My position is that he is low ranking, which he literally is. Hence, lowly technician.
Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance, whatever text colour you use to try and make it so.
It is your leap to conclude that that means low ability.
It is YOUR direct assertion that CG's service, abilities and skills are nothing to be proud of, thus "lowly", which is what I refute.
Whether low ranking people deserves respect is a subjective position.
Societal respect is defined by morality and values, which are in turn defined by society in the first place. Doesn't matter how subjective you argue it is, if your view does not match society's, you lose.
It can be a popular position or not, but it simply cannot be factually correct or false. Your belief otherwise is mentally deranged.
If it becomes law, that makes it fact for all intents and purposes that affect you, particularly in this instance.
The position I am referring to is that low ranking people are worth less, which is widely held in Asia and Africa.
How much less exactly?
Are you quantifying this "subjective opinion" with any degree of measurable unit, here, or just making this up as you go, again?
I deem low ranking people less worthy. He explicitly stated he held a low rank (technician). What more evidence do you want?
I want a context.
For example, as a regular (as in, full-time professional) military serviceman, he outranks your own militia status, so immediately your deeming is flawed.
You're also trying to apply your perspective to a societal system that plays by different rules to you anyway, so your opinion and values are pretty irrelevant.
Ergo: No evidence to support your assertion, from any angle.
Then provide me a citation that based on a military study, rear area positions are more likely to receive medals of valour than front-line positions.
You never said 'more likely than' anything. You said "relatively unlikely". Period. You never specified in relation or by comparison to what, just that it was unlikely to happen outright. You should be proper in accurate claims!!
Further more, you also said, "Serving as a Navy technician onboard a surface combatant (or submarine) clearly lends itself less readily to heroics and valour than other more front-line vocations".
You are utterly ignorant that a big-ass aircraft carrier or battleship would be THE prime target for all enemy fire and thus the MOST likely to take damage, suffer
But as is, you can start with the navy diver of a salvage ship, awarded the Commendation Medal "for sustained acts of heroism", Carl Brashear.
Nguyễn Văn Kiệt, Naval Advisorty Detatchment, awarded the Navy Cross.
Teddy Sheean, RAN Reserve, Ordinary Seaman, MiD and citations for Conspicuous Gallantry and Distinguished Service medals, which could not be awarded posthumously at that time.
William Addison, VC, Army Chaplain.
Augustus Agar, Lt Costal Motor Boat, VC.
Adam Archibald, Sapper, VC, Royal Engineers
Thomas Axford, VC, LCpl, 16th Batt Reserves
Charles Baker, Lt, Indian Police, VC
Mark Bell, Lt, Royal Engineers, VC.
Frederick Booth, VC, Sgt, SA Police in WW1
Duncan Boyes, Midshipman, HMS Eurayalus, VC.
John Buckley, Assistant Commissary, Commissariat Dept, VC.
Garrett Creagh, VC, Capt, Bombay Staff Corps
That's just a very small handful of low rankers and people from FAR behind the front lines who have won some of the highest awards going,
which includes civilians - Those with NO rank at all, often serving in admin roles, yet still find themselves in extreme situations. So that's another of your ideas blown out of the water.
Fair enough. Provide me the link for the relevant legislation that proves your claim of "engineering technician" being of high rank.
Go read again exactly what I wrote, retard.
Then go read the Dublin Accord.
Then understand that there is no structured ranking in engineering, but that
I already explained I outrank them by being their manager, appointed by virtue of holding senior experience and skills, enshrined in contract law.
In other words, I'm their boss and my legal contract says I outrank them.
What exactly is your end game here?
Challenging your ill-conceived assertions based on your lack of understanding of the situation and maligning the good standing of a fellow poster well respected by the regulars on this board.
Why, what's yours?
How can you possibly succeed in that, when subjective opinions are based on personal values?
Your opinion is based on no knowledge, with no evidence. Subjective or not, there are no facts to support your opinion at all. It's based on nothing. It is illogical and invalid.
I would be interested in how/if you intend to argue that low ranking people are equal is an objective factual reality.
I would be more interested to hear how you figure otherwise with no given measure by which to judge them in the first place.
Present a valid argument and I will happily rip it to sh*t for you.
In the meantime I suggest you go away and learn more about what you're trying to judge in ignorance, lest you make an even bigger fool of yourself...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
Low ranking does NOT mean low status
Yes, it does.
It is YOUR direct assertion that CG's service, abilities and skills are nothing to be proud of, thus "lowly", which is what I refute
And assuming that I claimed he has low ability. After all, I did not said his abilities are low.
if your view does not match society's, you lose
It is the majority view in my society. But this is irrelevant since subjective opinions cannot be false.
If it becomes law, that makes it fact for all intents and purposes that affect you, particularly in this instance
And is there in fact such a law that we must respect low ranking people? No? Otherwise, quote me this law then.
Are you quantifying this "subjective opinion" with any degree of measurable unit
No. After all, it is hardly a objective fact that can be defended or attacked.
as a regular (as in, full-time professional) military serviceman, he outranks your own militia status
Incorrect for my country. I believe that this is not correct even for your own National Guard, if you are American. In any case, my military rank is extremely low and hardly deserving of respect.
So that's another of your ideas blown out of the water
So... No citations of studies done then? Just bullsh*t?
Then go read the Dublin Accord
No citations then that engineering tech is not a low rank, idiot? I hear lots of talk, but little proof.
I would be more interested to hear how you figure otherwise with no given measure by which to judge them in the first place
I hold the position that low ranking people are lowly. Do you claim that I am objectively and factually wrong? Yes or no.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Yes, it does.
Back to school for you, boyo.
Go read a dictionary.
And assuming that I claimed he has low ability. After all, I did not said his abilities are low.
As already explained to you, the very nature of a technician is that their abilities are what make their role so valuable. By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value.
Again with not understanding what you're judging.
It is the majority view in my society.
I think you fail to even understand your own society!!
But this is irrelevant since subjective opinions cannot be false.
They are rendered false when contradicted by facts, as your has been many times thus far.
And is there in fact such a law that we must respect low ranking people? No? Otherwise, quote me this law then.
There are laws that afford *everyone* equal rights and respects, so yes. Whether Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, or the numerous laws of your own country.
Tell me which country you're in and I'll get you your laws.
No. After all, it is hardly a objective fact that can be defended or attacked.
It should be supported by facts, though, otherwise it's outright fallacy and utter crap.
Incorrect for my country.
You're saying that you, a civilian raised to form a military force in times of emergency, will actually outrank someone who does this for a living, full-time, professionally, with far more training and experience than you have?
Jeez, your country's military is right ass-backwards!!
If that's how you do it, I might even invade. Wouldn't need my Army, as it sounds like I could do it all by myself!!
I believe that this is not correct even for your own National Guard, if you are American.
National Guard are Reserve forces, not militia.
They're also nothing to do with my country either, so not even applicable.
In any case, my military rank is extremely low and hardly deserving of respect.
Yeah?
What happens if you and those others of your rank don't do your job, then?
Ever heard the expression, "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians"?.
So... No citations of studies done then? Just bullsh*t?
Again with the not-reading... It's obvious why you don't understand things, innit!!
No citations then that engineering tech > engineer, idiot? I hear lots of talk, but little proof.
So again not reading and understanding what you're being told, not listening and just wittering away like a complete retard.
No WONDER everyone in your country treats you so bad - You're a complete *beep* with no grasp of the real world around you.
I hold the position that low ranking people are lowly. Do you claim that I am objectively and factually wrong? Yes or no.
You're wrong in
every sense of the word, so a resounding yes!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
I am claiming that their low rank makes them lowly. You assumed the rest.
There are laws that afford *everyone* equal rights and respects, so yes
No, this claim is different from your earlier claim. Everyone is entitled to equal rights and treatment under the law (with minor exceptions such as for convicted felons and such). Your earlier claim was with regards to the law obliging people to grant the same respect to low ranking people. Note that respect is a belief, not an action. Do you stand by this?
You're saying that you, a civilian raised to form a military force in times of emergency, will actually outrank someone who does this for a living, full-time, professionally, with far more training and experience than you have?
No, because I hold extremely low military rank. Yes, in general. However, it will be comparatively rare for a militia officer to be granted such high rank. And of course, militia members are not eligible for appointment to high command.
Side note: may or may not be accurate to deem me a civilian considering I am a active militia member. Unless you consider the US National Guard to be civilians as well, in which case fair enough.
Again with the not-reading... It's obvious why you don't understand things, innit!! ... So again not reading and understanding what you're being told, not listening and just wittering away like a complete retard.
No WONDER everyone in your country treats you so bad - You're a complete *beep* with no grasp of the real world around you.
So... no citations then? Just insults. Thought so. And no, nobody gives a crap about your militia rank in my society. We care about your civilian title/rank/poisition and pay (and other things).
You're wrong in every sense of the word
Excellent. Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige) and in fact explicitly denounce any such claims. You explicitly claim otherwise. Prove it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
I am claiming that their low rank makes them lowly.
You are making a claim to something absolutely zero evidence or grounds upon which to make it.
You assumed the rest.
You greatly inferred it and I reiterated that for you.
No, this claim is different from your earlier claim.
Which was WHAT exactly?
Exact wording.
Did you read it?
No, you did not.
Your earlier claim was with regards to the law obliging people to grant the same respect to low ranking people.
Actually it was not specific regarding anything obliging, it was regarding opinion defining morality which then defined law. You then tried to combine two separate chains to imagine a claim which you're now trying to refute.
Strawman. Fallacy. You fail.
Note that respect is a belief, not an action. Do you stand by this?
It's a basic human right, actually and your actions define/absent the respect.
You're saying that you, a civilian raised to form a military force in times of emergency, will actually outrank someone who does this for a living, full-time, professionally, with far more training and experience than you have?
Yes, in general.
"Yes", you say?
"In general", your civilians outrank your military?
Oh well...
However, it will be comparatively rare for a militia officer to be granted such high rank.
So CG is a lowly technician, but your civvy bods need "such a high rank" just in order to outrank him?
Side note: may or may not be accurate to deem me a civilian considering I am a active militia member.
Militia BY DEFINITION are civilians.
Unless you consider the US National Guard to be civilians as well, in which case fair enough.
They are not civilians while active, which is on a very regular basis
But they are military reserves and auxiliaries, NOT militia. The distinctions between the two are very specific. Even if you've only been to one militia meeting, you should know this.
In fact, you seem to know so little about your vital duties here that, together with the inconsistencies in your basic reading comprehension, I call BS on the whole thing.
You are a liar. Nothing more.
So... no citations then?
So no reading what's put in front of your face then?
And no, nobody gives a crap about your militia rank in my society.
How do you know? You don't even understand your own position in your imaginary little society, let alone that (despite being repeatedly told) I am military, not militia.
We care about your civilian title/rank/poisition and pay (and other things).
Civilians have no rank.
But even in that case, Mister CG would be far higher than you think.
Excellent. Prove me factually wrong then.
I already have. You just don't have the balls to own up to it.
I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige) and in fact explicitly denounce any such claims.
Then you're wrong and that's all you need to hear.
You explicitly claim otherwise. Prove it.
I refute the correctness of your opinion, it being an ill-informed and foundless accusation, as well as utterly illogical and thus irrelevant, so dismissed.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
Proof? I can hardly keep from gloating. You are screwed!!! Been hoping you will declare this extreme position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it was not specific regarding anything obliging, it was regarding opinion defining morality which then defined law
In other words, there is in fact no such law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect. Or at least, none you can cite. Hence, irrelevant point.
"In general", your civilians outrank your military? ... your civvy bods need "such a high rank" just in order to outrank him?
That is how ranks work. Militia colonel (rarity) outranks regular captain. Or do you think the regular captain would order around a National Guard colonel (within the US context)?
Militia members are mostly appointed to the lower ranks (enlisted and NCOs, within the American context). Regulars are mostly appointed to NCOs and commissioned officer ranks. Hence, it will be comparatively rare that a militia member is appointed to such a rank that he outranks a regular officer (less rare to outrank regular NCOs, but still comparatively rare).
The Navy and Air Force primarily (almost exclusively) consist of regulars while the Army primarily consists of militia, in particular infantry. Militia members are liable for call-ups every year.
But they are military reserves and auxiliaries, NOT militia. The distinctions between the two are very specific
Provide citations for your definition claim. My citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia Militia
is the reserve army. What exactly do you think is the difference?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Proof? I can hardly keep from gloating. You are screwed!!! Been hoping you will declare this extreme position.
Extreme?
It's a simple dictionary definition, you dumb twat!!
In other words, there is in fact no such law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect.
Yes there is, despite that not being the actual point made but a misunderstanding on your part.
So again, you lose from both angles and are too stupid to see this.
Or at least, none you can cite. Hence, irrelevant point.
Just because you don't understand the answer, doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
That is how ranks work.
Again, missing the point by not reading...
Militia colonel (rarity) outranks regular captain.
Militia = Civilian. Immediately outranked by any professional military.
Or do you think the regular captain would order around a National Guard colonel (within the US context)?
Since you're not even American, might be best you go learn the difference between militia and military before you try that argument.
Militia members are mostly appointed to the lower ranks (enlisted and NCOs, within the American context).
Regulars are mostly appointed to NCOs and commissioned officer ranks.
WHAAAAAAAT????!!!!!
Seriously??!!
You're really arguing that the regular army has no basic rank and file Privates??!!
You have no idea at all, do you!!
The Navy and Air Force primarily (almost exclusively) consist of regulars while the Army primarily consists of militia, in particular infantry.
Completely talking out your arse now.
Militia members are liable for call-ups every year.
No, that is the Reserve forces and they're liable for call-up at ANY time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
Errr..... did you actually read that?
This and subsequent articles actually supports MY assertion, not yours!!
Dozy twat!!
Militia is the reserve army.
If it was, you'd be saying that you'e "In the Reserves", not in the "Militia" as you claim.
What exactly do you think is the difference?
The difference, as laid down by the very link you posted, is thus:
Regular Military - Full time professional Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and so on.
Reserve Military - Same as above, but part time (National Guard, Territorial Army, etc).
Militia - Private civilians organised and militarised ONLY in times of national emergency. Many countries like the UK do not even have a militia as such. Two TA units were once of a militia background (many decades ago, so no longer relevant) and one cadet force (kids aged 13-18) mearely bears the word in their title as an historic reference to their origin. Neither are actual militia.
The US maintains a variation of militia, but only by certain states individually and with very few actually doing this, none of which are . Most countries used the term to ease what was basically conscription.
Unorganised Militia - "In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses".
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
Provide the citation/quote/source then.
Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
Provide the citation/quote/source then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference, as laid down by the very link you posted ...
How about this, which you chose to ignore.
"
Some of the situations the term "militia" is used include forces engaged in: ... An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces"
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Provide the citation/quote/source then.
It's in The Dictionary - Take the 30 seconds to go Google it up yourself, so you can see with your own eyes rather than try and claim I misquoted it or used a flawed source!
Provide the citation/quote/source then.
Again, already told you - Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Go read all about it, for that is one of the fredoms afforded you by the very acts and articles that comprise it!!
How about this, which you chose to ignore.
How about you read it FULLY, so you actually understand before you open your mouth?
You asked about THE National Guard, specifying the United States.
That very same section YOU posted links to various counties' National Guards, under which it specifies that the USNG are actually Reserve Forces, not private citizens.
Anything more to add, or is your only remaining trick to play dumb and try to misinterpret the clear information you've been given?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
Provide the citation/quote/source then. Since you claim it is so readily available. Quote it. [Note that I do not necessarily claim there is no such law. But if you claim it, the burden is on you to quote it, not me. Either cite or back down]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it specifies that the USNG are actually Reserve Forces, not private citizens
Reserve forces and militia. These two terms are generally interchangeable in general usage, unless specifically defined otherwise by the country in question. Quotes below.
[Wikipedia, global context] Some of the situations the term "militia" is used include forces engaged in: ... An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces
[Wikipedia, US context] The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Lowly - .
1/. low in status or importance; humble.
2/. to a low degree; in a low manner.
Low-ranking - .
1/. having a low rank or position in a particular hierarchy.
So AS EXPLAINED, the latter does NOT specify low importance or status and is limited to one structure.
Simple dictionary definition. QED. End of.
Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
Look up the laws on Human Rights.
This covers every human on the planet.
Provide the citation/quote/source then.
I already have.
Since you claim it is so readily available. Quote it.
*beep* off.
I am NOT going to 'quote' the multiple volumes of Human Rights legislation through which this is covered and fully detailed. You're out of luck. I've told you where you can find all this - *beep* off and read it yourself.
These two terms are generally interchangeable in general usage, unless specifically defined otherwise by the country in question.
Stop being retarded - It has already been explained to you that the United States DOES otherwise define:
[Wikipedia, US context] The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units
Of course, you being all learned and all, you DO realise that the
State National Guard and the National Guard of the United States are two very different things.... right?
The US National Guard is capable of being deployed on foreign soil, while "the militia" is prohibited from deploying on foreign soil by Article 1 of the US Constitution.
State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.
"The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve
military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States [but NOT the other way around*] as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government"
*Militia in the US sense generally just means any civilian who is eligible for call-up, rather than any persons actually serving already.
And finally the general dictionary definition of Militia:
1/. A military force that is raised from the
civil population to supplement a regular army
in an emergency.
2/. A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
3/. (in the US) all able-bodied
civilians eligible by law for military service.
Nothing in there at all about militia being Reserve Forces.
So thats laws and definitions covered every whichy-ways.
Only possible contest to that is whatever is done in this made-up country you claim to be from (but STILL haven't named)... which is of no consequence since you specified American rules anyway.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
So AS EXPLAINED, the latter [Low-ranking] does NOT specify low importance or status
Your dictionary definition for low ranking does not state that it is factually wrong that they are lowly in status/prestige. That was your claim, now provide the specific proof.
Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
I am NOT going to 'quote' the multiple volumes
No need. Simply quote the specific phrase/passage in question that proves your claim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States [but NOT the other way around*]
In other words, it is perfectly accurate to use both militia and reserve army to describe these members. Same goes for me. I am both a militia and reserve army member. Thus, it is perfectly accurate for me to describe myself as either.
Obviously, if you are in a non-government militia, you are not (usually) part of the reserve army. But I explicitly stated I am in the government militia.
since you specified American rules anyway
I did not specify American rules (in terms of definition of the word Militia as applied to me, a non-American). I simply stated the National Guard as an example, and rebutted your National Guard claim. And I see that you do not contest that they are interchangeable for global context, no?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Your dictionary definition for low ranking does not state that it is factually wrong that they are lowly in status/prestige.
It specifies the difference between the two and has a separate definition for each term. They are, by definition, NOT the same. Ergo, your assertion that they are the same is factually wrong. QE *beep* D.
No need. Simply quote the specific phrase/passage in question that proves your claim.
Are you LISTENING?
The claim is substantiated by several volumes of law entirely on the matter. There is no one line, phrase or quick capsule sentence that sums it up, here.
It is pages and pages of articles long.
Hence, you know where to look, go read it yourself.
In other words, it is perfectly accurate to use both militia and reserve army to describe these members.
NO.
Go away and re-read it yet again...
Reserve Forces are automatically part of (but still definitively separate from) a militia (because that is basically everybody), but the militia are NOT part of the Reserve Forces.
Same goes for me. I am both a militia and reserve army member.
So you're in the Reading club and the Math club... Two different things.
Might be you need to read before you can do math, but you don't need to do math in order to read.
But I explicitly stated I am in the government militia.
Name it.
Specify it.
Country, title, terminology.
I did not specify American rules (in terms of definition of the word Militia as applied to me, a non-American).
Regarding militia and ranks, you said "I believe that this is not correct even for your own National Guard, if you are American".
You're even trying to use American definitions to support your non-American definition of non-American militia... You're using American rules.
I simply stated the National Guard as an example, and rebutted your National Guard claim.
You cited an incorrect example and then challenged the very thing with which you were trying to support your argument, when the flaw was used against you.
Yeah, good one.
And I see that you do not contest that they are interchangeable for global context, no?
I already destroyed that assertion by supplying the dictionary definition, as well as pointing out that many units are called "militia" in name only, based purely on what once existed back in history and after which they are named.
That doesn't make then
actual militia by modern definitions any more than a tank regiment calling itself cavalry means they still fight on horseback.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
1) As a analogy, I claim that apples (i.e. low ranking people) are subjectively tasty (i.e. lowly in prestige/status).
2) You counterclaimed that apples (i.e. low ranking people) are objectively and factually not tasty (i.e. lowly in prestige/status).
3) When challenged, you actively affirm that you do not simply hold the opposing opinion, but that I am objectively and factually wrong when I explicitly stated that this is a subjective position.
So. Prove it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, you know where to look, go read it yourself
In other words, no proof then? Did you read these "volumes" yourself? If so, quote the specific passage that prompts your claim. If not, why do you cite it?
Reserve Forces are automatically part of (but still definitively separate from) a militia (because that is basically everybody), but the militia are NOT part of the Reserve Forces.
In other words, it is perfectly accurate to use both militia and reserve army to describe these National Guard members.
You're using American rules
Sure, for the American National Guard. Not for me, an non-American.
That doesn't make then actual militia by modern definitions any more than a tank regiment calling itself cavalry means they still fight on horseback
[Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia]
the term "militia" is used include ... official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names ... Army Reserve, National Guard
Name it.
Specify it.
Country, title, terminology.
And do you provide your personal info online? [Note that I am not asking for it. I am asking whether you routinely do so]
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
1) As a analogy, I claim that apples (i.e. low ranking people) are subjectively tasty (i.e. lowly in prestige/status).
You claim all you want.
But your assertions have been that they ARE, not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that. Your opinions are unsupported and without any logical reasoning.
That's all there is to it.
When challenged, you actively affirm that you do not simply hold the opposing opinion, but that I am objectively and factually wrong when I explicitly stated that this is a subjective position.
And since they have very precise definitions, your equation (ie low-rank = lowly) is bollocks. Therefore you are incorrect, whichever way you look at it.
In other words, no proof then?
None that you are capable of understanding, it seems... or just too pigheaded to admit.
Did you read these "volumes" yourself? If so, quote the specific passage that prompts your claim. If not, why do you cite it?
If you're not going to listen to the explanations given and just bleat like a sheep, you can *beep* off.
You have been told that there is no single passage and that the laws cover more space than is available to post in. You know where to find them.
Ball is in your court.
In other words, it is perfectly accurate to use both militia and reserve army to describe these National Guard members.
All paedophiles are humans, therefore you, as a human, are a paedophile. Yes?
Do you understand your flawed logic now?
Sure, for the American National Guard. Not for me, an non-American.
So use specifics - Name the force that DOES apply to you, name the country.
Stop trying to justify your opinions with the flawed application of measures to differing standards.
the term "militia" is used include ... official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names ... Army Reserve, National Guard
Blah blah blah...
Witter witter witter...
You got anything new to try, or are you still clinging to that which I've already used against you to disprove you?
And do you provide your personal info online?
Naming a country is not personal info, dickhead.
So... Name it in your next post, or you're just another *beep*
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE, not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that.
Ahhhh. The contentment of owning someone so thoroughly.
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
So. Prove it. Stop with the excuses and rationalisations. Quote the basis for your claim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia] the term "militia" is used include ... official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names ... Army Reserve, National Guard
[ttaskmaster] You got anything new to try, or are you still clinging to that which I've already used against you to disprove you?
No valid rebuttal to my citation/definition for militia then? That is what I thought.
So... Name it in your next post, or you're just another *beep*
Kill yourself immediately, or you're just another *beep* See how this works? Lol.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
Your opinion has no logic, reasoning or support.
If you believe otherwise, supply it.
Ahhhh. The contentment of owning someone so thoroughly.
You own nothing, least of all any opinions you have profferred.
So. Prove it. Stop with the excuses and rationalisations. Quote the basis for your claim.
The fundamental human rights which ALL persons are afforded.
That simple enough for you? Or are you SERIOUSLY demanding I post entire books of text here?
EVERYONE is entitled to these, *not one* person excluded, regardless of rank or social status.
Do you get it now?????!!!!!
No valid rebuttal to my citation/definition for militia then? That is what I thought.
No, you aren't thinking at all, let alone examining the clear evidence and instead being deliberately obtuse and wilfully ignorant.
You think whatever you WANT to think because you cannot face the truth and accept that you are wrong.
Kill yourself immediately, or you're just another *beep* See how this works? Lol.
You are a liar, *beep* and timewasting Troll. But that works too, so go kill yourself and rid us of your stupidity.
reply
share
CGSailor
7 years ago
And THIS is why you don't engage these sort of tinewasting trolls.
Even though you are winning the argument, he does not and will not ever see it that way because the argument itself is his goal, not the results of the argument. He feeds not off being right vs wrong... he feeds off the arguing itself.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
I'm winning?
Sorry, I didn't even realise... I'm just looking to waste his time and hold him here instead of *beep* off to mess with someone else's threads.
reply
share
Hanz-Willhelm2
7 years ago
Ah, so you admit there are those in which argument itself is the goal?
Hmmmm
Mirror for CG anyone?
Lamar Jackson for Heisman!
reply
share
CGSailor
7 years ago
Nope. Not a mirror. Because like the dumbass you are, Hanz, you keep missing the target.
I dont argue for arguments sake.
My goal is not to harrass or attack everyone.
I am not a troll despite jackwagons like you claiming I am.
I admit full, always have... That I can be short and rude to those who post utter stupidity, Armchair know-nothing "experts", Conspiracy nuts, and liberals.
But I do not "Attack everyone I disagree with".
That is YOUR false assertion.
So step off asshat.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
Lol. Last resort of the hopeless. Getting owned and knowing it. So, instead claim that winning was never the intent, hence you didn't really "lose".
😀
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that
Nope. You made an explicit factual claim, burden of proof is on you and not me. You made it, you own it.
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
If you have the citation, then cite it instead of giving excuses. You claim it, you own it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
If you have the citation, then cite it instead of giving excuses. You claim it, you own it.
Is that all you have?
Your refusal to go look at the evidence does not change the facts, even when they are posted right in front of your face.
Lol. Last resort of the hopeless. Getting owned and knowing it.
What, as opposed to contesting facts you first made up or twisted yourself?
So, instead claim that winning was never the intent, hence you didn't really "lose".
Not actually my claim, but since you again didn't read things properly, how would you even know?
And yet, even if that were true - You're still here, so either way I still win.
Got anything better than that?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect]
Lol at you "winning" since I am still here calling you out. Guess you are really scared of citations huh. If you have it, then post it.
Instead of yapping on about how you
totalllllly have it, but just can't post it for some reason. Do it, post it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Lol at you "winning" since I am still here calling you out.
LOL at you thinking you're actually getting anywhere...
Guess you are really scared of citations huh. If you have it, then post it.
In other words, you're too retarded to even understand that it already HAS been posted and too stubborn to acknowlege it even when it's rubbed in your *beep* face.
Instead of yapping on about how you totalllllly have it, but just can't post it for some reason. Do it, post it.
OK, yeah, sure, fine, I will type up thousands of pages of international law and post ot AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL here for you, because you're too dumb to pull up the public domain websites and read them yourself.... and then what?
Will you actually read them? No, you won't.
Will you understand them? No, you won't.
Will you acknowledge that you're wrong in the face of undisputable proof? No, you won't.
You reckon otherwise?
Tell me what country you're in and I'll get you the EXACT legislation under these laws that apply directly to you....
Can you even manage that?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
So... the new line now is that there is no point in posting citations because I will just shoot it down anyway. Guess you are none too confident in your own citations huh. How about you just post this "undisputable proof" of yours since it is so undisputable?
If you have it, then post it. Simple as that.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
So... the new line now is that there is no point in posting citations because I will just shoot it down anyway.
I'm offering it to you on a plate - All you have to do is substantiate just ONE thing in all these pages of your argument.....
Guess you are none too confident in your own citations huh.
Supremely confident.
You gonna step up, or what?
How about you just post this "undisputable proof" of yours since it is so undisputable?
Yes!
OK!
Definitely!
Sure thing!
Aye sir!
Which country?
If you have it, then post it. Simple as that.
That's the point, you ignorant *beep* - I already did!!
You're too stupid to realise!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Same old crap huh. If you are so confident of your citations, then post them. Simple as that. Don't claim that you did in the past, just do it right here and now.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Same old crap huh. If you are so confident of your citations, then post them. Simple as that. Don't claim that you did in the past, just do it right here and now.
Post your country, then.
Tell me what unit of which military/militia you serve(d) in.
Substantiate and cite the evidence for your opinion, which you claim is mere opinion yet bandy about as fact.
Meanwhile, go read the laws on Human Rights for your country.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
I think I have well established (with quotes) that I claim no factual objective truth in my opinions. You made such claims, so you back it up. And since you claim universal coverage for "every human on the planet" for your laws requiring respect, back this up.
I have explicitly replied before that I do not intend to provide personal info on the internet. Simple as that. Feel free to quote this repeatedly. I shall continue to call you out with my quotes. 😊
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
I think I have well established (with quotes) that I claim no factual objective truth in my opinions.
And yet you state them AS fact, which is the same thing.
You made such claims, so you back it up.
YOU state them as fact.
YOU.
YOUR OWN WORDS are what I'm highlighting.
If you're too blind to see this, give up and go home.
And since you claim universal coverage for "every human on the planet" for your laws requiring respect, back this up.
You obviously haven't read what I directed you to, then...
I have explicitly replied before that I do not intend to provide personal info on the internet. Simple as that.
So you ask for pages and pages of copy-posts of laws and then won't allow me to get you the specifics of what you ask...
I shall continue to call you out with my quotes.
Call all you want.
You clearly have no understanding of what you're even saying, let alone what you're calling.
All you do it put your own spin on established definitions and make up the rest. You don't even have a proper argument to make!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
So... no citations/quotes then? You made the claims,
as quoted above, now back it up. If you claim otherwise, then provide the quote showing that I have misquoted you.
The above quotes are accurately quoted, correctly sourced and properly displayed/formatted, no?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
So... no citations/quotes then? You made the claims, as quoted above, now back it up.
Oh, give it a rest, retard.
If you claim otherwise, then provide the quote showing that I have misquoted you.
Your own words.
How many times and in different ways do you need three little words explaining to you???!!!
The above quotes are accurately quoted, correctly sourced and properly displayed/formatted, no?
And yet you *still* cannot understand the simplest of things...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Sucks, doesn't it? Coming up against someone who holds you to what you said. Oh, come on, don't feel sad. You said it, you own it. This is why I don't make bold unfounded factual claims that I can't back up. ☺
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Sucks, doesn't it? Coming up against someone who holds you to what you said.
No, but it does suck when the opposition intentionally refuses to understand...
Seriously, do you REALLY not see this, or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?
This is why I don't make bold unfounded factual claims that I can't back up.
Do WHAT now???!!!!!!!
That is *exactly* what you've done and *exactly* what I'm pointing out to you!!!
You really are a stubborn retard, aren't you?
Willfully ignorant and refusing to actually step up when challenged... tell me more about owning what you say, again?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Ah... but the difference is that I have quotes owning your ass when I call you out. You got citations/quotes? Show it then.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Ah... but the difference is that I have quotes owning your ass when I call you out.
Yeh - Those very quotes of yours are what I'm pointing out, dickhead!!
If you really can't (or as I suspect, WON'T) see how your own words are being used to disprove your own assertion, then you're just being deliberately obstinate.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Sure, state your argument then. Nah, I am feeling real good. You are just annoyed at being called out for what you are, an idiot that can't back it up.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Sure, state your argument then.
Quite simply, your opinion was not formed from the support of any facts or evidence, therefore is factually wrong. Delivering your opinion as an argument makes it an assertion, both of which for the above reasons are also factually wrong.
Further, your opinion that the terms you argue are synonymous is in direct opposition to official definitiions and distinctions between them, thus your opinion is again factually wrong.
Finally, any subjective slant you want to try is further negated by the global morality-born laws of Human Rights that put you in the VERY small moral minority and thus quite firmly on the wrong side of both the law and the people.
You are wrong, factually, definitively, morally, and legally.
You are just annoyed at being called out for what you are, an idiot that can't back it up.
No, I'm just puzzled by how you can still refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong, despite overwhelming and repeated proof.
In other words, you're either being purposely retarded or are just a waffling moron.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Good try, but nope. Since you made the factual claim, burden of proof is on you to actively prove your claim.
the terms you argue are synonymous
I made no such claim. The claim that apples are tasty /= apples and tasty are synonymous. Your retardedness is impressive.
And no, being in the minority does not make me wrong. It makes me in the minority.
Have you considered it is because you are so retarded you apparently (literally) believe that majority makes right?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Since you made the factual claim, burden of proof is on you to actively prove your claim.
You first stated your assertion as fact, which I have challenged for four pages and which you have done NOTHING to prove.
The burden still lies with you, kiddo...
I made no such claim. The claim that apples are tasty /= apples and tasty are synonymous. Your retardedness is impressive.
[Augustus_Octavian]He is merely a lowly technician.
[Me]Meaning what, exactly?
[Augustus_Octavian]That he is a low ranking technician.
YOUR.
OWN.
WORDS.
Dumbass....!!
And no, being in the minority does not make me wrong. It makes me in the minority.
And we're back to majority rules again...
Have you considered it is because you are so retarded you apparently (literally) believe that majority makes right?
Morality defines Right. Right is defined in law. Law establishes the fact. Punishment enforces the fact. You are wrong.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
You asked me to clarify my position about the equivalent rank (colonel) to the civilian "Chartered Engineer", and I did, that technician is too lowly a rank to be equivalent to a "Chartered Engineer". Literally within that very same post where you quoted me, I went on further "My position and subjective opinion (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less". What? You chose to read only the first paragraph and arbitrarily decided that the third paragraph is immaterial? To claim that this was all just a misunderstanding?
See? You are retarded. Majority does not make right.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
You asked me to clarify my position about the equivalent rank (colonel) to the civilian "Chartered Engineer", and I did, that technician is too lowly a rank to be equivalent to a "Chartered Engineer".
Outright lies and YOUR OWN WORDS are right there to prove it:
[you]He is merely a lowly technician.
[Me]Meaning what, exactly?
[you]
Literally meaning that. That he is a low ranking technician.
Lies, lies, lies.
I asked what you meant by "He is merely a lowly technician", specifically in the context of your implication that this governs said Technician's capacity and opportunity for heroic acts - This was my primary challenge in teh first place, being made clear by the full reply:
"Meaning what, exactly?
That he's never saved a life and/or risked his own?
That he's never shot the enemy?
That he's never stood up to anything more frightening coming at him than a maintenance manual? "
Nothing to do with equivalents in a civilian engineering environment, actually, although the very same question still applied when you
did attempt that same logic and even then you are wrong, as I have already had to explain how it works with engineers.
Literally within that very same post where you quoted me, I went on further "My position and subjective opinion (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less".
You had still laid out the assertion, still with no evidence, so whichever way you look at it, your opinion is total bollocks.
What? You chose to read only the first paragraph and arbitrarily decided that the third paragraph is immaterial? To claim that this was all just a misunderstanding?
I use direct quotes in reply. If there's any misunderstanding, it's on your part.
But then, you don't even read full sentences, as you like to take snippets of quotes and stitch them together out of context for your Stawman arguments anyway, so whatever...
See? You are retarded. Majority does not make right.
I use small sentences and you still fail to understand...
OK, whatever.
Go commit a crime and then argue your "subjective minority morality opinion" against the might of the law, see where it gets you...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Within the context of rank equivalence to a civilian chartered engineer, this is literally correct. A technician is lowly (from my perspective at least, since your position was that they are equivalent). I had proposed colonel as accurate. Moreover, as you have acknowledged, literally within that very same post, I further clarified with "My position and subjective opinion (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less".
There is simply no misunderstanding. You explicitly took the position that I am factually wrong, as per my previous quotes. So prove it.
"You're wrong in every sense of the word, so a resounding yes [to the position that low ranking people being lowly is factually and objectively wrong]"
Once again, law /= right/accurate/truth
Is it right to exterminate the Jewish people merely because this is the will of the State? [within the context of post-1933 Germany] Note that I am not calling you Hitler, I am asking whether this is your moral position.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Within the context of rank equivalence to a civilian chartered engineer, this is literally correct.
Both literally and figuratively INCORRECT, as has already been pointed out to you.
Moreover, as you have acknowledged, literally within that very same post, I further clarified with "My position and subjective opinion (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less".
Again, your opinion founded on nothing. Irrelevant. Stop going round in circles.
Also stop posting your cut & paste list at the top each time, dickhead - Whenever you do, you're just repeating the very words of yours that support my challenges!!
There is simply no misunderstanding.
Said by the person who misunderstands, if not outright fails to grasp, the entire thread so far!!
You explicitly took the position that I am factually wrong, as per my previous quotes. So prove it.
I have done so many times now, even reiterating for your dumbass benefit.
Meanwhile you have substantiated NOTHING of your own argument at all....
You have ANYthing else to add, or are you just a broken record?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Haha. Getting called out with your own quotes feels bad, doesn't it? Nope, aren't gonna stop when I got you pinned down. If these quotes are making
me look bad, why are
you the one who is begging for it to cease?
So, once again, prove your factual claims. You explicitly and repeatedly affirmed your factual and objective claim (not subjective, not your mere opinion). Rather late to backpedal or claim a misunderstanding now. So, prove it.
And I see that you backed down on your stupid position of law = right/accurate/truth
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Haha. Getting called out with your own quotes feels bad, doesn't it?
It's YOUR quotes I'm calling YOU out on, you dozy twat!!!
Nope, aren't gonna stop when I got you pinned down.
You seriously think you've won, don't you?
If these quotes are making me look bad, why are you the one who is begging for it to cease?
1/. You have no idea what begging is.
2/. Feel free to carry on then. Far be it from me to stop you talking *beep*
So, once again, prove your factual claims.
I have.
You prove yours.
Rather late to backpedal or claim a misunderstanding now.
So why then are YOU doing exactly that?
And I see that you backed down on your stupid position of law = right/accurate/truth
Why would I continue with the second challenge when you can't even answer the first?
I see that you haven't substantiated a single one of your own assertions...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
That is the thing, see. I made no such factual claim (within this thread context of low ranking being lowly), thus need prove none. Burden is on you.
So... where are these citations you were talking about? Come on, if you got it, show it. You have been talking about both low ranking issue and global human rights laws since 20?30? posts back.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
That is the thing, see. I made no such factual claim (within this thread context of low ranking being lowly), thus need prove none.
That is exactly what you did and the very reason I called you on it in the first place.
Burden is on you.
Still waiting to hear your answer from the very first challenge - Burden on you.
So... where are these citations you were talking about?
"Citations" is your word.
You seem to want small, quotable snippets of something that requires the full article to be understood, proving you have not read anything you've been told nor want to understand.
You have been talking about both low ranking issue and global human rights laws since 20?30? posts back.
And you still don't understand?
You really are retarded, aren't you?
I think the OP had you in mind when conceiving this thread title!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
In other words, still full of *beep* and lacking any citations to back your factual claims.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
In other words, still full of *beep* and lacking any citations to back your factual claims.
We talking 'bout me here, or still on you?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Oh, I think it is pretty clear based on who has the quotes.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Oh, I think it is pretty clear based on who has the quotes.
Ah, that'd be you then.
But please, continue posting your own bollocks and claim to not understand how they prove why you're wrong.
Thread title is very appropriate for you.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Since you are the one with the explicit factual claim, burden is on you. Provide these citations you supposedly have.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Since you are the one with the explicit factual claim, burden is on you. Provide these citations you supposedly have.
Did prove it. You ignoring that won't make it go away. You are wrong. Grow up and deal with it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Go on then. How did you prove it? If you have the citations/quotes, post it. Don't talk about how you did it already, just do it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Go on then. How did you prove it?
Prove how I proved it?
Then what? Prove how I proved that I proved it?
You're just a broken record, aren't you.
The proof and how it's proven has been posted time and time again.
If you're still too ignorant to get it, just go back under your bridge and play with yourself.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Simple. Post your citations/quotes. If you have it, post it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] My ... subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less ... this is my view
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige] ... It's a simple dictionary definition [that it is factually wrong that low ranking people are lowly in status/prestige]
[Augustus_Octavian] So. Prove it.
[ttaskmaster] But your assertions have been that they ARE [factual], not that you think, feel, believe, or anything like that ... you state them [your positions] AS fact
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Claims, claims, claims. How about fewer claims and more citations? If you have it, post it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Still back-pedalling like crazy huh. Have restructured quotes to show that you knew very well what was actually said.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
You can't understand and refuse to admit you're wrong, so are rewriting quotes and adding made up additions to try and twist things, yet STILL post the very proof that you're wrong!!!
Carry on, retard....
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
So sad. You were so bold in defending your friend, now getting your ass owned and trying so hard to back out gracefully.
Sure, show me where I added fake stuff. Go on.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Nobody is backing out, bitch, though you're clearly trying to.
What ya gonna omit or twist next, eh?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Sure, point out the falsehood then.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] After all, he was merely a lowly Navy technician
[Augustus_Octavian] He is merely a lowly technician.
[Me]Meaning what, exactly?
[Augustus_Octavian] That he is a low ranking technician
You have stated this, as fact, from the start, with nothing to support it.
No subjectivity, no nothing, until called out, whereupon you started trying to backpedal and pretend it was about a differing analogy addressing competence.
You were called out, you were wrong, you are a liar, end of.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
There is no need for anything to support this. As stated literally within that very same post, this is my subjective opinion that these low ranking technicians are lowly.
apples are tasty /=> apples = tasty
Your position now otherwise is absurd. Clearly, you understood back then. Otherwise, why did you address the related claims of "low status", "low importance", "low ability" and "low value"?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] After all, he was merely a lowly Navy technician
[Augustus_Octavian] He is merely a lowly technician.
[Me]Meaning what, exactly?
[Augustus_Octavian] That he is a low ranking technician
You made a statement.
I understood perfectly, but still called you to explain yourself.
You then stated EXACTLY what you're now backpedalling over, which are the very claims I call you on and which you refuse to substantiate, because you know you're wrong.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Right, right. And you concluded that apples are tasty => apples = tasty, despite me stating that it is my subjective opinion (that apples are tasty)?
I do in fact consider him lowly because of his low rank. That is the whole point of my post calling him out. But apples =/ tasty simply because apples are tasty. Our subsequent exchange, as above quotes, shows that you are well aware of this.
By stating your position that "low ranking does not mean low status", you shown that you knew it is my position that being a low ranking employee does mean you are of low status. Rather than low ranking being defined (dictionary-wise) as low status. Similarly for your rejection of lowly / low ranking meaning "low importance", "low ability" and "low value".
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Right, right. And you concluded that apples are tasty => apples = tasty,
I challenged what YOU asserted. The conclusion is yours.
despite me stating that it is my subjective opinion?
Opinion founded upon what?
What reasoning have you considered?
What research have you done?
What, if anything, is the basis of this opinion?
You have had pages of opportunity to validate this opinion with some finding or fact, yet have offered up nothing but obstinate, wilful ignorance...
I do in fact consider him lowly because of his low rank. That is the whole point of my post calling him out.
Your standards do not and cannot apply to that which you are neither a part of, nor have any understanding of.
By stating your position that "low ranking does not mean low status", you shown that you knew it is my position that being a low ranking employee does mean you are of low status.
I stated it because you were asserting the opposite and I called you on it.
I then had you explain yourself exactly, precisely to avoid any possible confusion you may have been suffering... and you again stated the same opposite, whereupon you were called out.
The fact that I had to state it in the first place, let alone repeatedly shows that you knew and were being wilfully ignorant.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
Augustus_Octavian's conclusion:
apples are tasty (aka low ranking => lowly status)
ttaskmaster's interpretation:
apples = tasty (aka low ranking is defined in dictionary as being of lowly status)
And that is exactly my subjective position, which you well understood then. Namely, that low ranking means you are of "low status" and "low importance". So, justify your factual objective claim otherwise. My explicitly subjective opinion requires no justification
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Augustus_Octavian's conclusion:
apples are tasty (aka low ranking => lowly status)
Which I challenge.
ttaskmaster's interpretation:
apples = tasty (aka low ranking is defined in dictionary as being of lowly status)
I suppose you claim this is your subjective interpretation of smething I did not say, again, yes?
And that is exactly my subjective position, which you well understood then.
That is what you later
claim is subjective, but an opinion still requires some kind of reasoning and consideration of the facts to create it, otherwise you're just talking out of your arse.
Namely, that low ranking means you are of "low status" and "low importance".
It does NOT mean that, as been demonstrated to you time and time again you dozy ignorant *beep*!
So, justify your factual objective claim otherwise.
Go back and *beep* read it yourself. It's all there in front of you.
My explicitly subjective opinion requires no justification
Actually it does, otherwise you are claiming every conceivable prejudice is perfectly acceptable, on the basis that you don't need a reason for it.
So, what makes you think this?
No-one has prejudice like that without cause and you cannot expect us to believe you this this way "just because".
If you cannot give any reason for it, then you are simply lying in order to be argumentative.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
As proven by my quote, I stated that this is my subjective opinion at that very same post you had quoted from. And no, it does not require justification. Nor do I intend to indulge you.
Since you apparently now stand behind your factual objective claim, prove it. Don't claim that you did it, do it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
As proven by my quote, I stated that this is my subjective opinion
An opinion which you REFUSE to substantiate...
And no, it does not require justification.
Says who?
YOU?
In that case, you are wrong and I similarly don't need to supply any proof - You just are!!
Nor do I intend to indulge you.
You indulge me every time you reply, sweet-cheeks!!
Since you apparently now stand behind your factual objective claim, prove it. Don't claim that you did it, do it.
Since you apparently cannot accept being wrong when faced with the wealth of evidence already posted, what is the point?
"Prove it, prove it, prove it......"
I really hope you get banged up for something, just so we can hear you whining this at the judge!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
So... no proof then?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
So, no citations/quotes then? My lot that you are full of it is right above.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
So STILL not able to answer the very first call-out you were faced with, then?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
Sure. We can go with this tactic of yours. I feel very good about it though. Think I come off looking well.
So... still no citations then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims,
Tasky provides - You ignore.
while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
If only so I can ignore it like you do...
I feel very good about it though. Think I come off looking well.
Of course you
think that - You're ignorant.
Can you not think up a better argument, either? Just lazily reposting the same *beep* on multiple boards?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
Lol. And who is the stalker who followed me to the other board through my posting history?
Post your citations then. Stop talking about it and actually do it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Lol. And who is the stalker who followed me to the other board through my posting history?
Actually I'd just watched that film and the first name I see on the board is yours - Was interesting to note several people there also accusing you of pissing out unsubstantiated opinions, to which you again refuse to address any challenge...
Post your citations then. Stop talking about it and actually do it.
Go read all those I already have posted.
Stop being an ignorant *beep*
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
Right, right. A complete coincidence, I am sure. Not a stalker at all, oh my, no no.
Go on then. Post these citations you keep talking about.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Yeah, whatever. Make up whatever *beep* you like - You're only hiding from the truth, denying it to yourself and refusing to do what you demand of others.
And no, I'm not posting anything further unless you actually read what's already been posted.
Cue selective copy & paste in 3...2...1...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
You know very well what is coming, since you have consistently failed to do what is required.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you make a factual claim, then you are obliged to back it up. So, do it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
You know very well what is coming, since you have consistently failed to do what is required.
Come on then - DO IT!!!
COME ON - COME AT ME, BRO!! BRING IT!!!!!
I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you make a factual claim, then you are obliged to back it up. So, do it.
What, just like you answered every single challenge to your statements?
Oh, wait, that's right - You didn't. Not a single one. Nada. Zip. Nothing.
So get on with pasting your snippets [of misquotes] and adding your own unnecessary personal interpretations of blatantly plain and simple words, or whatever makes you think you've won what isn't even a contest...
Make sure you post lots of examples at the top that support everything I've said, too. I love how you keep doing that and pretend like you don't realise!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
Yup. Remember, I didn't make BS claims like you did.
Same old *beep* huh. Constantly claiming that you have been misquoted, no proof either here. Lol, what a loser.
Right, right. Then why did you beg for me to stop posting the quotes then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Yup. Remember, I didn't make BS claims like you did.
That's exactly what you did and what you're STILL being called on.
Lol, what a loser.
Coming from the dick who can't name a country, can't even make one up, to even pretend your opinion is substantiated...
Right, right. Then why did you beg for me to stop posting the quotes then?
Show me where I begged, then.
Come on - Don't just claim it - PROVE IT!!!
You seem to think you know the difference between begging and contempt - Prove it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
Ah. Still deflecting huh? If I did name a country, your intention was likely to still claim that I am lying. Leaving aside not posting one's personal info, this sort of bad faith is why you are full of it.
You seem to think you know the difference between begging and contempt - Prove it
You asked me to stop posting my quotes. I consider this pathetic request as begging. I am sure you think you were asking in a completely manly and honourable manner, lol. Am I right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeggingAlso stop posting your cut & paste list at the top each time
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Ah. Still deflecting huh?
I'm having a go at what you've done all along, seeing how you take it when it's thrown back at you.
Plus you still fail to answer every challenge you've been brought on anyway, so...
If I did name a country, your intention was likely to still claim that I am lying.
That says far more about you than it does me, especially since I have already stated that I'd return back with the EXACT laws concerning said country.
Your response to this most generous offer has been to witter something stupid about personal information on the internet and try to weasel your way out like the coward you are.
Leaving aside not posting one's personal info, this sort of bad faith is why you are full of it.
So your assumption that everyone is as much of a prick as you, as your sole basis for your argument against them?
You asked me to stop posting my quotes.
1/. Asking is not begging.
2/. I wasn't asking, I was telling.
I consider this pathetic request as begging.
And we're back to square one, with you not even understanding the official definitions (especially the very Wiki link you just posted) of the words you use, let alone having any that substantiate your "mere opinion".
Don't just tell me what you 'think' it is - PROVE IT.
I am sure you think you were asking in a completely manly and honourable manner, lol. Am I right?
You're never right, even in this case.
I have already stated I was speaking with contempt. No honour intended. If it helps clarify the manner intended, re-read it with the words ", you dozy *beep* twat" added on at the end.
Better yet, tell me AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL about something and then post more links and quotes that directly oppose what you just said, before then accusing *me* of being a loser - Always hilarious when you do that and I simply cannot believe that you don't understand why you're a complete fückwitted twat!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
Right, Right. Seems that you have been deflecting for a long long time huh. Still no citations then?
[ttaskmaster] who can't name a country, can't even make one up
Not an assumption when you already pre-emptively attempt to discredit any naming of the country. And nope, as I have said clearly, I simply do not intend to provide any such personal info. Let the public judge what occurs here, I am comfortable with that. Feel free to quote me on this every single post.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Right, Right. Seems that you have been deflecting for a long long time huh. Still no citations then?
Still no answer to the original challenge in the first place, then?
Not an assumption when you already pre-emptively attempt to discredit any naming of the country.
Oh, so you're telling me what I think now, despite having already said otherwise myself...?
Or are you assuming I follow the same *beep* up concepts and assumptions you do?
And nope, as I have said clearly, I simply do not intend to provide any such personal info.
So.... no proof then?
Let the public judge what occurs here, I am comfortable with that.
I seriously doubt anyone is reading this any more.
Feel free to quote me on this every single post.
There you go assuming, again.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Still deflecting huh? So, no citations then?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Still deflecting? Not quite done yet?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
What else am I to do when that's all you've got as your attention-seeking argument?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Yea, guess me asking you to support your claim is just too much.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Post your citations then. Instead of yapping on about it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Read the ones that have been posted, instead of pretending they're not.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
If you have it, then post it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah, I see. No citations then?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Still more excuses then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Excuse for what? It's right there.
I'm not going to repost everything I've already done - I've put in the effort, it up to YOU to disprove it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. Still full of *beep* huh?
reply
share
CGSailor
7 years ago
Then ffs stop responding to the troll.
You are only giving it what it wants. Attention.
You can't win with a troll because the attention IS the troll's goal.
Attention to the tune of destroying and dominating the entire Top Gun board with your back and forth with a troll.
Throw it the fück on ignore already.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah. The good old deflection, huh. No citations then?
And don't even think of running away like the moral coward CGSailor. If you believe in your position, then you should stand and fight. So, where are those citations?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
And don't even think of running away
Why, whatcha gonna do about it?
I mean aside from crying in the corner because people have found something more interesting than you to fück about with....
Whatcha gonna do?
Nothing? Same as you did about reading the given evidence? Yup, thought so.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Nah, just calling you out for your bullsh*t, that is all. You made bold claims, in defence of your good friend, and can't back it up. So, don't bemoan that you get called out.
Thought you were a moral coward, guess I am right. You can slink off then.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Nah, just calling you out for your bullsh*t, that is all.
No, that was me calling YOU out, retard... a call-out you STILL haven't answered, by the way.
You made bold claims, in defence of your good friend, and can't back it up. So, don't bemoan that you get called out.
I'm calling YOU on how you haven't actually read a damn word and still just repeat the same empty claim across forums.
Thought you were a moral coward, guess I am right. You can slink off then.
If this is your way of begging for my permission, you may indeed *beep* off.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
I am not the one making a claim to defend my friend. You are. And since you are unwilling to post your citations, you just have to endure getting called out then.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
And posting the same thing across forums again. Add unimaginitive spammer to the list, ignorant retard.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Lol. And who is the creepy stalker who stalked me across forums? You can stop replying at the other forum, and we can restrict it to this forum. Don't expect me to let you have the last word there.
If you claim a position, then prove it with citations or get called out.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Lol. And who is the creepy stalker who stalked me across forums?
As already explained, I went there having just seen the film and found you *beep* the same crap at people all over that forum. That's not stalking.
You can stop replying at the other forum, and we can restrict it to this forum.
Ooh, beg little doggie. Beg some more and I'll consider it....
Don't expect me to let you have the last word there.
I don't expect you to even read what I write any more. You're clearly here to just witter, so I'mma take up as much of your time as possible and get paid with your tax money for doing so!
Carry on...
If you claim a position, then prove it with citations or get called out.
What, like you're getting called out by many people across multiple boards for your position?
Lucky I already supported mine with numerous sources of definitive proof, then, eh!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Lol. Creepy stalker denies being a stalker. What a surprise!
Yea, right... Stalks me and then has the cheek to complain about my replies to his stalks. If you don't want me to show you up in other forums, then don't stalk me.
Sure. Another 200 posts then. Let's see who gives up before this year is out.
So, no citations then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Lol. Creepy stalker denies being a stalker. What a surprise!
You seem to think you're special enough to be stalked.
Whatever your mommy may have told you, she was lying. You aren't special... at least not in that sense!!
If you don't want me to show you up in other forums, then don't stalk me.
No, no, I want you to show me up. Come on...
But I do mean show me up, rather than just posting the same thing, along with unimaginitive bleats and a string of quotes that support my argument instead of yours, of course.
Think you can manage that?
Sure. Another 200 posts then. Let's see who gives up before this year is out.
You're already begging me to stop. Ain't gonna happen, bitch.
So, no citations then?
Get your eyes checked.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
So, no citations then? Just excuses?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. So, no proof then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
I really hope you never have kids... last thing we need is more ignorant bleating idiots of your kind!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Says the idiot who is full of crap but lacking in citations.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
If you have them, then post them. Simple as that.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
So, do it. Don't talk about how you did it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
But I have done it... It's right there at the start of this thread.
Pretend all you like, it's still there.
Yep, still there.
Let's look again.... Yup, right there. Go look for yourself.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Still talking about it? Post it then if you have it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
I already posted it.
And for you back there in the cheap seat - I already posted it.
Come closer, you blint bint. Maybe then you can see it.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. So, only intending to talk about it then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Have you no better comeback than playing ostrich?
No wonder you cannot answer your own challenges.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah. Still talking about it then? How about actually doing it instead of deflecting?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah, yes. The gold old talking about it still.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. The good old deflection, ah.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
So you cannot actually answer your original challenges, instead pretending to ignore those who have...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah. Let me guess, no citations then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Jealousy is a sin, you know... If you weren't also prideful in your sloth, you'd not be so repetitive and might even be able to substantiate your own argument...
But since you can't, you just bleat here.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. So... still deflecting then? No citations?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
I dunno - Have you looked?
No?
Off you go, then. Go look. I'll wait here...
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah, yes. Still talking about it. So... no citations then?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah. Yet another masterful deflection. So... no citations then?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Assume whatever gets you off, kiddo.
200 pages of whatever... Keep posting the same old *beep* No, don't even try to make it original or say something different.
Because that's all you ever do in any forum here. That's all you've got - *beep* and denial.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. I don't suppose you could post these citations you keep talking about?
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
So not only are you woefully late today, but it took you well over 24 hours to think up something other than the same old response... and you STILL post the same message on two different boards???!!!
Disgusting.
Citations are all in the early posts of this thread, like I've been telling you all along.
Go read them... perhaps even answer the challenges put to you back then, if you even can.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. Still talking about it instead of posting it then?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
So... about those citations
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Right, right. So... about those citations... gonna post them?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah, yes. Still talking about it.
reply
share
ttaskmaster
7 years ago
Well, if you're not going to put the effort in, hana, that's your problem...
I assume you want me to RE-post everything here and type up pages of stuff that you will again not read, but that ain't gonna happen.
You had your chance.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Nope. Simply asking you to post those citations you keep talking about. Simple as that.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
Ah, yes. The good old talking about it still. Since you have it, then post it.
reply
share
CGSailor
7 years ago
Would you fücking stop giving the troll the attention it wants?
You can't win against this kind of troll because he doesnt care whether he is right or wrong, only that he is the spotlight of attention.
He "wins" everytime you respond. you lose.
This thread has gone over 200 posts and 99% of thoses posts are you two going back and forth, keeping this thread at the top rather than letting it die.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
7 years ago
[Augustus_Octavian] subjective opinion [emphasis added] (based on my personal values) is that lower ranking people are worth less [lowly / low status / low importance]
[ttaskmaster] Low ranking does NOT mean low status, or of low importance
[ttaskmaster] By claiming they are "lowly", you are very much claiming low ability and thus low value
[Augustus_Octavian] Prove me factually wrong then. I make no claims of being factually correct (about low ranking people being lowly in status/prestige)
[ttaskmaster] I already have [proven you factually wrong]
[ttaskmaster] Yes there is [a law requiring that we treat low ranking people with respect] ... laws on Human Rights ... covers every human on the planet
ttaskmaster declines/unable to provide quotes/citations as proof for his explicitly factual objective claims, while constantly deflecting and insisting that I am similarly obliged for my explicitly subjective opinion
"[ttaskmaster] I'm having a go at what you've done all along [by deflecting]"
So... not posting those citations up then?
reply
share