Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(10-03-2016 07:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Says the very same idiot who says he's certain of nothing.
You seem to be rather certain of that also. Facepalm
Are your SURE of that ?

So now the non-expert in Physics is now also a paragon of Psychology, and WITHOUT EVEN ONE reference posted, expects people to swallow his BIASED opinions on yet another subject.

It may drive you, bozo.
Don't project your garbage on others.
Bucky I'm beginning to think you need to see a therapist.
Why do you keep asking me if I am sure of anything, when it has been constantly repeated to you that as far as certainty is concerned I am closer to uncertainty than certainty about everything.
It's in my signature
It's further reiterated numerous times in the "What am I?" thread
I have never once on these forums answered your "are you sure of that?" questions with a yes or even made any statements that that lay claim to absolute certainty.

Yet here you are asking the question to the same individual again as if you somehow think the answer might be different this time. It's quite possible you may have some chronic disorder & a mental block of some sort. You really need to get that checked out.
Is it that you think when people speak it is supposed to always be from a position of certainty? I'm just trying to help you recognize your condition.
Hug You have my support. I will try not judge your Trollish nature from now on. I don't want to be a bully to someone with your condition.

It's sarcasm, dear. You're simply just obnoxious and INCONSISTENT. That's all I'm responding to. Don't fucking patronize me, troll. I do get however, that anyone who challenges your obvious nonsense is labeled a troll. As I said before, you, of all people, are the LAST person here to be handing out advice. If I need some, I'll be sure and ask.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2016 08:23 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 07:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-03-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Bucky I'm beginning to think you need to see a therapist.
Why do you keep asking me if I am sure of anything, when it has been constantly repeated to you that as far as certainty is concerned I am closer to uncertainty than certainty about everything.
It's in my signature
It's further reiterated numerous times in the "What am I?" thread
I have never once on these forums answered your "are you sure of that?" questions with a yes or even made any statements that that lay claim to absolute certainty.

Yet here you are asking the question to the same individual again as if you somehow think the answer might be different this time. It's quite possible you may have some chronic disorder & a mental block of some sort. You really need to get that checked out.
Is it that you think when people speak it is supposed to always be from a position of certainty? I'm just trying to help you recognize your condition.
Hug You have my support. I will try not judge your Trollish nature from now on. I don't want to be a bully to someone with your condition.

It's sarcasm, dear. You're simply just obnoxious and INCONSISTENT. That's all I'm responding to. Don't fucking patronize me, troll. I do get however, that anyone who challenges your obvious nonsense is labeled a troll. As I said before, you, of all people, are the LAST person here to be handing out advice. If I need some, I'll be sure and ask.
Peebothol and Paleophyte aren't labelled a troll by me, yet they quite efficiently challenge my "nonsense". You're starting to grasp at straws again. I believe your condition may be worsening.
What makes me label you a troll is your inability to keep defamatory remarks out of your responses when trying to address a point, coupled with loads of baseless negative character assumptions that have been refuted on many occasions.
Obviously you take some offense to being called a troll. I was beginning to think you liked it.
I did notice in quite a number of your replies to me you did make a conscious effort to refrain from generally Trollish remarks, thus I thought we may finally engage in more meaningful discussions but it would appear you are currently undergoing a relapse. I honestly wish you a speedy recovery Hug

P.S. I think your spelling obsession may be a possible chronic disorder as well. It borders as an abnormality, but I'm not one to condemn an abnormality, considering I have one myself.
You're not alone my friend Hug
Are you female by the way? Just asking Wink
Your heightened emotional responses are indicative of a generally female temperament.
If not it may be a possible estrogen/testosterone imbalance. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm just trying to help.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 07:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you female by the way? Just asking Wink
Your heightened emotional responses are indicative of a generally female temperament.

WOW. Really?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2016 09:03 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 08:35 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(10-03-2016 07:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you female by the way? Just asking Wink
Your heightened emotional responses are indicative of a generally female temperament.

WOW. Really?
In your case no. I don't think you are female. You're possibly something quite different.
And yes Really:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...083417.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...mages.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex...tional-men
https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/New...ently.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...fferently/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Okay, big word post/response and hope you don't mind if I break it up a bit as I reply.

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You got it right mostly.
The first us was directed at everyone but not in the form of an accusation, but rather a "Yes or No?" question. You answered it, but I will delve into your answer lower down in this post.

Consider That's not generally how people read sentences, though. Like I said before... your attempts at conveying meaning need work.

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think my problem is leaving too much unspecified details in the average sentences when attempting to communicate a point.
It didn't occur to me that you would correlate the 2nd "us" as reference to everyone after reading what I wrote about attempted suicide victims.

Indeed. You make posts. People ask you questions about what you've posted and your replies segway off into various spirals as you then only reply to certain parts of said previous post.

Again, not good for conveying meanings etc.


(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It maybe a direct by product of evolution similar to the uncanny valley theory. When attempting to understand an individual we imagine ourselves in their position sometimes subconsciously mimicking their thoughts and actions unto ourselves in an effort to properly understand what they are thinking.

Um... no idea how the 'Uncanny valley' got put in there. Also, the whole 'Understand other individual/Putting self in others shoes' thing? That's a tad too complicated but, I'm guessing, that 'empathy' for others while having a discourse with others would be normal?

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I believe whilst doing so you didn't realize the 2nd us was not meant as a reference to your own personal experiences.

Again, you seem to be using words and sentence construction differently to other people. It's been pointed out to you. it's been pointed out to you that if you do so... You won't actually get your meanings across.. because you're not actually using the language in the way others us it, and hence, the way it should be used.


(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  After all I never specified who the "us" was referring to in both instances so we are both to blame for the misunderstanding.

You posted a sentence.... knowing you weren't using 'generic' and 'vernacular' word usage and style? Consider

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I for assuming you will deduce who the us is referring to and you for assuming the us was about you only.
Hopefully I can better my communication skills to reduce the likelihood of these occurrences.

Firstly, no.. I won't deduce much about the 'deeper' meanings behind your words. I don't read/think that way. I too hope your communication skills improve. Yes

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Concerning what drives you:
Do these concepts in any way apply to your primal instinct for motivation.
I'm not asking if you have come to rationalize your motives before you make decisions.
I'm just curious to know what is your primal instinct.
What do you think motivates you to do something even when you don't have a clear objective to do so.
Absent any clear objective is it not a question that initiates purpose in these instances?
When studying human motivation could there be a better test subject than someone faced with a live or die option?
I never bothered to ask but,
What motivates you?

Nope, nothing above is something I'm going to engage in or reply too. Myself is my own and not something I'll openly share on a forum. If we meet up, have a few beers and get to know one another? Yah, maybe then. Other wise? Lets continue to stay anonymous words on a chat forum. Yes

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Maslow's Heirarchy of needs:

Consider Me thinks you forgot a part of your post? But I';m not really worried, nor care, nor are completely interested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 09:11 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay, big word post/response and hope you don't mind if I break it up a bit as I reply.

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You got it right mostly.
The first us was directed at everyone but not in the form of an accusation, but rather a "Yes or No?" question. You answered it, but I will delve into your answer lower down in this post.

Consider That's not generally how people read sentences, though. Like I said before... your attempts at conveying meaning need work.

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think my problem is leaving too much unspecified details in the average sentences when attempting to communicate a point.
It didn't occur to me that you would correlate the 2nd "us" as reference to everyone after reading what I wrote about attempted suicide victims.

Indeed. You make posts. People ask you questions about what you've posted and your replies segway off into various spirals as you then only reply to certain parts of said previous post.

Again, not good for conveying meanings etc.


(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It maybe a direct by product of evolution similar to the uncanny valley theory. When attempting to understand an individual we imagine ourselves in their position sometimes subconsciously mimicking their thoughts and actions unto ourselves in an effort to properly understand what they are thinking.

Um... no idea how the 'Uncanny valley' got put in there. Also, the whole 'Understand other individual/Putting self in others shoes' thing? That's a tad too complicated but, I'm guessing, that 'empathy' for others while having a discourse with others would be normal?

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I believe whilst doing so you didn't realize the 2nd us was not meant as a reference to your own personal experiences.

Again, you seem to be using words and sentence construction differently to other people. It's been pointed out to you. it's been pointed out to you that if you do so... You won't actually get your meanings across.. because you're not actually using the language in the way others us it, and hence, the way it should be used.


(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  After all I never specified who the "us" was referring to in both instances so we are both to blame for the misunderstanding.

You posted a sentence.... knowing you weren't using 'generic' and 'vernacular' word usage and style? Consider

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I for assuming you will deduce who the us is referring to and you for assuming the us was about you only.
Hopefully I can better my communication skills to reduce the likelihood of these occurrences.

Firstly, no.. I won't deduce much about the 'deeper' meanings behind your words. I don't read/think that way. I too hope your communication skills improve. Yes

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Concerning what drives you:
Do these concepts in any way apply to your primal instinct for motivation.
I'm not asking if you have come to rationalize your motives before you make decisions.
I'm just curious to know what is your primal instinct.
What do you think motivates you to do something even when you don't have a clear objective to do so.
Absent any clear objective is it not a question that initiates purpose in these instances?
When studying human motivation could there be a better test subject than someone faced with a live or die option?
I never bothered to ask but,
What motivates you?

Nope, nothing above is something I'm going to engage in or reply too. Myself is my own and not something I'll openly share on a forum. If we meet up, have a few beers and get to know one another? Yah, maybe then. Other wise? Lets continue to stay anonymous words on a chat forum. Yes

(10-03-2016 02:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Maslow's Heirarchy of needs:

Consider Me thinks you forgot a part of your post? But I';m not really worried, nor care, nor are completely interested.

Yeah, you're probably right on the communication aspects. Quite possibly I assume people can keep up with my unorthodox thought processes & fail to give them chance digest some of the concepts I put forward. Working on that. Comes with the disorder maybe?

Concerning the Maslow Hierarchy of needs, I had quite a long article I wanted to write about it, but I'm currently preoccupied with a quotation for a construction project that is unusually taxing on my time.
Just left it like that to come back and edit it later on. I may be a bit too obsessed with that edit button.

The beer idea sounds great by the way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 11:06 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A snap shot of the edit process of an unofficial post ...
So either you didn't actually bother to read my replies or your just going to pretend like I didn't just demonstrate beyond doubt that you pulled an entire legal concept and a whole person(s) out of your ass. Official, unofficial, notes, written in your own shit on your psych wards walls it doesn't matter because:
"....copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"
Which is what you did when you copy+pasted Dr. Sten Odenwald's work while inserting your own words into it to give a conclusion that his work doesn't support but which you needed.
Even if you HAD sourced it the first time it would still be plagiarism, but you didn't.
So you can stop saying "official" any time you like as it's a complete irrelevancy when determining what is and is not plagiarism.
Still waiting on that legal citation by the way.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  For you to derive a Plagerism (can't seem to fix this auto correct) claim you have to totally ignore/refute the following:
Some can be ignored given that they are entirely irrelevant to the question, and the rest already HAVE been refuted a fact you would know if you bothered to read my replies. Now I'm forced to repeat them for the 4th(ish) time. Just like with other points in other threads on other topics...which you still haven't addressed.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. Purpose of saying "do not reply"
2. Purpose of numerous editing within minutes of each one for posts 1 & 2
3. Purpose of there not being a single plagerised citation in the official reply (3rd post) & all references hyperlinked
#1 & #2 are entirely irrelevant when determining if something is or is not plagiarism, you took it added your own words to distort its conclusions to your own which is plagiarism even if you didn't intend anyone to see it and even if it's just "scrap" or "notes". IT. IS. IRRELEVANT. The fact that it was your incompetence that exposed your plagiarism is just extra funny and entirely in sticking with the rest of your time here.
#3 is also irrelevant because not plagiarizing someone in the future doesn't change that fact that you did in the past. Derp.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  4. Purpose of using the draft function after it was shown to me (ask mods) after the 2nd post
And now you are just repeating a lie I proved in my last post, you were not shown the draft function proceeding the second post but proceeding the FIFTH post 3 days later. Also irrelevant to determining if your first post does or does not contain plagiarism, which it does.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  5. Purpose of requesting the uneditable posts be deleted
Several days after the fact. Asking the mods to delete the record of your plagiarism is not an argument showing you didn't plagiarize in post 1. Another point i made before which you didn't read/chose to ignore.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  6. Purpose of publicly condemning the first 2 posts in a manner that proves I was totally opposed to the way it was written
Again several days after the fact, so irrelevant.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  7. Purpose of editing/developing my argument in plain sight of my opponent.
Also irrelevant for determining if your taking the work of someone else and modifying it with your own words (with or without citation being irrelevant) is plagiarism. Which it is.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you think these points do not sufficiently detract from your Plagerism (...) claim then I am forced to wonder which of us is delusional.
It's still you because they don't detract at all. You still took someones work, you still deleted parts to add your own, and that is still (with or without citation) plagiarism. You also lied about it not being plagiarism cause it has to legally be "official", which it doesn't cause that's not a thing, and you lied again when you claimed that you some how typoed a copy+pasted section of text which is just ....FacepalmLaugh out load. Now I'd be willing to concede that it was not INTENTIONAL, but it's still plagiarism.
Also I'm not the one who pulled an entire set of laws for a non-crime and a whole person out of my ass so ....ya it's still you.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your whole case rests on the following:
"It ended up on a public forum therefore it's an intentional form of Plagerism" & "I don't care if you can prove it wasn't intentional" because "you deserve to be called a plagerist regardless of any intent to commit Plagerism"
Strawman Fallacy, I've never claimed you intentionally set out to commit plagiarism. I said you intentionally and willfully took someones work and deleted some of their content and inserted your own to make it say something it didn't which you clearly did and has been demonstrated multiple times.
For me to believe you intentionally set out to plagiarize someones work that would require me to believe you were in any way aware of what does and does not constitute plagiarism which I didn't then and I don't now. You not only didn't know it was not a crime, didn't know it was not even mentioned in a single statute, and didn't know that it's not even a legal matter AT ALL. You pulled an entire person and a set of laws out of your ass.
I don't think you plagiarized someone intentionally I think you were too incompetent to know you were even doing it or what it even required, and the evidence supports that.

You are however, all bumblefucking aside, still a plagiarist though.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Moving on to the "Dog Dog":
Why would I answer the question about a dog dog? It has no relevance to anything I said.
Actually it does, the relevance is pointing out that your use of "agnostic agnostic" makes no more sense in English when using the ACTUAL definition/usage of a word (which you don't and we will get to shortly) than the difference between a dog and a dog dog or a Catholic and a Catholic Catholic. Your failure to grasp the relevance doesn't mean it's not there.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are going to use metaphors at least use them in relative context.
That's not a metaphor stupid, it's an analogy. This is why you should keep your advice to yourself kid, you're incompetent at English.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are deliberately making a mockery of the English language for less than genuine motives.
Ironic given you don't know what a metaphor or an analogy is.Drinking Beverage

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What's the difference between a Gnostic, an Agnostic Gnostic and a Gnostic Agnostic? I didn't initiate those labels.
You didn't initiate the labels "Agnostic" and "Gnostic" but the label "Agnostic Agnostic" and "Agnostic Gnostic" ARE labels you did. They exist only in your brain because they rely on your ignorant misuse and misunderstanding about what those individual words mean. Which has been explained to you by a dozen people in dozens of posts in multiple threads and I have to do again here. Fuck me, but AGAIN.
If you don't believe me then go on google do a search for ANY other reference to an Agnostic Agnostic or an Agnostic Gnostic. You know what you find? Nothing, because the words and English does not work that way or mean what you think it does.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Just because you can't juggle more than one concept simultaneously in your own mind doesn't mean it's illogical.
I never claimed it was illogical I claimed it made no fucking sense in English and it doesn't. It has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the fact that the words don't mean what you think they mean.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "Agnostic Agnostic with regards to objectively reality" is the context you need to repeat and not just the word "Agnostic Agnostic"
The addition of "..with regards to objective reality" does nothing to change the fact that the label of "Agnostic Agnostic" makes no sense contextually, grammatically, or by the definition of the word "Agnostic". So you keep up fucktard.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "I don't know if I don't know" because in a world of seemingly endless possibilities and a seemingly unknown objective reality, not fully knowing everything is the only consistent thing we come to rationalize.
And here is where we get to the crux of the problem and why I called you fucking stupid in the first place. Agnostic does not mean "I don't know", that's not it's definition. To say you are agnostic is to say "I don't know if a god exists or not". Agnostic is not shorthand for "I don't know", and Gnostic is not shorthand for " I do know".

So when you say you are an "Agnostic Agnostic" what you are ACTUALLY saying is " I don't know if a god exists or not, I don't know if a god exists or not" and a "Agnostic Gnostic" would translate as "I don't know if a god exists or not but I do know a god exists/doesn't exist". Which makes no fucking sense and is why your usage is fucking stupid.
You can't be "agnostic about being agnostic" because agnostic doesn't mean, nor is it shorthand for, "I don't know". In any context, not even common usage or as slang for shits sake. You cut off over half the fucking definition to justify using it incorrectly AGAIN!

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Agnostic Agnostic: I am not sure if I can Cognitively Rationalize my Primal Knowledge.
Not what agnostic means. It doesn't mean "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". It has an ACTUALLY definition you know.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hope I didn't give you an aneurism there. Drinking Beverage
Ironic considering an aneurysm would explain how you can get "agnostic" wrong for months despite dozens of people explaining it to you. See the problem with you trying to be witty is you're not and when you try to talk down to someone about not understanding what you are saying when what you are saying makes no shitting sense at all you end up looking both idiotic and and like an asshole.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Let me break it down for you:
If knowing (Gnostic) & not knowing (Agnostic) belongs on opposing ends of the spectrum which one do you think we would be closer to as far as objective reality is concerned?
My honest answer is "I don't know"
Therefore I am both "Agnostic about being Agnostic" & simultaneously "Agnostic about being Gnostic"
Let ME break it down for YOU:
Gnostic does not mean "knowing" and agnostic does not mean "not knowing" so no you are not "Agnostic about being Agnostic". The fact you think that's what agnostic means or can mean is why I called you fucking stupid and why you are.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If your honest answer is you "know" (which I highly doubt) then you would consider yourself "Gnostic about being Agnostic" & simultaneously "Gnostic about being Gnostic"
No I would not cause I'm not a simpleton and I actually know what the bloody words mean, and they don't mean THAT.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I can't say which is the better world view, but that doesn't rescind my right to state what I believe in now does it?
You could believe whatever you what but what you just typed is nonsense in every way. Grammatically, contextually, and by the definition of those words. You can still believe it but your wrong and stupider for believing it.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are opposed to the beliefs of others even when they have given you their rationalization then good for you.
Your "rationalizations" are based on a willful ignorance of what the words and the concepts behind them mean so yes I'm opposed to it because I am fundamentally opposed to willful ignorance.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Failure to explain why you are opposed to their beliefs leads one to believe that you are an oppressive individual. Hence my consistent reference to your troll like behaviour.
Considering I've explained it before and did again above, and that I've never once tried to "oppress" you (*cough* persecution complex *cough*) I guess based on your own logic you no longer have a justification for calling me a troll. Lets see if you practice what you preach.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Coupled with your liberal use of profanity
Fuck you cunty McCocksucker, who cares if I swear while I prove that you are stupid and dishonest, you wont be any less stupid or dishonest because of the lack shits and fucks.
There was probably about ..eh...a dozen..maybe more, points I made in my last post (including you lying about the law and not knowing what defamation even is for example) that you totally hid from and refused to address at all. Oh boy though did you have time to being up swearing for the 5th fuckin' time. Surprise surprise.Rolleyes

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  defamatory remarks
Failed to read my post or choosing to lie about what defamation is, either way you're an idiot sir. You don't know what defamation is. Still. It's like you are allergic to both words and honesty.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  which you have continuously been unable to validate
Demonstrated beyond a shadow of any doubt that you were lying entirely when you claimed to ask a legal professional about the laws around plagiarism, not knowing there are no laws at all making yourself look like a tool. Even gave you a chance to prove it and you didn't even try. So no you are a liar and it's been proven. Which makes what you just said another lie, you lying liar.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  only adds more popularity to the belief that you are Trolling these forums.
A belief held by a single person is not popular by any stretch of the imagination you delusional loon. By all means Mr. -8 feel free to keep telling Mr. +71 about how people think I'm a troll.Laughat

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You lack the mental capacity to prove your points absent the use of character assassination.
Interesting view point considering I've been proving my points and disproving yours for nearly 3 months now, and did it again above. Drinking Beverage

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Prove me wrong.
Proved you wrong on plagiarism, what agnostic/gnostic means, what defamation means, and what metaphor means. I'd say that's good enough for one night.Drinking Beverage

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Can't wait to see how you're going to respond to this.
I'm not looking forward to another response were you clearly didn't read the post, you ignore everything I've said, everything I've demonstrated, and just unthinkingly regurgitate your assertions completely unchanged and with a couple of lies, both old and new, thrown in for flavor.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm beginning to read you like a book.
If that's true then you have clearly never read a book before.Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-03-2016, 11:33 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 07:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(10-03-2016 07:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's sarcasm, dear. You're simply just obnoxious and INCONSISTENT. That's all I'm responding to. Don't fucking patronize me, troll. I do get however, that anyone who challenges your obvious nonsense is labeled a troll. As I said before, you, of all people, are the LAST person here to be handing out advice. If I need some, I'll be sure and ask.
Peebothol and Paleophyte aren't labelled a troll by me, yet they quite efficiently challenge my "nonsense". You're starting to grasp at straws again. I believe your condition may be worsening.
What makes me label you a troll is your inability to keep defamatory remarks out of your responses when trying to address a point, coupled with loads of baseless negative character assumptions that have been refuted on many occasions.
Obviously you take some offense to being called a troll. I was beginning to think you liked it.
I did notice in quite a number of your replies to me you did make a conscious effort to refrain from generally Trollish remarks, thus I thought we may finally engage in more meaningful discussions but it would appear you are currently undergoing a relapse. I honestly wish you a speedy recovery Hug

P.S. I think your spelling obsession may be a possible chronic disorder as well. It borders as an abnormality, but I'm not one to condemn an abnormality, considering I have one myself.
You're not alone my friend Hug
Are you female by the way? Just asking Wink
Your heightened emotional responses are indicative of a generally female temperament.
If not it may be a possible estrogen/testosterone imbalance. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm just trying to help.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
OK Dr. Freud. If you say so. You're lab has tested that , I assume. Facepalm
LMFAO.

Fucking idiot.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2016, 11:44 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 12:12 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 11:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A snap shot of the edit process of an unofficial post ...
So either you didn't actually bother to read my replies or your just going to pretend like I didn't just demonstrate beyond doubt that you pulled an entire legal concept and a whole person(s) out of your ass. Official, unofficial, notes, written in your own shit on your psych wards walls it doesn't matter because:
"....copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"
Which is what you did when you copy+pasted Dr. Sten Odenwald's work while inserting your own words into it to give a conclusion that his work doesn't support but which you needed.
Even if you HAD sourced it the first time it would still be plagiarism, but you didn't.
So you can stop saying "official" any time you like as it's a complete irrelevancy when determining what is and is not plagiarism.
Still waiting on that legal citation by the way.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  For you to derive a Plagerism (can't seem to fix this auto correct) claim you have to totally ignore/refute the following:
Some can be ignored given that they are entirely irrelevant to the question, and the rest already HAVE been refuted a fact you would know if you bothered to read my replies. Now I'm forced to repeat them for the 4th(ish) time. Just like with other points in other threads on other topics...which you still haven't addressed.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. Purpose of saying "do not reply"
2. Purpose of numerous editing within minutes of each one for posts 1 & 2
3. Purpose of there not being a single plagerised citation in the official reply (3rd post) & all references hyperlinked
#1 & #2 are entirely irrelevant when determining if something is or is not plagiarism, you took it added your own words to distort its conclusions to your own which is plagiarism even if you didn't intend anyone to see it and even if it's just "scrap" or "notes". IT. IS. IRRELEVANT. The fact that it was your incompetence that exposed your plagiarism is just extra funny and entirely in sticking with the rest of your time here.
#3 is also irrelevant because not plagiarizing someone in the future doesn't change that fact that you did in the past. Derp.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  4. Purpose of using the draft function after it was shown to me (ask mods) after the 2nd post
And now you are just repeating a lie I proved in my last post, you were not shown the draft function proceeding the second post but proceeding the FIFTH post 3 days later. Also irrelevant to determining if your first post does or does not contain plagiarism, which it does.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  5. Purpose of requesting the uneditable posts be deleted
Several days after the fact. Asking the mods to delete the record of your plagiarism is not an argument showing you didn't plagiarize in post 1. Another point i made before which you didn't read/chose to ignore.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  6. Purpose of publicly condemning the first 2 posts in a manner that proves I was totally opposed to the way it was written
Again several days after the fact, so irrelevant.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  7. Purpose of editing/developing my argument in plain sight of my opponent.
Also irrelevant for determining if your taking the work of someone else and modifying it with your own words (with or without citation being irrelevant) is plagiarism. Which it is.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you think these points do not sufficiently detract from your Plagerism (...) claim then I am forced to wonder which of us is delusional.
It's still you because they don't detract at all. You still took someones work, you still deleted parts to add your own, and that is still (with or without citation) plagiarism. You also lied about it not being plagiarism cause it has to legally be "official", which it doesn't cause that's not a thing, and you lied again when you claimed that you some how typoed a copy+pasted section of text which is just ....FacepalmLaugh out load. Now I'd be willing to concede that it was not INTENTIONAL, but it's still plagiarism.
Also I'm not the one who pulled an entire set of laws for a non-crime and a whole person out of my ass so ....ya it's still you.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your whole case rests on the following:
"It ended up on a public forum therefore it's an intentional form of Plagerism" & "I don't care if you can prove it wasn't intentional" because "you deserve to be called a plagerist regardless of any intent to commit Plagerism"
Strawman Fallacy, I've never claimed you intentionally set out to commit plagiarism. I said you intentionally and willfully took someones work and deleted some of their content and inserted your own to make it say something it didn't which you clearly did and has been demonstrated multiple times.
For me to believe you intentionally set out to plagiarize someones work that would require me to believe you were in any way aware of what does and does not constitute plagiarism which I didn't then and I don't now. You not only didn't know it was not a crime, didn't know it was not even mentioned in a single statute, and didn't know that it's not even a legal matter AT ALL. You pulled an entire person and a set of laws out of your ass.
I don't think you plagiarized someone intentionally I think you were too incompetent to know you were even doing it or what it even required, and the evidence supports that.

You are however, all bumblefucking aside, still a plagiarist though.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Moving on to the "Dog Dog":
Why would I answer the question about a dog dog? It has no relevance to anything I said.
Actually it does, the relevance is pointing out that your use of "agnostic agnostic" makes no more sense in English when using the ACTUAL definition/usage of a word (which you don't and we will get to shortly) than the difference between a dog and a dog dog or a Catholic and a Catholic Catholic. Your failure to grasp the relevance doesn't mean it's not there.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are going to use metaphors at least use them in relative context.
That's not a metaphor stupid, it's an analogy. This is why you should keep your advice to yourself kid, you're incompetent at English.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are deliberately making a mockery of the English language for less than genuine motives.
Ironic given you don't know what a metaphor or an analogy is.Drinking Beverage

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What's the difference between a Gnostic, an Agnostic Gnostic and a Gnostic Agnostic? I didn't initiate those labels.
You didn't initiate the labels "Agnostic" and "Gnostic" but the label "Agnostic Agnostic" and "Agnostic Gnostic" ARE labels you did. They exist only in your brain because they rely on your ignorant misuse and misunderstanding about what those individual words mean. Which has been explained to you by a dozen people in dozens of posts in multiple threads and I have to do again here. Fuck me, but AGAIN.
If you don't believe me then go on google do a search for ANY other reference to an Agnostic Agnostic or an Agnostic Gnostic. You know what you find? Nothing, because the words and English does not work that way or mean what you think it does.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Just because you can't juggle more than one concept simultaneously in your own mind doesn't mean it's illogical.
I never claimed it was illogical I claimed it made no fucking sense in English and it doesn't. It has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the fact that the words don't mean what you think they mean.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "Agnostic Agnostic with regards to objectively reality" is the context you need to repeat and not just the word "Agnostic Agnostic"
The addition of "..with regards to objective reality" does nothing to change the fact that the label of "Agnostic Agnostic" makes no sense contextually, grammatically, or by the definition of the word "Agnostic". So you keep up fucktard.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "I don't know if I don't know" because in a world of seemingly endless possibilities and a seemingly unknown objective reality, not fully knowing everything is the only consistent thing we come to rationalize.
And here is where we get to the crux of the problem and why I called you fucking stupid in the first place. Agnostic does not mean "I don't know", that's not it's definition. To say you are agnostic is to say "I don't know if a god exists or not". Agnostic is not shorthand for "I don't know", and Gnostic is not shorthand for " I do know".

So when you say you are an "Agnostic Agnostic" what you are ACTUALLY saying is " I don't know if a god exists or not, I don't know if a god exists or not" and a "Agnostic Gnostic" would translate as "I don't know if a god exists or not but I do know a god exists/doesn't exist". Which makes no fucking sense and is why your usage is fucking stupid.
You can't be "agnostic about being agnostic" because agnostic doesn't mean, nor is it shorthand for, "I don't know". In any context, not even common usage or as slang for shits sake. You cut off over half the fucking definition to justify using it incorrectly AGAIN!

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Agnostic Agnostic: I am not sure if I can Cognitively Rationalize my Primal Knowledge.
Not what agnostic means. It doesn't mean "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". It has an ACTUALLY definition you know.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hope I didn't give you an aneurism there. Drinking Beverage
Ironic considering an aneurysm would explain how you can get "agnostic" wrong for months despite dozens of people explaining it to you. See the problem with you trying to be witty is you're not and when you try to talk down to someone about not understanding what you are saying when what you are saying makes no shitting sense at all you end up looking both idiotic and and like an asshole.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Let me break it down for you:
If knowing (Gnostic) & not knowing (Agnostic) belongs on opposing ends of the spectrum which one do you think we would be closer to as far as objective reality is concerned?
My honest answer is "I don't know"
Therefore I am both "Agnostic about being Agnostic" & simultaneously "Agnostic about being Gnostic"
Let ME break it down for YOU:
Gnostic does not mean "knowing" and agnostic does not mean "not knowing" so no you are not "Agnostic about being Agnostic". The fact you think that's what agnostic means or can mean is why I called you fucking stupid and why you are.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If your honest answer is you "know" (which I highly doubt) then you would consider yourself "Gnostic about being Agnostic" & simultaneously "Gnostic about being Gnostic"
No I would not cause I'm not a simpleton and I actually know what the bloody words mean, and they don't mean THAT.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I can't say which is the better world view, but that doesn't rescind my right to state what I believe in now does it?
You could believe whatever you what but what you just typed is nonsense in every way. Grammatically, contextually, and by the definition of those words. You can still believe it but your wrong and stupider for believing it.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are opposed to the beliefs of others even when they have given you their rationalization then good for you.
Your "rationalizations" are based on a willful ignorance of what the words and the concepts behind them mean so yes I'm opposed to it because I am fundamentally opposed to willful ignorance.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Failure to explain why you are opposed to their beliefs leads one to believe that you are an oppressive individual. Hence my consistent reference to your troll like behaviour.
Considering I've explained it before and did again above, and that I've never once tried to "oppress" you (*cough* persecution complex *cough*) I guess based on your own logic you no longer have a justification for calling me a troll. Lets see if you practice what you preach.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Coupled with your liberal use of profanity
Fuck you cunty McCocksucker, who cares if I swear while I prove that you are stupid and dishonest, you wont be any less stupid or dishonest because of the lack shits and fucks.
There was probably about ..eh...a dozen..maybe more, points I made in my last post (including you lying about the law and not knowing what defamation even is for example) that you totally hid from and refused to address at all. Oh boy though did you have time to being up swearing for the 5th fuckin' time. Surprise surprise.Rolleyes

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  defamatory remarks
Failed to read my post or choosing to lie about what defamation is, either way you're an idiot sir. You don't know what defamation is. Still. It's like you are allergic to both words and honesty.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  which you have continuously been unable to validate
Demonstrated beyond a shadow of any doubt that you were lying entirely when you claimed to ask a legal professional about the laws around plagiarism, not knowing there are no laws at all making yourself look like a tool. Even gave you a chance to prove it and you didn't even try. So no you are a liar and it's been proven. Which makes what you just said another lie, you lying liar.

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  only adds more popularity to the belief that you are Trolling these forums.
A belief held by a single person is not popular by any stretch of the imagination you delusional loon. By all means Mr. -8 feel free to keep telling Mr. +71 about how people think I'm a troll.Laughat

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You lack the mental capacity to prove your points absent the use of character assassination.
Interesting view point considering I've been proving my points and disproving yours for nearly 3 months now, and did it again above. Drinking Beverage

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Prove me wrong.
Proved you wrong on plagiarism, what agnostic/gnostic means, what defamation means, and what metaphor means. I'd say that's good enough for one night.Drinking Beverage

(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Can't wait to see how you're going to respond to this.
I'm not looking forward to another response were you clearly didn't read the post, you ignore everything I've said, everything I've demonstrated, and just unthinkingly regurgitate your assertions completely unchanged and with a couple of lies, both old and new, thrown in for flavor.


(09-03-2016 11:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm beginning to read you like a book.
If that's true then you have clearly never read a book before.Drinking Beverage
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism
Plaigarism:
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:

It's a 2 part process:
1. using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization
2. the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author

It's not either or.

Please prove how I have "represented" the author's work as "my own" in posts 1 & 2.

Part 1. has been committed by me. I have copied and pasted another author's work into a publicly readable form of communication. I don't deny that, but that isn't the only thing required for it to be called plaigarism. You keep arguing this point repeatedly as the only basis of your plaigarism claim. No one is arguing back or denying this point, but you still have part 2 to contend with.
Part 2. The representation of this author's work as my own is the final ingredient for it to be called plaigarism. This is the part I have been repeating over and over in my defense. When have I ever represented the author's work as my own? You have yet to address "representation" of "ownership"

You want the listeners to believe simply posting something in a publicly readable form of communication implies "representation of something as my own". It still falls under part 1. It's an assumption based on what? My 15 year old son copy/ pasted part of an article on volcanic eruption & emailed it to his friend for review whilst working on a group project without indicating it's source. His friend isn't going to say it's a form of plaigarism.
Lack of any form of representation or claims to ownership of said information does not qualify said posts as a form of plaigarism. How are you ever going to prove it was plaigarism without addressing "representation" & "ownership"?

What you are describing isn't plaigarism. You may quite possibly have to invent a new word to describe what i did and have society, over time, deem it as something negative for this to play out in your favor.
Accept when you are beat Whiskey.
Drinking Beverage

Moving on:
Regarding Gnostic & Agnostic:
gnos·tic/ˈnästik/
adjective
of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gnostic+means

Just because you want it to have something to do with God or the fact that it is most commonly used when speaking about God doesn't mean it is specifically correlated to the subject of God.

It is derived for the Greek word Gnosis, which means "to know".
The Greek word Theo is used in relation to God.
This is why an Atheist can be both Agnostic & Gnostic about God, because the word Gnostic is not directly correlated to the word God. It is a common societal misconception brought about from the continuous use of the word when describing a world view relating to the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 12:13 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(10-03-2016 11:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So either you didn't actually bother to read my replies or your just going to pretend like I didn't just demonstrate beyond doubt that you pulled an entire legal concept and a whole person(s) out of your ass. Official, unofficial, notes, written in your own shit on your psych wards walls it doesn't matter because:
"....copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"
Which is what you did when you copy+pasted Dr. Sten Odenwald's work while inserting your own words into it to give a conclusion that his work doesn't support but which you needed.
Even if you HAD sourced it the first time it would still be plagiarism, but you didn't.
So you can stop saying "official" any time you like as it's a complete irrelevancy when determining what is and is not plagiarism.
Still waiting on that legal citation by the way.

Some can be ignored given that they are entirely irrelevant to the question, and the rest already HAVE been refuted a fact you would know if you bothered to read my replies. Now I'm forced to repeat them for the 4th(ish) time. Just like with other points in other threads on other topics...which you still haven't addressed.

#1 & #2 are entirely irrelevant when determining if something is or is not plagiarism, you took it added your own words to distort its conclusions to your own which is plagiarism even if you didn't intend anyone to see it and even if it's just "scrap" or "notes". IT. IS. IRRELEVANT. The fact that it was your incompetence that exposed your plagiarism is just extra funny and entirely in sticking with the rest of your time here.
#3 is also irrelevant because not plagiarizing someone in the future doesn't change that fact that you did in the past. Derp.


And now you are just repeating a lie I proved in my last post, you were not shown the draft function proceeding the second post but proceeding the FIFTH post 3 days later. Also irrelevant to determining if your first post does or does not contain plagiarism, which it does.

Several days after the fact. Asking the mods to delete the record of your plagiarism is not an argument showing you didn't plagiarize in post 1. Another point i made before which you didn't read/chose to ignore.

Again several days after the fact, so irrelevant.

Also irrelevant for determining if your taking the work of someone else and modifying it with your own words (with or without citation being irrelevant) is plagiarism. Which it is.

It's still you because they don't detract at all. You still took someones work, you still deleted parts to add your own, and that is still (with or without citation) plagiarism. You also lied about it not being plagiarism cause it has to legally be "official", which it doesn't cause that's not a thing, and you lied again when you claimed that you some how typoed a copy+pasted section of text which is just ....FacepalmLaugh out load. Now I'd be willing to concede that it was not INTENTIONAL, but it's still plagiarism.
Also I'm not the one who pulled an entire set of laws for a non-crime and a whole person out of my ass so ....ya it's still you.

Strawman Fallacy, I've never claimed you intentionally set out to commit plagiarism. I said you intentionally and willfully took someones work and deleted some of their content and inserted your own to make it say something it didn't which you clearly did and has been demonstrated multiple times.
For me to believe you intentionally set out to plagiarize someones work that would require me to believe you were in any way aware of what does and does not constitute plagiarism which I didn't then and I don't now. You not only didn't know it was not a crime, didn't know it was not even mentioned in a single statute, and didn't know that it's not even a legal matter AT ALL. You pulled an entire person and a set of laws out of your ass.
I don't think you plagiarized someone intentionally I think you were too incompetent to know you were even doing it or what it even required, and the evidence supports that.

You are however, all bumblefucking aside, still a plagiarist though.


Actually it does, the relevance is pointing out that your use of "agnostic agnostic" makes no more sense in English when using the ACTUAL definition/usage of a word (which you don't and we will get to shortly) than the difference between a dog and a dog dog or a Catholic and a Catholic Catholic. Your failure to grasp the relevance doesn't mean it's not there.

That's not a metaphor stupid, it's an analogy. This is why you should keep your advice to yourself kid, you're incompetent at English.

Ironic given you don't know what a metaphor or an analogy is.Drinking Beverage

You didn't initiate the labels "Agnostic" and "Gnostic" but the label "Agnostic Agnostic" and "Agnostic Gnostic" ARE labels you did. They exist only in your brain because they rely on your ignorant misuse and misunderstanding about what those individual words mean. Which has been explained to you by a dozen people in dozens of posts in multiple threads and I have to do again here. Fuck me, but AGAIN.
If you don't believe me then go on google do a search for ANY other reference to an Agnostic Agnostic or an Agnostic Gnostic. You know what you find? Nothing, because the words and English does not work that way or mean what you think it does.

I never claimed it was illogical I claimed it made no fucking sense in English and it doesn't. It has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the fact that the words don't mean what you think they mean.

The addition of "..with regards to objective reality" does nothing to change the fact that the label of "Agnostic Agnostic" makes no sense contextually, grammatically, or by the definition of the word "Agnostic". So you keep up fucktard.


And here is where we get to the crux of the problem and why I called you fucking stupid in the first place. Agnostic does not mean "I don't know", that's not it's definition. To say you are agnostic is to say "I don't know if a god exists or not". Agnostic is not shorthand for "I don't know", and Gnostic is not shorthand for " I do know".

So when you say you are an "Agnostic Agnostic" what you are ACTUALLY saying is " I don't know if a god exists or not, I don't know if a god exists or not" and a "Agnostic Gnostic" would translate as "I don't know if a god exists or not but I do know a god exists/doesn't exist". Which makes no fucking sense and is why your usage is fucking stupid.
You can't be "agnostic about being agnostic" because agnostic doesn't mean, nor is it shorthand for, "I don't know". In any context, not even common usage or as slang for shits sake. You cut off over half the fucking definition to justify using it incorrectly AGAIN!

Not what agnostic means. It doesn't mean "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". It has an ACTUALLY definition you know.

Ironic considering an aneurysm would explain how you can get "agnostic" wrong for months despite dozens of people explaining it to you. See the problem with you trying to be witty is you're not and when you try to talk down to someone about not understanding what you are saying when what you are saying makes no shitting sense at all you end up looking both idiotic and and like an asshole.


Let ME break it down for YOU:
Gnostic does not mean "knowing" and agnostic does not mean "not knowing" so no you are not "Agnostic about being Agnostic". The fact you think that's what agnostic means or can mean is why I called you fucking stupid and why you are.

No I would not cause I'm not a simpleton and I actually know what the bloody words mean, and they don't mean THAT.

You could believe whatever you what but what you just typed is nonsense in every way. Grammatically, contextually, and by the definition of those words. You can still believe it but your wrong and stupider for believing it.

Your "rationalizations" are based on a willful ignorance of what the words and the concepts behind them mean so yes I'm opposed to it because I am fundamentally opposed to willful ignorance.

Considering I've explained it before and did again above, and that I've never once tried to "oppress" you (*cough* persecution complex *cough*) I guess based on your own logic you no longer have a justification for calling me a troll. Lets see if you practice what you preach.

Fuck you cunty McCocksucker, who cares if I swear while I prove that you are stupid and dishonest, you wont be any less stupid or dishonest because of the lack shits and fucks.
There was probably about ..eh...a dozen..maybe more, points I made in my last post (including you lying about the law and not knowing what defamation even is for example) that you totally hid from and refused to address at all. Oh boy though did you have time to being up swearing for the 5th fuckin' time. Surprise surprise.Rolleyes

Failed to read my post or choosing to lie about what defamation is, either way you're an idiot sir. You don't know what defamation is. Still. It's like you are allergic to both words and honesty.


Demonstrated beyond a shadow of any doubt that you were lying entirely when you claimed to ask a legal professional about the laws around plagiarism, not knowing there are no laws at all making yourself look like a tool. Even gave you a chance to prove it and you didn't even try. So no you are a liar and it's been proven. Which makes what you just said another lie, you lying liar.

A belief held by a single person is not popular by any stretch of the imagination you delusional loon. By all means Mr. -8 feel free to keep telling Mr. +71 about how people think I'm a troll.Laughat

Interesting view point considering I've been proving my points and disproving yours for nearly 3 months now, and did it again above. Drinking Beverage

Proved you wrong on plagiarism, what agnostic/gnostic means, what defamation means, and what metaphor means. I'd say that's good enough for one night.Drinking Beverage

I'm not looking forward to another response were you clearly didn't read the post, you ignore everything I've said, everything I've demonstrated, and just unthinkingly regurgitate your assertions completely unchanged and with a couple of lies, both old and new, thrown in for flavor.


If that's true then you have clearly never read a book before.Drinking Beverage
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism
Plaigarism:
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:

It's a 2 part process:
1. using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization
2. the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author

It's not either or.

Please prove how I have "represented" the author's work as "my own" in posts 1 & 2.

Part 1. has been committed by me. I have copied and pasted another author's work into a publicly readable form of communication. I don't deny that, but that isn't the only thing required for it to be called plaigarism. You keep arguing this point repeatedly as the only basis of your plaigarism claim. No one is arguing back or denying this point, but you still have part 2 to contend with.
Part 2. The representation of this author's work as my own is the final ingredient for it to be called plaigarism. This is the part I have been repeating over and over in my defense. When have I ever represented the author's work as my own? You have yet to address "representation" of "ownership"

You want the listeners to believe simply posting something in a publicly readable form of communication implies "representation of something as my own". It still falls under part 1. It's an assumption based on what? My 15 year old son copy/ pasted part of an article on volcanic eruption & emailed it to his friend for review whilst working on a group project without indicating it's source. His friend isn't going to say it's a form of plaigarism.
Lack of any form of representation or claims to ownership of said information does not qualify said posts as a form of plaigarism. How are you ever going to prove it was plaigarism without addressing "representation" & "ownership"?

What you are describing isn't plaigarism. You may quite possibly have to invent a new word to describe what i did and have society, over time, deem it as something negative for this to play out in your favor.
Accept when you are beat Whiskey.
Drinking Beverage

Moving on:
Regarding Gnostic & Agnostic:
gnos·tic/ˈnästik/
adjective
of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gnostic+means

It's "you are beaten", ignoramus. Not "beat". I think I start to see your problem.

Nice try.
"pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

Says nothing about your made up "2 part process".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: