Van Nguyen

[byso]

then dont be ignorant and moronic, take time to read and understand + comprehend posts before blurting crap, then you wont get called nasty names like Moron!

Back to the help desk fool.

 

[Fro]

[quote author=Fro]
I was talking more of others points than yours being misconstrued.

I wouldnt be too proud of gaining the fonzs' approval, hes got it in for Byso so bad that if anyone disagrees with him they are 100% correct.

:stupid:

That is such a load of bull****. Wake up to yourself. I have no problem with Byso. Here i was thinking you might be a good bloke Fro.

[/quote]

hehe thanks fonz, I already corrected myself but feel free to stick a bit extra in there 🙂

As for the good bloke, nope I am a bastard through and through :dance:

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Matabele]
[quote author=Daniel]
no that is completely incorrect. My initial argument and my argument still is that there is too much conflicting data on it. There is nothing yet conclusive and no current study under way trying to get a conclusive answer.

The fact that there is some data out there, that is contradicted elsewhere and that it conflicts with other data, makes me want to wait for conclusive evidence before I throw my eggs int hat basket.

That is the fundemental difference between you and I. You have a pre-supposition to believe in things, its the same with your religious beliefs, you have a pre-supposition and disposition to believe, which is what i said from day one of that debate, and I dont. that means I need more proof than you and cant take the \"leap of faith\" so to speak, I prefer a bridge under my feet

So in the 1950s, when the cigarette companies were muddying the waters on the lung cancer issue, you would have witheld judgement because there was "conflicting data".

You would also have been wrong.

In your case you'd have also kept smoking until definitive proof proferred and by then it may have been too late.

[/quote] Did you miss this one Dan?

[/quote]


Yes I did miss this one, thank you for bringing it back


If I was a smoker yes, i would have kept on smoking, the same reason I have an occasional ciggarette now, i know the danger but I still enjoy a durry or 2 when I drink.

As I stated previously

"I am happy to be proven wrong" but with the data we have at the moment, there is no need to jump on any bandwagon or havea knee jerk reaction.

We are different people matas with completely different thought processes and beliefs, I will never see things through your eyes and you never through mine, deal with it, it makes life a lot less serious and stressful.

Like I said you have a presup[position to believe, i am the opposite, thats how we are and there aint no changing that

 

[Matabele]

This means your pre-supposition to not believe means that you will believe in nothing greater than yourself or your own understanding.

So back to one of my first points - this makes you rather limited and narrow.

 

[Dan]

No this pre-supposition does not mean that.

So you are basically saying "Anyone who does not share the same pre-supposition as you, is narrow minded"

Isn't that a little narrow minded of you matabele?

It means I require proof and wont take a leap of faith, that is not narrow minded at all

 

[Matabele]

Proof is still limited to your own experience and set of assumptions regarding "evidence".

Belief opens up new possibilities.

Common sense should tell you that (unless of course you actually think you are the cosmos).

 

[Dan]

Not so. It is limiting yes, but on the flip sideof the coin, believing is limiting too.

I am not pronoe to fantasies, rather to experience and knowledge. What knowledge is there in believing, only imagined!

I have said it once I will say it again. We will never see eye to eye on this. For you to say your set of Beliefs, makes you less narrow minded than me because of the way I need proof, well that shows you to be more narrow minded I am afraid!

This will go around in circle camp, we are both equally stubborn, arrogant and educated, i offered the olive branch, your move!

 

[Matabele]

I believe there are things outside of our experience and/or yet to be discovered or fully understood.

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong in your assertion that drug use can lead to depression?

 

[Dan]

of course I am and already have. but it has not yet been proven.....that is my point.

I dead st reckon i am speaking japanese sometimes

 

[Garts]

I asked yesterday if you believed drugs are more or less likely to cause depression and you said less likely.

 

[Dan]

No I said they are not linked to it.

Matabele asked if I were proven wrong would I admit it......I said yes if i were wrong i would happily accept it

 

[Garts]

:lol:

I know that, just stirring you after I read your Japenese comment.

 

[Dan]

lol fair enough........ mate its not stirring. My fishing is pretending to fire p, it works quite well ince both parties have done the fishing!

 

[Garts]

I was trying to get you to fire up, bored here in the office. anyway time to head down to Balmoral for a swim me thinks!!!

 

[Dan]

I was thinking the same thing but the southerly on its way will help cool it down

 

[Matabele]

No I said they are not linked to it.

Did you now? Do you know that for a fact? It seems now as though the onus of proof is on you seeing as it is you making the definitive statement.

Proof please.

 

[Nutzcraw]

if i was to put up a thread called "what you call it"

and i say i want everyone to write in a "funny" name they have heard for genitals do u think it'll be deleted??

I reckon it could be funny and getting sick of u bitches whining

 

[Nutzcraw]

also i like how cliffy gc post the thread then just takes off and leaves the arguing to u guys!!

What a stirrer!! (prolly spelt that wrong) (prolly spelt probably wrong)

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]
No I said they are not linked to it.

Did you now? Do you know that for a fact? It seems now as though the onus of proof is on you seeing as it is you making the definitive statement.

Proof please.

[/quote]


jeez I couldn't see that a mile off.

He who makes the initial statement and argues in the affirmitive has the onus of proof!

same as i court, you are prosecuting by making the original statement in the affirmitive. You must prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and all!

Jeez mata, come on I can deflect that one even after 4 beers! getting rusty champ?

 

[Fluffy]

Nutz have i ever told you what a looker you are.

The chick in the pic is all right too 😉