Nice. I knew you couldn't resist. By the way, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, believes that you are "the poor, put upon guy just trying to take the high road" here.
So, I notice you very carefully didn't say anything about your insult to a US president being explained to you. Why not? Do you think it would make your argument look weaker than it is? It's too late to worry about that now, since I've already pointed out your mistake. Do you still think it's the biggest load of crap you've heard in a while (and spare me the predictable grade school answer of "not since I read Naruki's post")? So tell us how your opinion sounds now that you realize you just insulted a US president. "We" would like to know.
As to your reduction of my argument: it was poorly done. My statements were that the government had lied about the very things you said they were telling the truth about. I also said they HAD to lie about those things, according to both them and their supporters, in the name of national security. I reasoned from those facts that the publicized alert levels must not be based on real facts, since those cannot accurately be given to the public for security reasons.
If you have a problem with my logic (other than not understanding logic when it bites you in the face), please do bring it up for once. If you have a problem with my facts, tell me which ones.
If, as you've shown just now, you simply like twisting my words whenever you lose an argument, then stop. I'm debating in good faith, and if you cannot do the same then quit. |
