- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: My 9 y/o daughter's conclusion after seeing the climax in League of Their Own
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:12 pm to Roaad
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:12 pm to Roaad
quote:
You keep proving that it isn't, with each consecutive post.
You have no concrete evidence to support your minority view, therefore your assumption of the Galileo identity is completely invalid
You obviously don't understand what analogy means.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:13 pm to ChewyDante
quote:On what basis do you make that claim?
You obviously don't understand what analogy means.
This post was edited on 12/28/11 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:15 pm to Roaad
quote:
Also, chick barehanded a fastball but couldn't hold on during a collision with an infinitely familiar opponent? Right
This is just reaching for bull shite, the 2 are completely unrealted. That's like saying because MJ makes a 35 footer, they only way he could miss a free throw is on purpose. Try again.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:16 pm to Roaad
quote:
No, that was commentary on one post. I have engaged this debate quite deliberately and thoroughly
It was idiotic commentary and quite off base.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:17 pm to ChewyDante
quote:Wait. . .what?
It was idiotic commentary
How was it idiotic? Was I wrong?
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:19 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:How are they unrelated? I am not saying A+B=C. I am saying that A and B being true makes C more likely.
This is just reaching for bull shite, the 2 are completely unrealted.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:21 pm to Roaad
quote:
On what basis do you make that claim?
On the basis that you keep harping on whether he has scientific evidence to prove his point and if not, then the analogy must somehow be invalid. That is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not the analogy can still be valid or not. But I don't expect you to understand that after reading your dumb post on "disrespect to the English language" regarding the most basic of typos when the sentence structure was still perfectly legitimate and legible. You have a child-like approach. You just aren't a very intelligent or strong debater IMO.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:24 pm to ChewyDante
Whoa, let's sow down here before this turns into the Poli Board.
As wrong as your are Roaad, thank you for being respectful. Besides that, bless your heart and God help ya.
As wrong as your are Roaad, thank you for being respectful. Besides that, bless your heart and God help ya.
This post was edited on 12/28/11 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:24 pm to Roaad
quote:
Wait. . .what?
How was it idiotic? Was I wrong?
Yes. It was an obvious typo and the sentence was still structurally sound and legible in spite of it even. You blew it out of proportion to try and discredit something about the post rather than to address the pertinent subject matter. It's a really frequently used method on message boards and is quite telling.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:26 pm to ChewyDante
quote:Because the analogy is that he is like Galileo, when many thought the Earth was the center of the universe.
On the basis that you keep harping on whether he has scientific evidence to prove his point and if not, then the analogy must somehow be invalid.
He then takes that as his identity, as he says "call me".
I then ascribed the analogy to him, for the sake of "fleshing it out".
And then you guys cried foul.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:29 pm to ChewyDante
quote:A typo is hitting the wrong key.
It was an obvious typo
You used the wrong word, entirely
quote:I made one isolated post about it. I never used it to counter your position.
You blew it out of proportion
You blew it out of proportion by trying to use it to invalidate my position.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:30 pm to alajones
quote:
Whoa, let's sow down here before this turns into the Poli Board.
As wrong as your are Roaad, thank you for being respectful. Besides that, bless your heart and God help ya.
I only have one gear, sadly.
I will drop it.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:31 pm to Roaad
You're just reading way too much into it. The pertinent analogical reference is that Galileo was ostracized because he was one of the few going against an overwhelming majority who took another position. Obviously being in the minority did not make him wrong. The analogy is inherently valid on this basis alone.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:35 pm to ChewyDante
quote:No. But the prevailing view is valid, until concrete evidence is presented to refute.
Obviously being in the minority did not make him wrong.
Generally speaking, if everyone is wrong, and you are right. . .you are wrong.
Anyone in their thirties who remembers themselves at 18, knows this little proverb to be true.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:40 pm to Roaad
quote:
A typo is hitting the wrong key.
You used the wrong word, entirely
bullshite. A typo can be using the wrong word as well so long as the error is one of negligence such as your/you're, than/then, etc. I've gone through and proofread many a paper where I made all kinds of little errors like that out of negligence. Do you honestly think I don't know the difference in how to use those words?
quote:
I made one isolated post about it. I never used it to counter your position.
Why would you even make a post on it? It was ONE typo of you're which should have been your. You then referenced how hard the sentence was to read and how terrible it was grammatically. You don't think you blew that out of proportion?
quote:
You blew it out of proportion by trying to use it to invalidate my position.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 5:45 pm to ChewyDante
That being said, this is all discussion on logical consistency and semantics, discussions which I enjoy having as it is, but is getting off subject of the actual topic. Thus I will digress.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 6:27 pm to coloradoBengal
I apologize for posting again in this thread. My posts were really just a long time continuation of me trying to be the class clown.
I don't really care whether she dropped the ball on purpose or not. I haven't thought about it since I walked out of the theater in 1992. Because some of you do care, I will leave you guys to argue and cease to make jokes about something that is so serious to another human being.
I don't really care whether she dropped the ball on purpose or not. I haven't thought about it since I walked out of the theater in 1992. Because some of you do care, I will leave you guys to argue and cease to make jokes about something that is so serious to another human being.
This post was edited on 12/28/11 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 12/28/11 at 7:14 pm to chinese58
Okay I'm going to end this for all objective readers of this thread and this should end the debate once and for all, but I know it won't.
The facts are:
-Dottie came back to the series for the 7th and final game. The assumption is that she came back because she wanted to win, not make sure here little sister's ego get a boost. If you want to call that speculation, then okay. But she did come back for the 7th game.
-Dottie is facing Kit in the top of the 9th and hits in 2 go ahead runs against her little sister. Logic will tell you that if she wanted to let her sister win, she could have done it here. But she didn't.
-When Kit is up to bat, Dottie tells Ellen Sue that she can't lay off of the high ones. Again the logical conclusion here is she wants her to strike out, and isn't trying to boost her ego.
-So Kit hits the ball, ties the game, but knowing there will be a play at the plate, still advances toward home ignoring the 3rd base coach. Dottie doesn't realize this until she has already rounded third base and is heading home.
-At this point, if Dottie wanted her to win, she could let the throw home get by her or bobble the ball around a little; but instead she makes a clean catch and turns to face Kit with the intention of tagging her.
-Now, the ONLY time Dottie could have made the decision to let Kit score is at this moment. Because at no other point before this does she give any inclination that she wants Kit to win the game.
So the "Dottie did it on purpose" crowd would have us all believe that right here, with no previous inclination from the movie, and nothing afterward that would draw you to that conclusion, Dottie dropped the ball on purpose.
This is a completely speculative opinion and is not based on any facts or events that lead up to the collision.
What really happened was, Kit turned the corner against her coaches commands, bulled Dottie over, and finally beat her big sister. Dottie smiles at her because she is happy for her.
I realize that some of you will still disagree, and it makes your vag feel good to say that Dottie did it on purpose. But you are not giving any credit to Kit for doing it on her own, and you are not thinking logically.
The facts are:
-Dottie came back to the series for the 7th and final game. The assumption is that she came back because she wanted to win, not make sure here little sister's ego get a boost. If you want to call that speculation, then okay. But she did come back for the 7th game.
-Dottie is facing Kit in the top of the 9th and hits in 2 go ahead runs against her little sister. Logic will tell you that if she wanted to let her sister win, she could have done it here. But she didn't.
-When Kit is up to bat, Dottie tells Ellen Sue that she can't lay off of the high ones. Again the logical conclusion here is she wants her to strike out, and isn't trying to boost her ego.
-So Kit hits the ball, ties the game, but knowing there will be a play at the plate, still advances toward home ignoring the 3rd base coach. Dottie doesn't realize this until she has already rounded third base and is heading home.
-At this point, if Dottie wanted her to win, she could let the throw home get by her or bobble the ball around a little; but instead she makes a clean catch and turns to face Kit with the intention of tagging her.
-Now, the ONLY time Dottie could have made the decision to let Kit score is at this moment. Because at no other point before this does she give any inclination that she wants Kit to win the game.
So the "Dottie did it on purpose" crowd would have us all believe that right here, with no previous inclination from the movie, and nothing afterward that would draw you to that conclusion, Dottie dropped the ball on purpose.
This is a completely speculative opinion and is not based on any facts or events that lead up to the collision.
What really happened was, Kit turned the corner against her coaches commands, bulled Dottie over, and finally beat her big sister. Dottie smiles at her because she is happy for her.
I realize that some of you will still disagree, and it makes your vag feel good to say that Dottie did it on purpose. But you are not giving any credit to Kit for doing it on her own, and you are not thinking logically.
Posted on 12/28/11 at 7:16 pm to alajones
Sorry dude,
I posted my "joke" before I saw you guys had turned this into life and death. After I got this far and saw the seriousness of the debate, I edited my last post.
Have a great 2012!
I posted my "joke" before I saw you guys had turned this into life and death. After I got this far and saw the seriousness of the debate, I edited my last post.
Have a great 2012!
Popular
Back to top


1





