The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
To celebrate my triumph, I'm investing all my current energy in reading up on this really amazing Philistine grave site find that was just announced today.
Should rewrite a large portion of what we know about what was actually going on in the Levant in the 1500 to 800 BCE time frame so critical to the OT narratives.
Should rewrite a large portion of what we know about what was actually going on in the Levant in the 1500 to 800 BCE time frame so critical to the OT narratives.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Reminder:
"STRAW MAN!!! STRAW MAN!!!"
(Later...)
"Hey Tanoomba, here is claim you objectively never made. Nothing you've ever said suggests this claim. I will not show you where you made this claim because, again, I made it up completely. NowPROVE THAT CLAIM!"
Self-delusion, thy name is Jhodi.
"Hey Jhodi, that's a pretty phenomenally stupid point you're repeatedly making, explicitly and in your own words."
"STRAW MAN!!! STRAW MAN!!!"
(Later...)
"Hey Tanoomba, here is claim you objectively never made. Nothing you've ever said suggests this claim. I will not show you where you made this claim because, again, I made it up completely. NowPROVE THAT CLAIM!"
Self-delusion, thy name is Jhodi.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I know it is frustrating for you, but you're just going to have to provide evidence to support your fiction, or you're going to have to admit you are engaging in fiction making.
These are your only options.
There will be no more litigation of the issue. You have been tried, and found guilty, of the crime of making shit the fuck up.
These are your only options.
There will be no more litigation of the issue. You have been tried, and found guilty, of the crime of making shit the fuck up.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I can be lazy and repeat myself too, Jhodi. Heck, over the last few days I've stockpiled many examples of you being a hypocrite, of you ignoring information inconvenient to you, of you creating straw men, and of you failing to back up your claims. Again, I can back up all my claims about you with YOUR ACTUAL WORDS.
The only way you can try to get one over on me is by literally attacking points I've never made. Not surprisingly, this is the EXACT SAME TACTIC you made use of the last time we discussed this topic. Remember? When you lied about what I was claiming then too? You were trying to get me to prove that Sulkowicz had been raped, despite my objectively never having made that claim? Well it was stupid then, and it's stupider now. If you can't address the things I've actually said and can only rely on your straw men, you've lost.
The only way you can try to get one over on me is by literally attacking points I've never made. Not surprisingly, this is the EXACT SAME TACTIC you made use of the last time we discussed this topic. Remember? When you lied about what I was claiming then too? You were trying to get me to prove that Sulkowicz had been raped, despite my objectively never having made that claim? Well it was stupid then, and it's stupider now. If you can't address the things I've actually said and can only rely on your straw men, you've lost.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
For those just joining us, the following post is what Jhodi considers me "making shit the fuck up":
Can you see where I claimed evidence was tampered with? I certainly can't. Especially since I'm explicitly stating that they are framing the information by making implications (not editing evidence), following that up with an illustrative example of exactly that.
And for an extra bit of hypocrisy, here's another quote from Jhodi:
According to Jhodi, I am claiming that the evidence (the Facebook messages) has been edited or tampered with. No, I'm not kidding, that's actually what he's trying to pull.
Can you see where I claimed evidence was tampered with? I certainly can't. Especially since I'm explicitly stating that they are framing the information by making implications (not editing evidence), following that up with an illustrative example of exactly that.
And for an extra bit of hypocrisy, here's another quote from Jhodi:
Yup, he's VERY generous with accusations of dishonesty (never basing it on my actual words, though, natch), while he's pleased as punch to lie through his teeth.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What we are observing is a wild Jhodi in his native state: Curled up into a ball, weeping openly, blocking out all outside stimuli.
Again, THIS:
Again, THIS:
Is the hill Jhodi wants to die on.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Here, another example of lawyers framing the available evidence to suit their narrative:
Will Jhodi admit that I never made the claim he's insisting I defend, even after I have clarified my point repeatedly? NOPE!
Remember when Jhodi called the criticism of his EXACT WORDS a "straw man"? Here's his rationale: Focusing on his repeated, incorrect claims was a straw man because it involved ignoring other posts where he believes hisactualpoint was made more clear. He claimed it was "cherry-picking" to focus on the several times he made that incorrect statement, and that it was our responsibility to read everything he's ever posted and fill in the gaps ourselves so his idiocy could make some sense.
And yet, completely oblivious to his incredibly hypocrisy, Jhodi is currently intentionally ignoring my repeated clarification of my point. I can't even accuse him of cherry-picking, though, because Inever even remotely said what he claims I did.Bitch ain't got no cherry to pick. He literally made up my stance, claimed victory based on this made up stance, and ignored the hard evidence that prove he was basing his argument on a giant straw man.
...And then he has the nerve to call me "disconnected from reality". Unbelievable.
Did they doctor the messages? Nope. Did they withhold evidence? Nope. They took the messages and presented a narrative that does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation, in order to benefit their client. Again: THAT'S WHAT LAWYERS DO. In fact, I'm not sure what the claim "Emma became viciously angry" is based on since I'm having trouble finding any evidence of that at all.
Will Jhodi admit that I never made the claim he's insisting I defend, even after I have clarified my point repeatedly? NOPE!
Remember when Jhodi called the criticism of his EXACT WORDS a "straw man"? Here's his rationale: Focusing on his repeated, incorrect claims was a straw man because it involved ignoring other posts where he believes hisactualpoint was made more clear. He claimed it was "cherry-picking" to focus on the several times he made that incorrect statement, and that it was our responsibility to read everything he's ever posted and fill in the gaps ourselves so his idiocy could make some sense.
And yet, completely oblivious to his incredibly hypocrisy, Jhodi is currently intentionally ignoring my repeated clarification of my point. I can't even accuse him of cherry-picking, though, because Inever even remotely said what he claims I did.Bitch ain't got no cherry to pick. He literally made up my stance, claimed victory based on this made up stance, and ignored the hard evidence that prove he was basing his argument on a giant straw man.
...And then he has the nerve to call me "disconnected from reality". Unbelievable.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Now that I think about it, its also a reverse no true scotsman or guilty by association fallacy as well.
"Some X do Y"
Therefore
"All X do Y"
Does not follow, and evidence that some X do Y is not evidence that all X do Y, and therefore cannot be substituted that a particular X did Y.
Again. This charge is made up entirely in your imagination. Even taking your argument at its face value, which no one would, should, or will, you still must bridge the gap between "Some X do Y" and "The Particular X we are discussing did Y".
Prove this particular X did Y.
Go ahead. We're waiting.
"Some X do Y"
Therefore
"All X do Y"
Does not follow, and evidence that some X do Y is not evidence that all X do Y, and therefore cannot be substituted that a particular X did Y.
Again. This charge is made up entirely in your imagination. Even taking your argument at its face value, which no one would, should, or will, you still must bridge the gap between "Some X do Y" and "The Particular X we are discussing did Y".
Prove this particular X did Y.
Go ahead. We're waiting.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Basically, the tl;dr is nothing you're saying is progressing your case, we are still stuck in the same place: You must demonstrate evidence that this team of lawyers altered the texts and emails in a way that was favorable to Nungesser.
Really its just another demonstration of your gross inability to tell between what is plausible and what is likely. And appealing to plausibility when you cannot demonstrate likelihood is just an argument from silence fallacy.
Really its just another demonstration of your gross inability to tell between what is plausible and what is likely. And appealing to plausibility when you cannot demonstrate likelihood is just an argument from silence fallacy.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I don't have to do that at all. That was never my claim, as has been clarified repeatedly.
How do you have the nerve to chastise whatsisname for not reading ALL your posts to get the supposedly necessary context where your repeated incorrect claims are no longer stupid, and yet you give yourself permission to block out any and all information that objectively proves your straw man wrong?
Again: Hypocrite
- Status