OT'er you would like to see banned

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Nope, that was not set by Congress so it's not a formal mission statement.

Note that I said formal.

airshocker

Note that I said mission statement. No formal. That right there is a mission statement.

But not a mission statement that is formal, thus not being a counter-argument against my point.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="lightleggy"] i have, but that is no gif rotator he uses...the guy manually changes his gif like every week or so...its very creepy. because its always about asian girlslightleggy

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Given the extent to which you'll go to garner attention here, I'd have to say that while you probably don't care about WHAT people think, you DO care that they think of you.

Frame_Dragger

Sometimes using irony and humor is the best way to state a point, specially when you are on a dumb thread talking with stupid people who want other people who disagree with them banned. Just saying...

But not a mission statement that is formal, thus not being a counter-argument against my point.

THE_DRUGGIE

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't referring to a formal mission statement from Congress. I was referring to what's on their webpage.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Well I certainly care about stating my points but that's a far way of losing sleep over you telling me I have no credibility.kuraimen

Sometimes using irony and humor is the best way to state a point, specially when you are on a dumb thread talking with stupid people who want other people who disagree with them banned. Just saying...

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But not a mission statement that is formal, thus not being a counter-argument against my point.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't referring to a formal mission statement from Congress. I was referring to what's on their webpage.

Yes, but in response to TG's point which was that they have no formal mission. So, either you replied with information that had no bearing on the argument for the sake of trivia, and conceded the point, or you tried to offer something insufficient to support that point and failed. Which is it?Frame_Dragger

No, he replied to me, actually. I was the first to mention mission statement.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You care about how you state your points? I don't know, that would mean that you're either being dishonest about that right now, or you're so lacking insight and intelligence that you don't realize how poor your posts are. For your sake, I hope it's the former. Anyway, time for you to get attention elsewhere... this is just boring.Frame_Dragger

Sometimes using irony and humor is the best way to state a point, specially when you are on a dumb thread talking with stupid people who want other people who disagree with them banned. Just saying...

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Yes, but in response to TG's point which was that they have no formal mission. So, either you replied with information that had no bearing on the argument for the sake of trivia, and conceded the point, or you tried to offer something insufficient to support that point and failed. Which is it?airshocker

No, he replied to me, actually. I was the first to mention mission statement.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But not a mission statement that is formal, thus not being a counter-argument against my point.

airshocker

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't referring to a formal mission statement from Congress. I was referring to what's on their webpage.

Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about, yet you insisted I made an error.

The difference between that mission statement and one that is formal is that there has to be a consensus among Congressional Committee(s) relevant to the organization on any changes in mission statements (basically what they do), but the EPA is given the power to write their own mission statement, but is still subject to the whim of the President, given the appointment power he has, thus meaning change would not come through Congress, but rather the President in regard to the mission statement, thus not making it formal.

Meaning I was correct.

Sometimes using irony and humor is the best way to state a point, specially when you are on a dumb thread talking with stupid people who want other people who disagree with them banned. Just saying...

This dodges the point... you'd frankly be more respectable if you were able to admit/understand when you're factually incorrect. Oh well. Thanks for this demonstration of why you're generally likeable except when talking about politics! :PFrame_Dragger

Why would I respond to you if you didn't take into account what actually happened? He brought up the formal mission statement bit, not I. I said mission statement, which clearly there is. What do I care if it didn't come from Congress? It was on their website, and I wasn't arguing over a "formal" mission statement.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Sometimes using irony and humor is the best way to state a point, specially when you are on a dumb thread talking with stupid people who want other people who disagree with them banned. Just saying...

kuraimen

...And you're still whoring for attention, even though it's negative. :D

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Maybe you should refine your mastering of the english language then, since it is clearly inferior to mine.kuraimen

Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about, yet you insisted I made an error.

The difference between that mission statement and one that is formal is that there has to be a consensus among Congressional Committee(s) relevant to the organization on any changes in mission statements (basically what they do), but the EPA is given the power to write their own mission statement, but is still subject to the whim of the President, given the appointment power he has, thus meaning change would not come through Congress, but rather the President in regard to the mission statement, thus not making it formal.

Meaning I was correct.

THE_DRUGGIE

You were talking about a formal mission statement, I wasn't. I was talking about the one on their website. Which I linked to you so you could see. You insisted I was incorrect when you're the one that didn't take a step back and think "Perhaps he's not talking about anything from Congress>"

I don't see where you're correct when you're clearly mistaken about what I was talking about. Sure, you're right about the bit with Congress, but I was never arguing against that.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about, yet you insisted I made an error.

The difference between that mission statement and one that is formal is that there has to be a consensus among Congressional Committee(s) relevant to the organization on any changes in mission statements (basically what they do), but the EPA is given the power to write their own mission statement, but is still subject to the whim of the President, given the appointment power he has, thus meaning change would not come through Congress, but rather the President in regard to the mission statement, thus not making it formal.

Meaning I was correct.

airshocker

You were talking about a formal mission statement, I wasn't. I was talking about the one on their website. Which I linked to you so you could see. You insisted I was incorrect when you're the one that didn't take a step back and think "Perhaps he's not talking about anything from Congress>"

I don't see where you're correct when you're clearly mistaken about what I was talking about. Sure, you're right about the bit with Congress, but I was never arguing against that.

You were mistaken about what I was talking about.

I brought it up first, after all.

And your argument to my point was unrelated to my point.

That's another strike against you.

This brings me to my point however, which is that irony and humor are not features of the english language, but language in general.Frame_Dragger

I counted only one person wanting me banned so far.

I never knew you all loved me so much.

THE_DRUGGIE

I was joking to be clear.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]This dodges the point... you'd frankly be more respectable if you were able to admit/understand when you're factually incorrect. Oh well. Thanks for this demonstration of why you're generally likeable except when talking about politics! :Pairshocker

Why would I respond to you if you didn't take into account what actually happened? He brought up the formal mission statement bit, not I. I said mission statement, which clearly there is. What do I care if it didn't come from Congress? It was on their website, and I wasn't arguing over a "formal" mission statement.

That one guy that makes threads about his personal life "Should I date this girl or another" "Should I take this job?" "I hate my job" "I hate being unemployeed" "I hate myself" The name escapes meDarthkaiser

You were mistaken about what I was talking about.

I brought it up first, after all.

And your argument to my point was unrelated to my point.

That's another strike against you.

THE_DRUGGIE

Unless the time-stamps are broken, I believe my post containing the two words "mission statement" came before yours.

Considering your point had nothing to do with what I was actually saying, yeah I don't think that flies, friend.

This is pointless, however. If you can't even gracefully admit you were mistaken, then I don't believe there's anything left to talk about.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

You were mistaken about what I was talking about.

I brought it up first, after all.

And your argument to my point was unrelated to my point.

That's another strike against you.

Unless the time-stamps are broken, I believe my post containing the two words "mission statement" came before yours.

Considering your point had nothing to do with what I was actually saying, yeah I don't think that flies, friend.

This is pointless, however. If you can't even gracefully admit you were mistaken, then I don't believe there's anything left to talk about.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

You were mistaken about what I was talking about.

I brought it up first, after all.

And your argument to my point was unrelated to my point.

That's another strike against you.

airshocker

Unless the time-stamps are broken, I believe my post containing the two words "mission statement" came before yours.

Considering your point had nothing to do with what I was actually saying, yeah I don't think that flies, friend.

This is pointless, however. If you can't even gracefully admit you were mistaken, then I don't believe there's anything left to talk about.

Simply because you used the word "mission statement," it does not mean you made it the subject of discussion, given it was presented in an offhand manner. Instead, I brought up the fact that they didn't have a formal mission statement first, and you proceeded to post their informal mission statement.

So, I could say that the last sentence of your post applies more to you than I.

This is all deflection from the original point, re: how the EPA operates, about which you're wrong. Failing to simply accept that and move on is a sign of fundamental weakness; a character defect if you will. It's the knot in your otherwise lovely wood. :)Frame_Dragger

There is no deflection, this is an argument over what I was actually talking about. I admitted to his point about Congress and monetary impact, I see no weakness. I simply won't back down from something I'm not wrong about.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]This is all deflection from the original point, re: how the EPA operates, about which you're wrong. Failing to simply accept that and move on is a sign of fundamental weakness; a character defect if you will. It's the knot in your otherwise lovely wood. :)airshocker

There is no deflection, this is an argument over what I was actually talking about. I admitted to his point about Congress and monetary impact, I see no weakness. I simply won't back down from something I'm not wrong about.

Simply because you used the word "mission statement," it does not mean you made it the subject of discussion, given it was presented in an offhand manner. Instead, I brought up the fact that they didn't have a formal mission statement first, and you proceeded to post their informal mission statement.

So, I could say that the last sentence of your post applies more to you than I.

THE_DRUGGIE

Ah, so there's the rub. It isn't formal, but it is a mission statement. So we're both right.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Simply because you used the word "mission statement," it does not mean you made it the subject of discussion, given it was presented in an offhand manner. Instead, I brought up the fact that they didn't have a formal mission statement first, and you proceeded to post their informal mission statement.

So, I could say that the last sentence of your post applies more to you than I.

airshocker

Ah, so there's the rub. It isn't formal, but it is a mission statement. So we're both right.

No, the point was that they had no formal mission statement and you said that they did.

You were wrong, sadly.

How on earth can you be such a generally agreeable and intersting poster, and then when it comes to politics turn into this absolute f*ckwit? It's very Jekyll/Hyde...Frame_Dragger

I'm a f*ck-wit because I won't admit I'm wrong over something I'm not? Oooookay then.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]How on earth can you be such a generally agreeable and intersting poster, and then when it comes to politics turn into this absolute f*ckwit? It's very Jekyll/Hyde...airshocker

I'm a f*ck-wit because I won't admit I'm wrong over something I'm not? Oooookay then.

No, the point was that they had no formal mission statement and you said that they did.

You were wrong, sadly.

THE_DRUGGIE

Not set by Congress, correct. But they do have a mission statement. So I was right about that.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

No, the point was that they had no formal mission statement and you said that they did.

You were wrong, sadly.

airshocker

Not set by Congress, correct. But they do have a mission statement. So I was right about that.

But not a formal mission statement, which was the point of your counter-argument.

Thus meaning your argument was wrong.

But not a formal mission statement, which was the point of your counter-argument.

Thus meaning your argument was wrong.

THE_DRUGGIE

I never called it a formal mission statement, though. You did.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But not a formal mission statement, which was the point of your counter-argument.

Thus meaning your argument was wrong.

airshocker

I never called it a formal mission statement, though. You did.

Yes, and the point of the argument past that point was that they had no formal mission statement. Take into account that "formal," "mission," and "statement" were all relevant words for you to consider in your counter-argument.

You didn't consider the "formal" portion, so you were wrong in your response.

Yes, and the point of the argument past that point was that they had no formal mission statement. Take into account that "formal," "mission," and "statement" were all relevant words for you to consider in your counter-argument.

You didn't consider the "formal" portion, so you were wrong in your response.

THE_DRUGGIE

Again, I fail to see how ANY of this matters when you quoted my using of mission statement and used your knowledge of Congress as a point when I wasn't referring to anything set by Congress?

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Yes, and the point of the argument past that point was that they had no formal mission statement. Take into account that "formal," "mission," and "statement" were all relevant words for you to consider in your counter-argument.

You didn't consider the "formal" portion, so you were wrong in your response.

airshocker

Again, I fail to see how ANY of this matters when you quoted my using of mission statement and used your knowledge of Congress as a point when I wasn't referring to anything set by Congress?

Again, you did not make it a main point of discussion and instead mentioned it offhand. I was the first to make it a main point of discussion, and your argument against my point was wrong for reasons previously elaborated.