Absolutely Adequate wrote:Madison,
This is the last thing I'm saying to you- period. You proved nothing about my signature because you offered no proof. You gave your opinion. But I stopped arguing with you because I've been here long enough to know that you refuse to see reason.
I refuse to see reason? That's laughable, especially seeing as how I did in fact prove your sig is worthless and yet another attempt of yours to spin things in a direction that's wrong.
Oh, and no worries if you don't say anything else to me again, but know that I will continue to point out when you're spinning things again for no other reason than to make others look bad.
AA wrote:Do you remember the thread where you insisted that if you are at a baseball game you never look away from the action for even one second? I think you were trying to prove that people whose kids get hurt by a foul are to blame for not being vigilant enough. I don't remember that exactly. But what I do remember is that you insisted that you never, under any circumstances, look away for even one second.
Some of us do see each and every single pitch that is thrown, and yes, if a kid gets hit by a foul ball, it's the parent's fault for not paying attention to what's going on. Did your kid get hit at a game or something and you feel guilty about it? No other real reason to bring this up, as I still stand by it.
AA wrote:Then and there I realized the folly in arguing with you. You refuse, in the light of overwhelming evidence, to reconsider your opinion. You look for facts to fit your opinion - you refuse to base your opinion on facts.
I've changed my stance on several things, and opened my thinking quite a bit on some things due to discussions right here on these boards. Just because you are unable to find something that you can reasonably debate, that's not my fault.
AA wrote:And now you've turned this thread into a worthless pile. Lock it up.
Who failed to use basic common sense, and then attacked first with nothing more than a boldface lie? Well by golly that would be you, not me, so blame yourself for this becoming nothing more than you firing poor insults, and me letting you know just how poor, pathetic, and off base they are.
AA wrote:To simplify this for you, here is the crux of your argument:This country was founded with a belief in God (among other things), you know that (as does anyone with an ounce of common sense), and you cannot disprove it, which is why you'd rather fire off attacks and insults.
Of course I can't disprove it. You can't disprove something that doesn't mean anything. It was founded with a belief in God? What, exactly, does that mean? What are you trying to say?
To make my point a bit more clear, try and disprove this: "Elvis Presley is the greatest musician in history." Or this one: "The United States became the greatest country in the world because of the Separation of Church and State, the most brilliant government decision in history." Disprove either. Go ahead.
Like you just said, of course I cannot disprove any of that and I haven't tried. What I have done is pointed out a very basic common sense thing that most people already know. Our founding fathers believed in God. This isn't rocket science, or some unknown fact. This is common sense knowledge that most kids are taught in elementary school for crying out loud. Laughable that you expect me to go off on some Google search to prove common sense to you, and seeing as how I know you would never admit to being wrong (and you proved it again in this thread), why waste my time with you? Not worth it in the least.
AA wrote:This is why I kept asking you to deal in facts. You refused, just like in the minimum wage discussion, and then you claim you win, with an air of condescension. It's unbecoming.
Hahaha....What? I did prove your sig was worthless in the other thread. You were/are the one refusing to see it. You also took the same path in that thread as you have in this thread. You said something silly, got called on it, and resorted to insults since you couldn't defend your position adequately enough for anyone to agree with you.
AA wrote:We truly are poorer for having lost Arlo.
Agreed. Arlo is missed, but at the same time, he does have common sense, so if you really think he would side with your half truth and refusal to see what everyone already knows, you're wrong yet again.
Nice try at another poor cheap shot though.
Madison wrote:The pitching got better? I can't help but laugh at that. Replace Mulder/Hudson with two kids and people actually believe their pitching got better.....Lol. Sorry, just humerous to me. Had Zito been one of the two traded, then I might say there was an argument to be made that just maybe they actually did get better, but you're talking about replacing their #1 and #2 starters with kids. I think only my Rangers could replace their #1 and #2 starters with kids and actually wind up with a better rotation. Lol.
You're right about the Angels starting pitching. It's not that good. Colon will rebound some, but they still need some help. Anderson is back, so losing Guillen shouldn't be that big of a deal. They also have Finley now. The offense is there, it's just a matter of their starting pitching. It should be good enough to win them the division though.
The A's starting pitching improved this offseason.......haha......*walks away chuckling*.....
Well this is nice and old. Got a man crush on me or something? If you were still talking to me I'd love to know what it was supposed to prove, but oh well, I will no longer get your fantastic wisdom from you anymore. What a pity. I will point out that the Angels won the division (like I said they would) and the A's didn't even win the wild card. Oh wait, you're going to spin it that they are better this year, aren't you (if you were to respond)? Well, it's obvious to anyone that this particular discussion was about how they would do last year, so save yourself the trouble as I did say before that the A's would be better in a year or two, but 2005 was not going to be their year (and I was right) .
Would you like to dig up some of my old predictions while you're at it? I've missed quite a few, so there are plenty of pathetic and cheap shots to take at me. Hate for you to miss that opportunity because at least those have some sort of base to them instead of nothing at all. I'll even start it off by saying that I thought Soriano would be highly overrated this year and not live up to his draft position (unless he fell really, really far). I was wrong. See? Not that hard for some of us to own up to a mistake.
I wish you nothing but good things AA, and hope you have a better life than you have now.
EDIT: Just for kicks because this whole thing is so funny to me , I went and found the thread you quoted me from. Here's a few other things I said in that thread that you left out in yet another poor attempt to make me look bad (and what you actually posted didn't make me look bad either ):
Madison on April 5th, 2005 wrote:Which with the small offensive upgrade, and the pitching downgrade, leaves them in the same spot they were in last year. A little over .500 probably, but definitely not by enough to win the division. In a couple of years when the kids (starters) have more experience, then they will be the undeniable favorites (an actual hitter or two in the process wouldn't hurt). Until then though, it's all wishful thinking. The A's just don't have the team to win the division this year.
Madison on July 6th, 2005 wrote:Maybe they just had to hit absolute rock bottom in order to wake up?
Either way, they have looked better out there. I still don't see them making the playoffs, but they are playing quite a bit better than they were.
Madison on July 26th, 2005 wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know. The A's have pulled a miracle out of their butts yet again.
I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again:
Props to the A's and their fans . This has been a very good run for them to even have a chance this year .
I still don't see them catching the Angels or winning the wildcard, but it's baseball, and anything can happen. Time will tell.
Madison on Sept. 4th, 2005 wrote:No worries about the bump, I was wrong about the A's this year, I've admitted it a few times, so what's one more time?
We'll see if they actually make the playoffs or not though.
And the A's did in fact miss the playoffs (won 88 games) while the Angels won the division.
Yet I don't ever admit when I'm wrong ? And I never change my mind about anything ?