The odd thing is, only you feel I am not logical. The general opinion of your skills at assessing logic correctly is that they are non-existant.

On the other hand, I have multiple people, including those who have published internationally in thier fields (and been declared recommended reading by relevent national educational authourities), including those who teach others in their fields and including those who have experience in analysing arguements for truth and logic, who all come to the general opinion that I can and do make factual logical arguements.

The evidence is against you I'm afraid. Nothing you can do to change that.

Your logic fails you. Pointing out that you are an asshole with and rabid fear of actually making substanive arguements does not imply that I disagree with or even analyse any or all of your arguements, even if they are in the same thread.

So the challenge here luft is: rather than claim 'reality is as reality does' - do you actually have the brains and balls to do something to prove it?

Any evidence? Any reference? Anything except your own poor-quality opinion?

No? Thought not. Typical luft. Sadly, there is nothing you can do to change that.

!1

am i behind? did everyone else know already?

Um... what?

that funhappygal. (with the dot) is a faga/jmr alias.

Um, no, it's actually mine. I figured I'd be faga for a while to see how it feels. It feels THAWNGTACULAR.

i like things

__________________
you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thinking

you'd need to do a lot more drugs than I imagine the badlands of Northampton can yield. tussin is clearly the secret to world peace.

and insanity haha
b ut yeah a few good trips
youlll KNOW
haha
i prefer it to acid and shrooms too
but butbutbutbut
that whole inside the thawng is what counts is kinda mean

youd be suprised how comfy they are
even with a lil summatsummat

Gosh, that's a hard one!

LOL!!!!!

"That brand new car you just bought, the one that you love so much you can hardly sleep at night, doesn't really love you back--but a bit more than your partner does at this particular moment in time"
~~carefulcarpenter

Yeah--like when people say they don't watch much TV, except for the Discovery and History channels, yet actually watch it every day for hours.

Wow, carefulcarpenter's getting catty these days, isn't he.

Dude, youre giving your resume on a message forum. Youve hit low.

*snort* No, if there are people with sufficient background in the assessing of arguements for logical and factual content who all say, in some way or another, that I can and do make factual and logical arguements, then it is entirely relevant for me to point this out when challenged by someone who has no proven background at all.

That’s actually what "logicians" would call an "argumentum ad verecundiam", i.e, "appeal to authority", i.e. a "fallacy", i.e. "not logical".

It's not a fallacy if the authourites are relevant to the claim, in consensus, representative, unbiased and are not being misrepresented or misquoted.

It is a fallacy to claim that someone's authourity proves their opinion, it is not a fallacy to state what the consensus of the relevant authourities are.

Well we would need to have the actual argument of these "authorities" presented here to back up your claim that you are more logical that whoever. Your argument as it is that you are more logical than X because Y says so is straight forward fallacy.

Im Thw Prinwaa~

oops. busted sinking to his level.