Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

You only know what you´ve typed if someone uses the "reply with quote" function. But even if you can´t remember what you´ve posted, you´re certain that you´ve been posted out of context.

The last part is even better. That mr "making up positions to argue against" is talking of typical attempt at making up a position to argue against is screaming hypocrite.

Thanks for the laughs.

Quoting so he can see it, and so I can remark how semantical arguing like his is only par for the course for those without the cognitive ability to link and understand scientific evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

That is very true. You can simply go back to this thread to have a nice chuckle and then have serious discussions in another.

The chuckle is in how much can a fake materials engineer spin in an attempt to discredit.

[Tinykong]

Quoting so he can see it, and so I can remark how semantical arguing like his is only par for the course for those without the cognitive ability to link and understand scientific evidence.

You mean like "firearms make you less safe"? I'm not sure what's worse, being a liar and a hypocrite or using the scientific method as a means to justify your fallacious logic.

[Mayhem]

Actually, I like posting here because you stopped, it's refreshing. It's funny to me when Mayhem keeps posting about me even though he's on ignore. I imagine him just yelling at the wall with no one listening.

Or maybe the posts have just been deleted, I'm not sure.

I do wonder how he´s been able to know i´m posting about him if he has me on ignore. But hey, that´s a nice showcase of how big his ego is if he thinks because he isn´t reading my posts no one is. A bit ridiculous after quoting someone that quoted me, but being ridiculous kinda is his thing anyway.

[Rukentuts]

I do wonder how he´s been able to know i´m posting about him if he has me on ignore. But hey, that´s a nice showcase of how big his ego is if he thinks because he isn´t reading my posts no one is. A bit ridiculous after quoting someone that quoted me, but being ridiculous kinda is his thing anyway.

He can read my quotings of you. They must be irking him though if he has to scratch the pathological itch to respond.

[Tinykong]

He can read my quotings of you. They must be irking him though if he has to scratch the pathological itch to respond.

Nope, just like taking any opportunity to remind the thread about your history of deleting posts and lying about it. I'm sure this will get infracted, it seems like calling you out on this is something your friends don't like.

[Mayhem]

You mean like "firearms make you less safe"? I'm not sure what's worse, being a liar and a hypocrite or using the scientific method as a means to justify your fallacious logic.

And at the end, trying to discredit people with words he doesn´t know the meaning of. Ah it´s late around here, going to watch a movie.

[Rukentuts]

And at the end, trying to discredit people with words he doesn´t know the meaning of.

Seems to be a common theme. Handwaving things they aren't in any way qualified to understand, but like we're supposed to agree based on nothing more than the word of unqualified armchair experts.

[Mayhem]

He can read my quotings of you. They must be irking him though if he has to scratch the pathological itch to respond.

Can´t be. You know, he´s responding to make me angry, don´t forget that.

[Tinykong]

Seems to be a common theme. Handwaving things they aren't in any way qualified to understand, but like we're supposed to agree based on nothing more than the word of unqualified armchair experts.

I didn't realize you were a qualified expert, I thought you worked in retail.

[Rukentuts]

Can´t be. You know, he´s responding to make me angry, don´t forget that.

Make you angry? Seems to be the converse. He had to place you on ignore after all.

[TZucchini]

So, my statement is true. NanoMark had the patent and was the sole supplier of the technology. You are just guessing that other suppliers will get into the market. Glad we cleared that up.

No. We don't know if your statement is true. It could be true. But neither of us have no way of knowing if there is currently only one sole source provider of this technology. There aren't any sources that cite one way or the other for certain. So for you to continue to defend your "sole source" argument, without any evidence at all, is mind boggling.

But what we can both be 100% certain of, is that there will not be a sole source provider when the law kicks into effect. With a huge demand, no patent restrictions, and several manufacturers that posses the technology, we know for certain that there will be competition. Any argument against microstamping from the perspective of sole sourcing is null and void.

I don't know, you didn't quote them.

Wait a minute. So you don't know if those are your exact words, but you do know that I "paraphrased and made up (my) own quotes."

Follow the line of logic. In order to accuse me of making up my own quotes, you must know for certain that those are not your exact words.

You've been called out and proven wrong once again Tiny.

[Mayhem]

Seems to be a common theme. Handwaving things they aren't in any way qualified to understand, but like we're supposed to agree based on nothing more than the word of unqualified armchair experts.

You know you have to quote him via the forum buttons for him to remember his writings, but you surely have quoted him out of context anyway.

[Tinykong]

No. We don't know if your statement is true. It could be true. But neither of us have no way of knowing if there is only one sole source provider of this technology. There aren't any sources that cite one way or the other for certain. So for you to continue to defend your "sole source" argument, without any evidence at all, is mind boggling.

But what we can both be 100% certain of, is that there will not be a sole source provider when the law kicks into effect. With a huge demand, no patent restrictions, and several manufacturers that posses the technology, we know for certain that there will be competition. Any argument against microstamping from the perspective of sole sourcing is null and void.

So, you're just guessing.

Wait a minute. So you don't know if those are your exact words, but you do know that I "paraphrased and made up (my) own quotes."

Follow the line of logic. In order to accuse me of making up my own quotes, you must know for certain that those are not your exact words.

You've been called out and proven wrong once again Tiny.

You did make up your own quotes. You didn't use the UBB quote tags and links. You also added emphasis and commentary that I didn't use or make.

You also said that explicitly said those things will happen, when clearly, I did not.

[Mayhem]

Make you angry? Seems to be the converse. He had to place you on ignore after all.

No, that´s just because my writing is so bad he can´t handle it and gets a headache.

[Rukentuts]

No, that´s just because my writing is so bad he can´t handle it and gets a headache.

Your writing isn't as bad a headache inducer as some of the logically-devoid statements I've seen thrown about this thread. Anything ranging from studies are "opinions" to "you're guessing", while guessing. Those invoke a moment of "whaa?".

[TZucchini]

So, you're just guessing.

No. You have been guessing. Which is why you haven't been able to provide evidence.

You did make up your own quotes. You didn't use the UBB quote tags and links.

Holy shitttttttttttttttttt. You know someone is desperate when they need to invoke "UBB quote tags and links" as a reason why they're not wrong.

You were quoted word for word.

[Tinykong]

Ruk, you misspelled "highly scientifically processed."



- - - Updated - - -

No. You have been guessing. Which is why you haven't been able to provide evidence.

And as you admitted, finally, you lied when you said you had evidence.

Holy shitttttttttttttttttt. You know someone is desperate when they need to invoke "UBB quote tags and links" as a reason why they're not wrong.

You were quoted word for word.

With added emphasis and commentary.

[Rukentuts]

No. You have been guessing. Which is why you haven't been able to provide evidence.



Holy shitttttttttttttttttt. You know someone is desperate when they need to invoke "UBB quote tags and links" as a reason why they're not wrong.

You were quoted word for word.

Make you wonder, who exactly is this desperation supposed to convince? Because it sounds like a coping mechanism.

[TZucchini]

With added emphasis and commentary.

You want "UBB quote tags and links"? It certainly won't make you look any better:

I never said microstamping will be expensive.

There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive.

Ahhhhhhhhh. Feels good man.

[Tinykong]

You want "UBB quote tags and links"? It certainly won't make you look any better:

Ahhhhhhhhh. Feels good man.

Glad to see your utter inability to read can finally be on display.

Where exactly in my statement:

There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive.

does it say "microstamping will be expensive."

lol I love when you stick your foot in your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's just quickly review, since I know you get confused after making up so many things to argue against:

If you believe that microstamping will be expensive.

See, this is what you continually do in this thread day after day, page after page: make up arguments for people.

I never said microstamping will be expensive.

"There is a sole supplier of the technology, so it's going to be expensive."

So, no, I never said microstamping will be expensive. You made that position up, per usual.