I think the most difficult thing to explain to someone from 1950 would be the decided lack of flying cars.
How disappointing that would be.
Tsrh
I think the most difficult thing to explain to someone from 1950 would be the decided lack of flying cars.
How disappointing that would be.
Television was already be derided as taking over for social interaction even back then. automated assembly lines were beginning to come to rise, meaning less people and more machines in the workplace. It's not necessary 'communications', just technology. Technology becoming the norm over what was previous a human role. Replace a person with tech, you replace the social interaction that came with that person as well.
PS - the resident psychologist said that I had a valid point in the Fuelband argument. Coincidentally you never returned to it to continue the discussion based.
The onus is on you to prove what you said, not me.
You really have a problem with the word "quit" don't you?
I think the most difficult thing to explain to someone from 1950 would be the decided lack of flying cars.
How disappointing that would be.
I think the most difficult thing to explain to someone from 1950 would be the decided lack of flying cars.
How disappointing that would be.
And the disturbing lack of lard in every day cooking.
He said you had 3/4 of a valid point. However the fun part about you having a valid point or not does not matter, as you dismissing my arguments as irrelevant was revealed to be incorrect.I guess you also missed where he said I had one too.
Which is one reason why I haven't gone back. Add that to your 'more right' stuff, and I find zero value or worth debating anything with you. Here we are days later, and you are still going on about it.
And here, now that I validated my point, you go off on some tangent about a DIFFERENT thread or topic in some kind of 'but, but, then this' counter.
Seriously. Get over it.
What do you mean my food was created in a lab?And the disturbing lack of lard in every day cooking.
I guess you also missed where he said I had one too.
Which is one reason why I haven't gone back. Add that to your 'more right' stuff, and I find zero value or worth debating anything with you. Here we are days later, and you are still going on about it.
And here, now that I validated my point, you go off on some tangent about a DIFFERENT thread or topic in some kind of 'but, but, then this' counter.
Seriously. Get over it.
He said you had 3/4 of a valid point. However the fun part about you having a valid point or not does not matter, as you dismissing my arguments as irrelevant was revealed to be incorrect.
I like that you continue to argue grammar instead of the points of the debate.
And the disturbing lack of lard in every day cooking.
The Duke uses circuitous logic and deflection!
It's not very effective
"ZOMG! He keeps saying more right! what a fucking idiot!" - Duke (paraphrased)I sometimes wonder if you even are fully cognascent of what you say. Where the fuck am I arguing grammar now, Enemy?
And just because you judged Mortlach as some kind of 'grand precentor general' over a debate in which you made some rather silly point, which I refuted more because having the discussion with you brought zero value, at all. AND HERE YOU ARE STILL BUTTHURT ABOUT IT DAYS LATER.
seriously. Tried saying it many times now. Move the fuck on.
I use those tools as they are the only ones you respond to. When I tried to use a valid, logical argument you got all butthurt and ran away from the argument by saying I was making an unreasonable argument that made no sense.Dude, honestly. Your projecting here. You do these thing, and then accuse me of it. It's befuddles me. And it's the reason why this conversation is over.