Discussion:
Troll Logic
(too old to reply)
Claudius Denk
2017-07-27 18:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So, if I Look in a dictionary and see a definition of bigfoot, does that
definition stand as evidence that bigfoot does exist?
So, why don't you just do that, Bozo and see what you find?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigfoot
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bigfoot
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigfoot
... and there are dozens more. In no case do these definitions suggest that such a creature actually exists, only that they *supposedly* might...
You know, if it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Would you like to retract your claim that looking at dictionaries is a scientific method?
Jim, please point out where I ever said that a dictionary definition is any part of the Scientific Method,
What was your point then?


for I never made such a claim. I *did* claim, however, that we all need to agree on what something is or isn't, and that the dictionaries of the world are the most convenient tool to do so.

How is this relevant?
For example, the phrase 'water vapor', or even just the word 'vapor', have dictionary definitions that are all mostly in agreement with each other, and it is *you* who disputes the veracity of those definitions.
So, you believe definitions have, 'veracity." What does this mean? How is it relevant?

It is *you* who claims that those definitions are wrong.

LOL! That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing that it is you that is saying McGinn must conform to something you found in a NON-SCIENTIFIC reference.

You trolls are the epitome of stupid!

Whatever it is that *you* are describing, it isn't water vapor because *you* have a different definition than does the world's dictionaries. What they define as 'vapor' is exactly what 'vapor' is, whether you like it or not... that is precisely why dictionaries exist in the first place.

LOL. So, Dictionaries were created to resolve scientific disputes?
James McGinn
2017-07-28 01:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
So, if I Look in a dictionary and see a definition of bigfoot, does that
definition stand as evidence that bigfoot does exist?
So, why don't you just do that, Bozo and see what you find?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigfoot
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bigfoot
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigfoot
... and there are dozens more. In no case do these definitions suggest that such a creature actually exists, only that they *supposedly* might...
You know, if it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Would you like to retract your claim that looking at dictionaries is a scientific method?
Jim, please point out where I ever said that a dictionary definition is any part of the Scientific Method,
What was your point then?
for I never made such a claim. I *did* claim, however, that we all need to agree on what something is or isn't, and that the dictionaries of the world are the most convenient tool to do so.
How is this relevant?
For example, the phrase 'water vapor', or even just the word 'vapor', have dictionary definitions that are all mostly in agreement with each other, and it is *you* who disputes the veracity of those definitions.
So, you believe definitions have, 'veracity." What does this mean? How is it relevant?
It is *you* who claims that those definitions are wrong.
LOL! That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing that it is you that is saying McGinn must conform to something you found in a NON-SCIENTIFIC reference.
You trolls are the epitome of stupid!
Whatever it is that *you* are describing, it isn't water vapor because *you* have a different definition than does the world's dictionaries. What they define as 'vapor' is exactly what 'vapor' is, whether you like it or not... that is precisely why dictionaries exist in the first place.
LOL. So, Dictionaries were created to resolve scientific disputes?
LOL.
James McGinn
2017-07-28 17:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
So, if I Look in a dictionary and see a definition of bigfoot, does that
definition stand as evidence that bigfoot does exist?
So, why don't you just do that, Bozo and see what you find?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigfoot
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bigfoot
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigfoot
... and there are dozens more. In no case do these definitions suggest that such a creature actually exists, only that they *supposedly* might...
You know, if it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Would you like to retract your claim that looking at dictionaries is a scientific method?
Jim, please point out where I ever said that a dictionary definition is any part of the Scientific Method,
What was your point then?
for I never made such a claim. I *did* claim, however, that we all need to agree on what something is or isn't, and that the dictionaries of the world are the most convenient tool to do so.
Note the twisted troll logic. "It's not what I say it is, it's what I say it is.
Post by Claudius Denk
How is this relevant?
For example, the phrase 'water vapor', or even just the word 'vapor', have dictionary definitions that are all mostly in agreement with each other, and it is *you* who disputes the veracity of those definitions.
So, you believe definitions have, 'veracity." What does this mean? How is it relevant?
Dictionary.
Post by Claudius Denk
It is *you* who claims that those definitions are wrong.
You are a confused fool. Don't be putting words in my mouth, you fucking slimey troll.
Claudius Denk
2017-07-30 17:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
So, if I Look in a dictionary and see a definition of bigfoot, does that
definition stand as evidence that bigfoot does exist?
So, why don't you just do that, Bozo and see what you find?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigfoot
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bigfoot
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigfoot
... and there are dozens more. In no case do these definitions suggest that such a creature actually exists, only that they *supposedly* might...
You know, if it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Would you like to retract your claim that looking at dictionaries is a scientific method?
Jim, please point out where I ever said that a dictionary definition is any part of the Scientific Method,
What was your point then?
for I never made such a claim. I *did* claim, however, that we all need to agree on what something is or isn't, and that the dictionaries of the world are the most convenient tool to do so.
Note the twisted troll logic. "It's not what I say it is, it's what I say it is.
Post by Claudius Denk
How is this relevant?
For example, the phrase 'water vapor', or even just the word 'vapor', have dictionary definitions that are all mostly in agreement with each other, and it is *you* who disputes the veracity of those definitions.
So, you believe definitions have, 'veracity." What does this mean? How is it relevant?
Dictionary.
Post by Claudius Denk
It is *you* who claims that those definitions are wrong.
You are a confused fool. Don't be putting words in my mouth, you fucking slimey troll.
Claudius Denk
2018-03-12 21:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
So, if I Look in a dictionary and see a definition of bigfoot, does that
definition stand as evidence that bigfoot does exist?
So, why don't you just do that, Bozo and see what you find?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigfoot
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bigfoot
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigfoot
... and there are dozens more. In no case do these definitions suggest that such a creature actually exists, only that they *supposedly* might...
You know, if it will make you feel any better I will allow you to make a retraction.
Would you like to retract your claim that looking at dictionaries is a scientific method?
Jim, please point out where I ever said that a dictionary definition is any part of the Scientific Method,
What was your point then?
for I never made such a claim. I *did* claim, however, that we all need to agree on what something is or isn't, and that the dictionaries of the world are the most convenient tool to do so.
Note the twisted troll logic. "It's not what I say it is, it's what I say it is.
Post by Claudius Denk
How is this relevant?
For example, the phrase 'water vapor', or even just the word 'vapor', have dictionary definitions that are all mostly in agreement with each other, and it is *you* who disputes the veracity of those definitions.
So, you believe definitions have, 'veracity." What does this mean? How is it relevant?
Dictionary.
Post by Claudius Denk
It is *you* who claims that those definitions are wrong.
You are a confused fool. Don't be putting words in my mouth, you fucking slimey troll.
Loading...