This struck me as pretty funny, since I offered a cogent and concise explanation of the semantics involved, citing the dictionary definition offered by @Sherlock-Holmes himself, and he responds with petty insulting rhetoric.
Now in all honesty which of those seems more reminiscent of the duplicitous Tango man, vapid childish rhetoric, or carefully reasoned argument citing facts and evidence?
I’m done with your insults
Says the man comparing me to Trump. As for insults lets take a look at the latest batch…
I’ve reduced most of the mouthy atheists here to babbling and name calling,
Says the man in the silly wizard hat, keep waving your wand, I’m sure you’ll get lucky some day.
Yes, you do like to feign erudition, …if you expect replies from me then keep it tight, to the point, concise, none of this self congratulatory verbosity marathons you bore everyone to tears with.
Ahh yes, we must get back to ad hominem when reasoned discourse is too much of a challenge.
may I call you an imbecile?
I’m afraid you and I are done, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to discuss any subject with you, I won’t be responding to any posts you make in any thread.
Pop quiz time then:
-
Was this assertion true?
-
Was this assertion a lie?
unless we have an initial belief we cannot develop new beliefs.
I made no claims about…initial beliefs are or what led to them
- Is that claim true?
- Is that claim a lie?
Since my exposure of your duplicity is being balked at as unfair or incivil, lets ask others how they view it?