one believes in anymore, Doug.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There is a list of specific numbers, and yet you argue about them and still demand "evidence" or "proof."> I'm not arguing about them. I'm simply saying that the numbers you presented don't show that we killed two million people, as you claimed, and that they do show the Khmer Rouge killed almost two million people after we left Vietnam, as I did.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm not arguing about them." No, you're going for a sunday walk in the park. Yep.
Originally Posted By jonvn Remember: You need to make your point within the first sentence. Otherwise, I'm not reading it.
Originally Posted By jonvn really, no, it wouldn't. because your posts are filled with absolute nonsense and are little more than evasion and topic derailment. You can't even add to 8, and you lie constantly. So, what's the point in listening to you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <because your posts are filled with absolute nonsense and are little more than evasion and topic derailment.> Says the guy who derailed this topic with attacks on me. <You can't even add to 8, and you lie constantly.> You're projecting again.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Says the guy who derailed this topic with attacks on me." You're projecting again.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder For cryin' out loud. This "I know you are but what am I" battle you two have engaged in recently makes you both look like a couple of children.
Originally Posted By jonvn Thank you! I already look like an idiot to most people anyway. Most people rabidly dislike me. So I don't mind. I'm simply discrediting. It's working. "No, it was you." that's something you hear on an elementary schoolyard. It's not what you hear from someone trying to defend any sort of complex issue. Far as I'm concerned, though, this began when he started to blatantly lie about things I've said on this board. At that point, he went from being a right wing nut to a simple prevaricator who will distort and lie about anything he can in order to get his otherwise hopelessly weak concepts across.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's funny, but you really can't actually produce a shred of information to back up a single thing you say. That's very telling. I actually do quote things in here all the time. The only things I have seen you quote are crazy papers. When called on it, you fill the topic with this nonsense. Produce something tangible. On this particular topic, which is global warming. GO ahead. Produce some actual information. Let's see some peer reviewed science articles regarding the topic that supports any point of view other than the consensus on global warming. Now, of course you're going to come back with "I've produced evidence." In that case, point to the article. Or perhaps you're going to say "Why should I if you don't?" Well, I have. Multiple times, as have others. You have not. Now, either say something that has substance, or stop bothering. Your "or not" types of posts don't cut it.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 If I may - here's the problem: Person A says - produce some evidence. Person B produces something. Person A then says, "Oh well, that doesn't count." Person B then says, "it's my evidence that counts, but yours doesn't. So it all boils down to people accessing and linking biased sites. So, of course nobody is ever going to agree because there are too many opposing sites out there which offer categorically opposing viewpoints and supposed evidence by opposite sides of the argument. The two of you should just agree to disagree. But then, some people are never happy unless the whole world agrees with them. My advice - forget it; it's never gonna happen.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Put in simpler terms: There will always be evidence which refutes other peoples' evidence, so why bother trying to prove the other guy wrong?
Originally Posted By DAR Are we talking about Vietnam or Global Warming? Either I'm sure it's the Republicans fault, it always is.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, I'd say that Vietnam was chiefly the fault of Johnson, a Democrat. Early on, anyway. But then Nixon took over, and while eventually ending it, made it much worse in the meantime with incursions into Cambodia and Laos.
