Stop using B.C.E. and C.E. you cretins!

By Chewbacca Defense use, you've lost the thread.
Who did what now?

Traitorfish is the most prominent abuser of the chewbacca defense. Always ends up something to do with this dirty, cold, filthy "Ireland" somewhere off the edge of the world.
A "Chewbaca defence" specifically describes an argument intended to confuse one's opponents, not simply any argument which you personally find confusing.
 
At which I am succeeding, because I say that by Chewbacca Defense you lose, so *I* win. <trollface.jpg>
 
Well, if we assume that 'the world' is where Her Majesty holds sway, the 'Ireland' is that place beyond a border, and Quackers would be correct… oh shceisse I have a headache.

your getting it now :)
 
TraitorFish,
I really like you and value your opinions. But the constant definition checking gets old. Particularly when doing so doesn't actually change someone's arguments. I'm all for having people use the correct words, but sometimes it seems you do it solely to show off.

Kind of like me with space stuff. ;)
 
The point isn't to change somebody's arguments, it's to try and hack out some shared framework for discussion. Unless we understand each others premises, and accept that these premises aren't totally spurious, then all we're going to be doing is taking turns to insist upon a particular world-view, and the forum has quite enough of that for those who want it.
 
What I'm talking about is something like this:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=474750&page=11(post 219)

What did you accomplish from that? It really didn't change either Dino Doc or my understanding of each other's premises. It was clear where we stood before you called me out.

I welcome being called out, but doing so in this case was spurious.

And thank you for not launching an attack on me for even pointing this out. Your maturity is one of my favorite things about you.
 
That was just a clarification, because the terms "unlawful" and "illegal" are commonly used interchangeably, but in this context carry important distinctions. It wasn't intended to be an argument one way or the other.
 
I've just read it and, in that case, Tf was right to clarify.
 
Ahh I see.

In any case, feel free to return the favor and point out my shortcomings. This is my first forum and I'm learning etiquette and technique as I go along. I don't want to be a bad poster, but I have far to go.
 
you need to read tekee's old posts then. (found using the forums search functions). one of the elite.
 
@Valka D'Ur
But would you buy milk in a bag? Because that's just blasphemy.
We used to. I always hated it, since it was a pain to have to make sure there was always a pitcher to put the milk bag in, and it never tasted right. Also, worrying about the bag getting split open or punctured... :mad:

But there is an old thread about this topic in the former OT where you can read the arguments for and against milk in a bag (that might make a fun debate topic if we ever get that going). :mischief:
 
you need to read tekee's old posts then. (found using the forums search functions). one of the elite.
Don't listen to him. No, not Tekee, just don't.
We used to. I always hated it, since it was a pain to have to make sure there was always a pitcher to put the milk bag in, and it never tasted right. Also, worrying about the bag getting split open or punctured... :mad:

But there is an old thread about this topic in the former OT where you can read the arguments for and against milk in a bag (that might make a fun debate topic if we ever get that going). :mischief:
Milk, sachets, it's only natural.
 
They tried to push the milk-bag thing over here for a while, but it never caught on.

I've just read it and, in that case, Tf was right to clarify.
If anything, that was quite uncharacteristic, because I actually supplied a definition, rather than just declaring my refusal to assume one. :mischief:
 
Back off him, he's MINE.
 
Back
Top Bottom