A Skeptic’s Guide to the Russiagate Fixation

https://www.thenation.com ^ | march 12 2019 | A Mate

[Para-Ord.45]

oh look, forced BeriaSalt to use google

LOL

No legal,ethical,moral requirement or otherwise to answer leading questions.

Much like you refuse to answer mine.

QTroll away BeriaSalt.

[philman_36]

I will admit I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long shot, but, brother, you are cutting that stick of butter up with a club.

[philman_36]

oh look, forced BeriaSalt to use google

No, I used a book mark in my browser to a dictionary for your edification since you clearly didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Now you still have two questions.
Where have I demanded anything?
Who are you to tell me where I can and can’t go on FR?

[Para-Ord.45]

You post/comment and stay away from me and I`ll do likewise.

Otherwise, if you wish to, and continue, to flame regular freepers and or myself then ill be around.

[Para-Ord.45]

LOL Google, web dictionary, apple dictionary. Made you look.
Again, engaging in obtuseness to try score a point. Epic fail.

No legal,ethical,moral requirement or otherwise to answer leading questions.

Much like you refuse to answer mine.You can’t.It`s a hoax but like poker player bluffing you’ve gone all in with anon.

QTroll away BeriaSalt.

[philman_36]

Made you look.

Are you kidding me? I gave the very definition of a rhetorical question before I even posted the definition for you so you wouldn't remain ignorant! (that means uninformed, not stupid, just in case you're wondering)

You post/comment and stay away from me and I`ll do likewise.

And there you go again! I'll post something to you if I damn well feel like it. Who are you to tell me who I can and can't reply to?
And if I do reply to you then you can reply in the same manner in which you did today and we'll go through this whole process again or you can discuss things in a civil manner without you casting unwarranted aspersions at people.
I'm willing to bet there are a number of issues upon which we agree.

One thing you will NOT do, however, is tell me what I can and cannot do and where I can and cannot go and not get called out on it.

You sound too much like Cartman, a fat cartoon authoritarian, when you do.

[Para-Ord.45]

You didn`t know what rhetoric was and its forms.

Google, web dictionary, apple/PC dictionary. Made you look.
Again, engaging in obtuseness and parsing to try score a point. Epic fail.

I`m not legally, ethically or morally obligated to answer your leading questions.

Similar but not identical to the ones you refuse to go near, 30,000 sealed criminal indictments with the names of the coup plotters on them, time-lapse camera owner of the “ missile” shot at POTUS etc.

You’re the poker player who went all in with Qanon holding nothing, not even a pair of deuces. You’ve chosen your fate.

[philman_36]

Made you look.
Clearly a lie.

I`m not legally, ethically or morally obligated to answer your leading questions.
I'm asking direct questions, not leading questions.
Shall I give you the definitions for those as well so you'll know the difference between the two in the future?

Now that you've been exposed as one who asks purely rhetorical questions...why would I answer any questions from you when you've as much as admitted that all of your questions are rhetorical and you only ask them "for effect"?

Now you have three direct questions.
Where have I demanded anything?
Who are you to tell me where I can and can’t go on FR?
Who are you to tell me who I can and can't reply to?

[philman_36]

...why would I answer any questions from you when you've as much as admitted that all of your questions are rhetorical and you only ask them "for effect"?

THAT is a rhetorical question. See?

[Para-Ord.45]

“..you’ve as much as admitted that all of your questions ...”

LOL Never categorically and or explicitly stated all questions I ask(ed) are rhetorical.

If I engage in stoicism , or you engage in argumentum ad populum anent Q fallacy I don’t engage in parsing or obtuseness as is your want.

I`m not legally, ethically or morally obligated to answer your leading questions.

Similar but not identical to the ones you refuse to go near, 30,000 sealed criminal indictments with the names of the coup plotters on them, time-lapse camera owner of the “ missile” shot at POTUS etc.

You’re the poker player who went all in with Qanon holding nothing, not even a pair of deuces. You’ve chosen your fate.

[philman_36]

Never categorically and or explicitly stated all questions I ask(ed) are rhetorical.
You don't have to do state whether they were or weren't.
Your own words are enough evidence of your intent.

If I engage in stoicism ,...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
stoicism
2 : indifference to pleasure or pain

I guess getting spanked for not knowing what a rhetorical question is and for not knowing who hands down indictments even after I showed you who did hand them down, is pleasurable to you.

...or you engage in argumentum ad populum anent Q fallacy...
Show me. Or is that your way? Does corpus delicti mean anything to you or is scandalum all you have?
I don’t engage in parsing or obtuseness as is your want. (sic)
Yet another assertion with no evidence.
And the correct spelling is w-o-n-t. (accustomed, used // got up early as he is wont to do) No typo there. (I'm not the spelling police, I'm just trying to help you out) Waaaaaay across the board from each other. You truly are lacking in rhetoric.

Now you have three direct questions.
Where have I demanded anything?
Who are you to tell me where I can and can’t go on FR?
Who are you to tell me who I can and can't reply to?

[philman_36]

BAH! You don't have to do state whether they were or weren't.

[Para-Ord.45]

LOL Made you look again. And again you're completely wrong: Stoicism is a form of Hellenistic philosophy.

[Para-Ord.45]

LOL@ "...No typo there. (I'm not the spelling police, I'm just trying to help you out)..." Does spell check auto correct, denies doing spell check auto correct in the usual obtuse parsing fashion.

[Para-Ord.45]

I`m not legally, ethically or morally obligated to answer your leading questions.

Similar but not identical to the ones you refuse to go near, 30,000 sealed criminal indictments with the names of the coup plotters on them, time-lapse camera owner of the “ missile” shot at POTUS etc.

You’re the poker player who went all in with Qanon holding nothing, not even a pair of deuces.

You’ve chosen your fate.

[philman_36]

Oh look! You can make funny pictures.
You have mad skills!

Now you have three direct questions.
Where have I demanded anything?
Who are you to tell me where I can and can’t go on FR?
Who are you to tell me who I can and can't reply to?

[Para-Ord.45]

Completely wrong: Stoicism is a form of Hellenistic philosophy. "...No typo there. (I'm not the spelling police)..." Does spell check auto correct, denies doing spell check auto correct.

[Para-Ord.45]

Who are you to demand answers?
Who are you to ask leading questions?
Who are you to QTroll?

BeriaSalt.Grand InQuisitor .

[philman_36]

You want answers to rhetorical questions?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Now you have three direct questions.
Where have I demanded anything?
Who are you to tell me where I can and can’t go on FR?
Who are you to tell me who I can and can't reply to?

[philman_36]

130 - If I engage in stoicism...
capitalized : the philosophy of the Stoics

Completely wrong: Stoicism is a form of Hellenistic philosophy.

Poor rhetoric on your part again. Either that or you were being deceptive intentionally.
It's all the fault of spell check that time too, right?