Today is rather cold, and I had a slight mishap on my trip to Turkey. as you probably know when going through security, you are supposed to use a separate tray for your lap top. However, as there is a lot of down time at airports, I keep my mouse and working pen drive in the same pocket. When I travel, I edit my clips and photos on to the pen drive, thus saving me time when I return home. So when clearing security in Turkey, my pen drive, representing hours of work, slipped out, and I did not notice until it was too late. Fortunately my original material, unedited, was basked up on my lap top. So now I am doing catch up. This is boring and time consuming, also prone to errors. So I limit myself to one hour sessions, then do something else. As a result, instead of my usual "G" response to trolls such as Zarknorph, Squaddy, U2, Medley, et all. I have been adding a substantive remeinder of where I am comming from, and their "sins" that I find offensive and a waste of time. 

RGoss99 said:

when clearing security in Turkey, my pen drive, representing hours of work, slipped out, and I did not notice until it was too late. Fortunately my original material, unedited, was basked up on my lap top. So now I am doing catch up.

Sorry to hear, what a bummer. If its any consolation, it never takes anywhere near as much time to repeat it.

No.

I told you what would happen.

This is just proof that you don't read others' posts if they are contrary to your opinion.

Another opinion.

A long-winded opinion that goes nowhere.

An English lesson.

Someone else debating the exact same thing...

A VERY short debate on the topic.

I wonder if you will look at any of the links.

No question mark needed at the end of that last statement.

Your problem in this post is one of logic. When a response becomes a snow job of supposed evidence, this suggests, that you are insecure in your point and have to pad it, hoping that some where there is evidence to prove your point. The problema is by not being satisfied with your best strongest arguement, you make all your arguements equal. This gives me the right, to sellect the most ilogical arguement, which when it fails, causes all the others to fail by association. I selected the English one on the issue of whether the use of "wonder" makes it a question. You say it does not, but your example which parallels mine says it does.

G=G+1 

RGoss99 said:

The problema is by not being satisfied with your best strongest arguement, you make all your arguements equal. This gives me the right, to sellect the most ilogical arguement, which when it fails, causes all the others to fail by association.

Good point.

Still better than BM's defense of his beliefs.

G=G+1 

Your justification for picking and choosing which argument to respond to is not accepted.

I use critical thinking when debating.  This means I do not get sidetracked by your attempts to divert the conversation.

This also means that your deduction: "If argument No. 6 of 8 is disproven, then therefore all other 7 points are disproven" is not only illogical, but a common parlour trick used to deflect attention away from the point you cannot refute and avoid the crux of the argument.

Actually if you used critical thinking, all you would have to have done is analyze all the posible arguments and posted the best one. By being uncritical and posting an ambiguous one, you undermind your point by being uncritical. So it is me who is using critical thinking to not waste time with the Good points, but to select the bad ones, proving your lack of critical thinking. In debate it is better to pick the best argument and be able to support it.

I used this argument when teaching. Students often used the passive-aggressive approach by presenting a snow job, sort of here are a bunch of points so give me a Good grade if you find one you agree with. Z says she uses critical thinking, but her snow job is simply the opposite.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

your deduction: "If argument No. 6 of 8 is disproven, then therefore all other 7 points are disproven" is not only illogical, but a common parlour trick used to deflect attention away from the point you cannot refute and avoid the crux of the argument.

RGoss is entirely right.

Your:

Another opinion.

A long-winded opinion that goes nowhere.

An English lesson.

Someone else debating the exact same thing...

A VERY short debate on the topic.

I wonder if you will look at any of the links.

Is a terrible way to pretend to be defending your position.

And of course, overlaps with time-wasting troll tactics.