[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="Dipsomania"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"] i think i somehow dodged those bullets. he abandoned his line of argument with me and focused on whats his face over there. LJS9502_basicNext time it's your turn to take the massacre:P i dont want to start things up again, but i think i bested him when we were actually arguing. he likened anti smoking laws to governments' ability to regulate business via health code laws, as though it is the same thing when one walks into a smoky bar and sits there and when he eats contaminated, undercooked food. either way, this argument is not really worth having because it comes down to whether you think the government should be meddling in private business in the name of public benefit. i dont, many people do. wonderful, lets move on. No...I "bested" you. Your argument was against government interference in business...and I pointed out the necessity of it. Therefore, I...um...won that round. :wink: i must disagree. i agree that the government should be able to protect people from unkown dangers, ie, restaurants letting their kitchens become infested with vermin and bacteria, undercooking food, etc. however, these are harms that would go unknown to patrons. secondhand smoke is all too obvious when you go into a bar or restaurant. people make a conscious decision to go or not go into such a place. completely different. what you did was contort my argument into "government should never be able to regulate business. ever" when it was "in this particular instance, government regulation is silly and unwarranted". whether it was intentional or not, this is a clever trick that allowed you to use an inapposite example to refute my argument. some people might not catch on to it, but i did. either way, i otherwise see your argument and it is valid and all, but i just disagree.
Do you agree smoking should be forbidden in all public places?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Just let people have a smoke for chips sake. Try walking in a smokers shoes for once. Your stressed out, you work 45 hours a week, and you get 5 minutes of precious relaxation with a cigarette and goddamn hippies with there heads up there asses whine and moan at you and pretend like they can't breath and then they go and legislate against the only thing you have in this world that does not yell at you and give your orders (nicotene) so you can't even enjoy it wouthout being pelted with rotten cabbage and tickets. :(KrayzieJSmokers chose to smoke. I have no sympathy for someone who made such a decision.
I think smoking is disgusting and should be banned in all public areas. And I strongly support that the prices for a DEATH STICK should be raised a bit more. I hope that some day the only place that is OK to smoke is in Smokers own homes...Lds_RickyRaised prices would cause more destruction. If a nicotine addict can't afford his fix it's similar to a hardcore drug addict that can't get his fix.
[QUOTE="Lds_Ricky"]I think smoking is disgusting and should be banned in all public areas. And I strongly support that the prices for a DEATH STICK should be raised a bit more. I hope that some day the only place that is OK to smoke is in Smokers own homes...Caffeine_TripRaised prices would cause more destruction. If a nicotine addict can't afford his fix it's similar to a hardcore drug addict that can't get his fix. More? Qutie the Contrary my friend, I believe with higher prices smokers will be discouraged to spend as much on them on a daily/weekly basis.
[QUOTE="Caffeine_Trip"][QUOTE="Lds_Ricky"]I think smoking is disgusting and should be banned in all public areas. And I strongly support that the prices for a DEATH STICK should be raised a bit more. I hope that some day the only place that is OK to smoke is in Smokers own homes...Lds_RickyRaised prices would cause more destruction. If a nicotine addict can't afford his fix it's similar to a hardcore drug addict that can't get his fix. More? Qutie the Contrary my friend, I believe with higher prices smokers will be discouraged to spend as much on them on a daily/weekly basis. Sure they'll be discouraged, but it's a physical addiction. Smoking is as addictive as heroin, and when you have a smoker without his nicotine he's going to do whatever it takes to get some.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="Dipsomania"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"] i think i somehow dodged those bullets. he abandoned his line of argument with me and focused on whats his face over there. ROLFCHANKNext time it's your turn to take the massacre:P i dont want to start things up again, but i think i bested him when we were actually arguing. he likened anti smoking laws to governments' ability to regulate business via health code laws, as though it is the same thing when one walks into a smoky bar and sits there and when he eats contaminated, undercooked food. either way, this argument is not really worth having because it comes down to whether you think the government should be meddling in private business in the name of public benefit. i dont, many people do. wonderful, lets move on. No...I "bested" you. Your argument was against government interference in business...and I pointed out the necessity of it. Therefore, I...um...won that round. :wink: i must disagree. i agree that the government should be able to protect people from unkown dangers, ie, restaurants letting their kitchens become infested with vermin and bacteria, undercooking food, etc. however, these are harms that would go unknown to patrons. secondhand smoke is all too obvious when you go into a bar or restaurant. people make a conscious decision to go or not go into such a place. completely different. what you did was contort my argument into "government should never be able to regulate business. ever" when it was "in this particular instance, government regulation is silly and unwarranted". whether it was intentional or not, this is a clever trick that allowed you to use an inapposite example to refute my argument. some people might not catch on to it, but i did. either way, i otherwise see your argument and it is valid and all, but i just disagree. But you agreed that the government serves a purpose in regulating business....so you did not best me.
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="Dipsomania"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"] i think i somehow dodged those bullets. he abandoned his line of argument with me and focused on whats his face over there. LJS9502_basicNext time it's your turn to take the massacre:P i dont want to start things up again, but i think i bested him when we were actually arguing. he likened anti smoking laws to governments' ability to regulate business via health code laws, as though it is the same thing when one walks into a smoky bar and sits there and when he eats contaminated, undercooked food. either way, this argument is not really worth having because it comes down to whether you think the government should be meddling in private business in the name of public benefit. i dont, many people do. wonderful, lets move on. No...I "bested" you. Your argument was against government interference in business...and I pointed out the necessity of it. Therefore, I...um...won that round. :wink: i must disagree. i agree that the government should be able to protect people from unkown dangers, ie, restaurants letting their kitchens become infested with vermin and bacteria, undercooking food, etc. however, these are harms that would go unknown to patrons. secondhand smoke is all too obvious when you go into a bar or restaurant. people make a conscious decision to go or not go into such a place. completely different. what you did was contort my argument into "government should never be able to regulate business. ever" when it was "in this particular instance, government regulation is silly and unwarranted". whether it was intentional or not, this is a clever trick that allowed you to use an inapposite example to refute my argument. some people might not catch on to it, but i did. either way, i otherwise see your argument and it is valid and all, but i just disagree. But you agreed that the government serves a purpose in regulating business....so you did not best me. oh, apparently we were not arguing about smoking laws. neither of us won, then. i was under a mistaken impression. this post may or may not be sarcastic, depending on whether you really were not arguing specifically about smoking laws lol. either way, it was enjoyable not-debating you :)
oh, apparently we were not arguing about smoking laws. neither of us won, then. i was under a mistaken impression. this post may or may not be sarcastic, depending on whether you really were not arguing specifically about smoking laws lol. either way, it was enjoyable not-debating you :)ROLFCHANK
Sorry....but you made an incorrect statement and I called you on it.Â
Ugh....my sister's cable is slower than my DSL.
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"] oh, apparently we were not arguing about smoking laws. neither of us won, then. i was under a mistaken impression. this post may or may not be sarcastic, depending on whether you really were not arguing specifically about smoking laws lol. either way, it was enjoyable not-debating you :)LJS9502_basic
Sorry....but you made an incorrect statement and I called you on it.
Ugh....my sister's cable is slower than my DSL.
okay, i tried to be gracious about it, but you grossly misconstrued a statement i made, a statement that any peabrain literate in political economy should have been able to correctly interpret, "called" me, as you say, on a phantom issue i was never arguing, and you are now trying to say that you won a debate against me in which i was never involved. okay, i tried to be gracious about it, but you grossly misconstrued a statement i made, a statement that any peabrain literate in political economy should have been able to correctly interpret, "called" me, as you say, on a phantom issue i was never arguing, and you are now trying to say that you won a debate against me in which i was never involved. ROLFCHANK
this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights. its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period. ROLFCHANK
Here is your original statement in it's entirety. What did I misconstrue about your statement that business owners should operate their businesses as they see fit, period? There was not mistaking your intent. I simply correct your erroneous statement about government regulation....ie the health department which checks that conditions are made in regard to food service...and drinks....to avoid consumers becoming ill.
Now....where is the misconception? Oh wait...there wasn't one but your argument did not hold up on inspection so you decided to say you were gracious?:lol:
No.
With public places I mean, pubs, restaurants, snackbars, sportscentres,...Join the military and we will see if you start some bad habits. Anyway, I disagree. There are non-smoking areas in most restaurants and I don't know why you would take a baby or pragnent woman to a bar where the theme is basically drinking, smoking, and loud music. Face it, there are some things in life that you can't get rid of, some things you must learn to tolerate. Improvise, adapt, or overcome. Those are your choices, use them.
Anyway I hate it when people smoke when I'm close to them, I have astma and the smoke takes a huge impact on my lungs.
I love sports and I worked a lot to improve my condition, but when someone smokes near me, I can still feel the impact 2 hours later.
Also Babies get sick from the smoke comming from the sigaret.
Pragnent woman breathing in smoke have higher chance of having a baby with bronchitis or astma.
Also nobody likes when someone is smoking nearby where you are eating.
Why do people start smoking in the first place?
Sensui1986
Join the military and we will see if you start some bad habits. Anyway, I disagree. There are non-smoking areas in most restaurants and I don't know why you would take a baby or pragnent woman to a bar where the theme is basically drinking, smoking, and loud music. Face it, there are some things in life that you can't get rid of, some things you must learn to tolerate. Improvise, adapt, or overcome. Those are your choices, use them.M1Hunter66
I was in the military for four years.....I never smoked.:roll:
Why is that smokers want non smokers to adapt but when it comes to something simple like going outside for a minute to smoke....they won't adapt themselves?
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"] okay, i tried to be gracious about it, but you grossly misconstrued a statement i made, a statement that any peabrain literate in political economy should have been able to correctly interpret, "called" me, as you say, on a phantom issue i was never arguing, and you are now trying to say that you won a debate against me in which i was never involved. LJS9502_basic
this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights. its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period. ROLFCHANK
Here is your original statement in it's entirety. What did I misconstrue about your statement that business owners should operate their businesses as they see fit, period? There was not mistaking your intent. I simply correct your erroneous statement about government regulation....ie the health department which checks that conditions are made in regard to food service...and drinks....to avoid consumers becoming ill.
Now....where is the misconception? Oh wait...there wasn't one but your argument did not hold up on inspection so you decided to say you were gracious?:lol:
No.
the misconception is that i was arguing that businesses shouldnt be subject to any regulation or laws, which is silly. if you take my statement in context, i "running a business as [one] sees fit" encompasses, reasonably, allowing people to smoke inside. the only explanation for your interpretation of my comment the way you interpreted it, is either 1. you were being disingenuous and trying to shift the argument so that you could win an argument that was not being waged, or 2. you really did misunderstand me. either way, i concede that businesses should be subject to certain regulations, but i never argued otherwise. I ALREADY SAID THIS ABOVE. however, i do not agree that banning smoking is one of the things government should be able to do vis a vis regulation. to that end, i do not see any correlation between health dept regulations, which are designed to protect people from unknowable dangers, and smoking in a restaurant, which everybody is clearly aware is happening and can avoid if they so choose. the only source of your misunderstanding i can see is the placement of the word "period", which i meant to underline my framing of the issue. ie, the issue is whether the govt should be micromanaging businesses, and that is the issue, period. you could have understood me to mean "business owners should be able to run their businesses how they want, period" which, i guess, could be construed as an argument that business owners shouldnt be subject to any constraints. that wouldnt be my first reading, but i suppose it is a valid one. either way, that is not what i meant. are we clear now?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights. its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period. ROLFCHANK
Here is your original statement in it's entirety. What did I misconstrue about your statement that business owners should operate their businesses as they see fit, period? There was not mistaking your intent. I simply correct your erroneous statement about government regulation....ie the health department which checks that conditions are made in regard to food service...and drinks....to avoid consumers becoming ill.
Now....where is the misconception? Oh wait...there wasn't one but your argument did not hold up on inspection so you decided to say you were gracious?:lol:
No.
the misconception is that i was arguing that businesses shouldnt be subject to any regulation or laws, which is silly. if you take my statement in context, i "running a business as [one] sees fit" encompasses, reasonably, allowing people to smoke inside. the only explanation for your interpretation of my comment the way you interpreted it, is either 1. you were being disingenuous and trying to shift the argument so that you could win an argument that was not being waged, or 2. you really did misunderstand me. either way, i concede that businesses should be subject to certain regulations, but i never argued otherwise. I ALREADY SAID THIS ABOVE. however, i do not agree that banning smoking is one of the things government should be able to do vis a vis regulation. to that end, i do not see any correlation between health dept regulations, which are designed to protect people from unknowable dangers, and smoking in a restaurant, which everybody is clearly aware is happening and can avoid if they so choose.Ah dude....I'm just going by what you posted.....bolded above. You only added that after I brought up the health dept....you fully intended to state that government shouldn't interfere. The use of the word period underscored your intention. You made a mistake...it's cool.Â
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.ROLFCHANK
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.LJS9502_basic
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.ROLFCHANK
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it.Of course I hadn't....it was in response to your bolded statement that I mentioned the Health Dept.:roll:
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.ROLFCHANK
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it. I'm sorry to butt in, but somebody has to say something. Seriously, you're just embarassing yourself now. If your gamespot pride is that important to you then you have more important problems than whether or not you won this argument. Just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Are you getting paid for this? Shouldn't you be working?then what did you mean by "You only added that after I brought up the health dept."? and why are you so condescending with the lol and rolleyes icons? ROLFCHANKRead your last sentence....now can we end this? I've shown what you said. It speaks for itself....if you disagree now then it is with yourself.
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.murlow12
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it. I'm sorry to butt in, but somebody has to say something. Seriously, you're just embarassing yourself now. If your gamespot pride is that important to you then you have more important problems than whether or not you won this argument. Just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Are you getting paid for this? Shouldn't you be working? yes, at 8:15 at night i am usually working. butt out, please. you went on for pages and pages in the gay marriage thread with the following argument: i am in law school. i have more education than you. i did a bunch of research that gave me the answer to this, trust me.[QUOTE="murlow12"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.ROLFCHANK
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it. I'm sorry to butt in, but somebody has to say something. Seriously, you're just embarassing yourself now. If your gamespot pride is that important to you then you have more important problems than whether or not you won this argument. Just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Are you getting paid for this? Shouldn't you be working? yes, at 8:15 at night i am usually working. butt out, please. you went on for pages and pages in the gay marriage thread with the following argument: i am in law school. i have more education than you. i did a bunch of research that gave me the answer to this, trust me. Of course, my mistake. Your argument that you didn't mean what you said because people in law school "nitpick for hours about seemingly clear words" is more persuasive? Get over yourself and move on. Apparently you are the guy in the picture...[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]then what did you mean by "You only added that after I brought up the health dept."? and why are you so condescending with the lol and rolleyes icons? LJS9502_basicRead your last sentence....now can we end this? I've shown what you said. It speaks for itself....if you disagree now then it is with yourself. we can end it, i just find it amusing you think that that statement meant that my position was that businesses shouldnt be regulated, even though i made the statement and i have pointed out repeatedly that i did not mean that, and not only that, but the context of this thread should make that pretty clear, but...you win the argument!
yes, at 8:15 at night i am usually working. butt out, please. you went on for pages and pages in the gay marriage thread with the following argument: i am in law school. i have more education than you. i did a bunch of research that gave me the answer to this, trust me.[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.ROLFCHANK
Ah....well after reading your posts I don't think I'll be availing myself of your law services.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]then what did you mean by "You only added that after I brought up the health dept."? and why are you so condescending with the lol and rolleyes icons? ROLFCHANKRead your last sentence....now can we end this? I've shown what you said. It speaks for itself....if you disagree now then it is with yourself. we can end it, i just find it amusing you think that that statement meant that my position was that businesses shouldnt be regulated, even though i made the statement and i have pointed out repeatedly that i did not mean that, and not only that, but the context of this thread should make that pretty clear, but...you win the argument!
No...you got caught and tried to change what you said. Your post stands for itself.
[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="murlow12"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.murlow12
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it. I'm sorry to butt in, but somebody has to say something. Seriously, you're just embarassing yourself now. If your gamespot pride is that important to you then you have more important problems than whether or not you won this argument. Just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Are you getting paid for this? Shouldn't you be working? yes, at 8:15 at night i am usually working. butt out, please. you went on for pages and pages in the gay marriage thread with the following argument: i am in law school. i have more education than you. i did a bunch of research that gave me the answer to this, trust me. Of course, my mistake. Your argument that you didn't mean what you said because people in law school "nitpick for hours about seemingly clear words" is more persuasive? Get over yourself and move on. Apparently you are the guy in the picture... now you want to get into it with me? i said that to illustrate that certain people do sit around haggling about the meaning of words, because that was the subject being discussed. the statement was also ancillary to my overall argument. this is very far from defending entire arguments with "i am in law school and i bet you didnt even go to college dummy!" or whatever ridiculous statement you made to kilgore trout before he summarily handed you your behind on a platter 74 times over.Read your last sentence....now can we end this? I've shown what you said. It speaks for itself....if you disagree now then it is with yourself. we can end it, i just find it amusing you think that that statement meant that my position was that businesses shouldnt be regulated, even though i made the statement and i have pointed out repeatedly that i did not mean that, and not only that, but the context of this thread should make that pretty clear, but...you win the argument![QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]then what did you mean by "You only added that after I brought up the health dept."? and why are you so condescending with the lol and rolleyes icons? LJS9502_basic
No...you got caught and tried to change what you said. Your post stands for itself.
good point. i was arguing that businesses shouldnt be subject to laws and you showed me the light. thank you. lol. my law services.[QUOTE="murlow12"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="murlow12"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.ROLFCHANK
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it. I'm sorry to butt in, but somebody has to say something. Seriously, you're just embarassing yourself now. If your gamespot pride is that important to you then you have more important problems than whether or not you won this argument. Just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Are you getting paid for this? Shouldn't you be working? yes, at 8:15 at night i am usually working. butt out, please. you went on for pages and pages in the gay marriage thread with the following argument: i am in law school. i have more education than you. i did a bunch of research that gave me the answer to this, trust me. Of course, my mistake. Your argument that you didn't mean what you said because people in law school "nitpick for hours about seemingly clear words" is more persuasive? Get over yourself and move on. Apparently you are the guy in the picture... now you want to get into it with me? i said that to illustrate that certain people do sit around haggling about the meaning of words, because that was the subject being discussed. the statement was also ancillary to my overall argument. this is very far from defending entire arguments with "i am in law school and i bet you didnt even go to college dummy!" or whatever ridiculous statement you made to kilgore trout before he summarily handed you your behind on a platter 74 times over. I've never encountered anyone on these forums that is so caught up with other people's opinion of him/her. You would do well to take a break from GS and meet some real people. Try to engage in meaningful discussion with REAL people. You'll find that your defensive tone doesn't work so well in real life. And when you say something, stand by it. Don't run with your tail between your legs making excuses.[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="murlow12"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="murlow12"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]this isnt about smokers' or nonsmokers' rights.its about the rights of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, period.murlow12
you are right. phrases are never subject to different readings, and if they are, you certainly could never have misread something. i mean, ever. plus the cure havent been horrible since 1989. and on and on. you sure are determined, ill give you that.
That statement is as self explanatory as can be. There is no quibble...
Attacking my music taste lowers one's credibility dude. I'm done. I think your statement stands on it's own....and I don't get into insults over a discussion.:roll:
i was insulting the cure because robert smith annoys me and hes looking right at me. yes, there is a quibble. believe me, walk into a law school one day and you will see people nitpicking for hours about seemingly clear words. i agree that the statement is clear, and i have explained it. i still dont get why you thought it meant what you said it did, given the context, but i guess you refuse to see that. also, you had not mentioned health department before i made the statement that you bolded, go check. or, if you did, i hadnt read it, and i didnt quote it. I'm sorry to butt in, but somebody has to say something. Seriously, you're just embarassing yourself now. If your gamespot pride is that important to you then you have more important problems than whether or not you won this argument. Just admit that you made a mistake and move on. Are you getting paid for this? Shouldn't you be working? yes, at 8:15 at night i am usually working. butt out, please. you went on for pages and pages in the gay marriage thread with the following argument: i am in law school. i have more education than you. i did a bunch of research that gave me the answer to this, trust me. Of course, my mistake. Your argument that you didn't mean what you said because people in law school "nitpick for hours about seemingly clear words" is more persuasive? Get over yourself and move on. Apparently you are the guy in the picture... now you want to get into it with me? i said that to illustrate that certain people do sit around haggling about the meaning of words, because that was the subject being discussed. the statement was also ancillary to my overall argument. this is very far from defending entire arguments with "i am in law school and i bet you didnt even go to college dummy!" or whatever ridiculous statement you made to kilgore trout before he summarily handed you your behind on a platter 74 times over. I've never encountered anyone on these forums that is so caught up with other people's opinion of him/her. You would do well to take a break from GS and meet some real people. Try to engage in meaningful discussion with REAL people. You'll find that your defensive tone doesn't work so well in real life. And when you say something, stand by it. Don't run with your tail between your legs making excuses. now you, i can buy that you are stupid enough to think that what i said meant that i didnt think businesses should be subject to any regulation of any kind. but not that other guy.now you, i can buy that you are stupid enough to think that what i said meant that i didnt think businesses should be subject to any regulation of any kind. but not that other guy. ROLFCHANKYour immature personal attacks don't change the fact that you either 1) misspoke; or 2) were completely wrong. Either way, I have spent countless hours in a law school listening to people "nitpick for hours about seemingly clear words," and I still don't understand how you can claim that your statement meant something that it didn't. You have been bested, sir. It probably isn't the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. A piece of humble pie would serve you well...
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment