[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] As you continue...If you're going to make outrageous claims like this, can you please back them up in the future instead of calling names and such? I'm not replying to your messages in this thread anymore, Good Day. As you wish - the fact that you want your own words quoted back to you means either you have memory problems or you're simply an obscurantist, stalling for time, but regardless:
And 700 audience members voted differently, not 800Snipes_2
Consider it backed up - and what a convenient time for you to run away, too!
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Yeah..No sorry, stating the number from the link I clearly provided for you is arguing it? :lol: Are you going to form an argument or not? So far all you've done is call names and say "Your digging a deeper hole for yourself". You didn't even do that - it said 'over 700', which was right, and you stated '700', which was wrong. Misreading your own source - bravo.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Alright, I'm done with you. You're not even trying to argue a point. You were actually the one who stated "You are wrong on two accounts...IT was 800" ;)Hah, no you don't. You're not slipping out of this one. Here was when it began:
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"]I'll take that gaping void of silence as a no. It's on youtube, by the way, so you have no excuse for being so lazy and dishonest - I daresay having seen two of the most eloquent speakers out there utterly flatten the opposition and convince nearly 800 audience members to their side you'll feel a little silly for claiming that they were 'obliterated'.Snipes_2
Yes, I've watched it. They were obliterated in my opinion. Just like in yours, their opponents were "Destroyed". And 700 audience members voted differently, not 800, furthermore, we don't know how their opinion changed. This waste of time has been your fault from the very start and you know it. That hole you're digging is awfully deep.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] IF you had looked back on your post you claimed 800, which 774 is clearly not. ;):lol: Are they any lows to which you will not stoop? I stated 'nearly 800', and clarified very clearly that this was a rounded figure. You, on the other hand, said the figure was closer to 700. You have lied systematically about whether you actually watched the debate, you have lied about what I've said, and you have dug a deeper and deeper hole in trying to cover it up. The best thing for you to do would be to run away with your tail between your legs because you've done nothing but embarrass yourself this whole time. Accusations accusations. Please, form some sort of argument so we can continue please? :roll::lol: How deliciously ironic - you interrupted the argument in the first place to quibble over the figure and now, when your dishonesty has been exposed, the number doesn't seem to matter so much any more. Funny how that works, isn't it? :roll:
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Directly to Debate: "That was the motion for an Intelligence Squared debate , held recently in London, which was broadcast on BBC World News last weekend." T"o find out how, watch BBC World News this coming weekend. And because we think it's important to get a world view tell us what you think about the modern Catholic Church in a special World Have Your Say on Friday 13th November. Early blog reactions here and here , and coverage in the Telegraph here.."None of which contains a link to anything affiliated with the BBC. Now, frankly I'm fed up of you being so slippery and dishonest, so I'm just going to put you out of your misery here and now: http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4043/youlose.png Yep, that's the exact figure I claimed. If you had actually watched the debate, of course, you would have known the figures were in the debate itself and had access to them. Game over. IF you had looked back on your post you claimed 800, which 774 is clearly not. ;):lol: Are they any lows to which you will not stoop? I stated 'nearly 800', and clarified very clearly that this was a rounded figure. You, on the other hand, said the figure was closer to 700. You have lied systematically about whether you actually watched the debate, you have lied about what I've said, and you have dug a deeper and deeper hole in trying to cover it up. The best thing for you to do would be to run away with your tail between your legs because you've done nothing but embarrass yourself this whole time.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] You didn't read the article did you?Actually I did; I merely can't see a BBC link within it. Care to point out its location? Directly to Debate: "That was the motion for an Intelligence Squared debate , held recently in London, which was broadcast on BBC World News last weekend." T"o find out how, watch BBC World News this coming weekend. And because we think it's important to get a world view tell us what you think about the modern Catholic Church in a special World Have Your Say on Friday 13th November. Early blog reactions here and here , and coverage in the Telegraph here.."None of which contains a link to anything affiliated with the BBC. Now, frankly I'm fed up of you being so slippery and dishonest, so I'm just going to put you out of your misery here and now: http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4043/youlose.png Yep, that's the exact figure I claimed. If you had actually watched the debate, of course, you would have known the figures were in the debate itself and had access to them. Game over.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] From the BBC link I referenced to it stated 700. Can you link to these "Facts" please? http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/is-the-catholic-church-a-force-for-good-in-the-world/What BBC link? You didn't read the article did you?Actually I did; I merely can't see a BBC link within it. Care to point out its location?
Wrong on two counts: firstly the number was 774, and what I did there is what we call - get this! - rounding. Secondly, the figure I quoted was the increase in those who disagreed that the Catholic Church was a good thing, and therefore all of these people must previously have been unsure or agreed; in both cases, they were indeed brought to the side of Hitchens and Fry. Check your facts before posting in future, perhaps? From the BBC link I referenced to it stated 700. Can you link to these "Facts" please? http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/is-the-catholic-church-a-force-for-good-in-the-world/What BBC link?
Wrong on two counts: firstly the number was 774, and what I did there is what we call - get this! - rounding. Secondly, the figure I quoted was the increase in those who disagreed that the Catholic Church was a good thing, and therefore all of these people must previously have been unsure or agreed; in both cases, they were indeed brought to the side of Hitchens and Fry. Check your facts before posting in future, perhaps?
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Lol, They had no victory at all. They were obliterated in that argument :? Mother Theresa was not twisted or hateful, do you have any links for these unsubstantiated claims? Preferably a reputable source? :lol: Have you even watched the debate?I'll take that gaping void of silence as a no. It's on youtube, by the way, so you have no excuse for being so lazy and dishonest - I daresay having seen two of the most eloquent speakers out there utterly flatten the opposition and convince nearly 800 audience members to their side you'll feel a little silly for claiming that they were 'obliterated'.
Log in to comment