1/11/2013 4:47 PM
Or someone with Grandiose Delusional Disorder, apparently...
1/11/2013 7:09 PM
He has to be delusional. That's the only explanation that makes sense--the selective quoting, ignoring counter arguments, the novel length responses full of complete bullshit.

1/14/2013 8:49 AM
There is your evidence, tecwrg.

I said I wasn't posting for a few days and I didn't, and bad_luck came back to get the last word, then came back again when someone else posted a response. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt he is the one who has to have the last word.

The only delusional person here is you, bad_luck. I quote what I respond to so you can't twist anything (though you certainly try your best anyway).

I addressed every argument you made until you gave up and refused to address me for many posts. Then you realized that refusing to address my points meant you lost through forfeit and suddenly you wanted to play ball again. Too bad I won't let you.

Since you're delusional, though, you somehow believe you can get the debate to begin again by begging for it. You simply have to be delusional. That's the only explanation for your continued begging when any rational person would just cut their losses and move on.

That and you need the attention and have to have the last word, which was just conclusively proven.

Additionally, you project your own delusional state onto me in a pathetic effort to make sure no one else realizes it is YOU who is delusional. There's no other explanation for your repeated attempts to engage in a long-over debate when any rational person would have long ago cut their losses on that effort.

Class, let's review what we've learned about bad_luck in this thread:

bad_luck gave up and lost due to forfeit. bad_luck didn't realize this, then when he did, he begged and pleaded for another chance which was not given to him. He's delusional and thinks if he just asks another hundred thousand times he might be able to start the debate again, but obviously that isn't happening. He was proven as an attention seeker and the person who can't stand not to have the last word. bad_luck is also attempting to distract attention from his own delusional state by claiming it is his chief antagonist (me) who is delusional, a classic projection move which is easily seen as such.

Congratulations, bad_luck, you've gone from being simply the loser of a debate that doesn't even matter to showing that you are a childish, attention seeking, delusional loser of a debate that doesn't even matter.
1/14/2013 10:06 AM

Tell me again, you attention-whoring troll . . . WHO HAD TO GET IN THE LAST WORD?

 

1/14/2013 10:10 AM
I clearly demonstrated the "attention-whoring troll" is bad_luck.

I did what I said I would do - I left the post for a few days. I clearly stated if bad_luck responded it would show he is the attention seeker who has to have the last word, and that's EXACTLY what happened.

I also said I would be responding to point it out if (when) bad_luck responded.

The indisputable evidence is all right there. bad_luck is the one who needs to have the last word.

1/14/2013 10:17 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2013 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Here's where the war on christmas thread started getting redlined.

I moved it to a new thread. 

Here's your last post on the topic in the new thread.

Here's me, directly responding to your "evidence."

Here's you, going into hiding.
I never gave up. Here's proof.*

*I know proof isn't really your thing...you know...with the whole "believing in a young earth" brain damage you have. But just in case.
See? A timeline of the debate. I responded to your "evidence." Your denial of that is appropriate considering the fact that you think the earth is 10,000 years old.
1/14/2013 10:39 AM
You didn't respond to the evidence. You responded to what you THOUGHT was the evidence and you were incorrect in that assumption.

I pointed it out to you multiple times and you absolutely REFUSED to go back and read the actual evidence. YOU GAVE UP.

You thought you'd gotten away with pulling a fast one by giving up but claiming victory anyway until I pointed out otherwise. Then you've spent many posts begging for me to rejoin a debate that has been over for quite some time.

You've failed to get me to restart the debate like you wanted. All you've managed to do is go from being the loser of a debate that doesn't matter to showing that you are a childish, attention seeking, delusional loser of a debate that doesn't matter.

I've gotten a few laughs out of this, I've pointed out how you use multiple user identities to agree with yourself, and  I've proven with indisputable evidence to any unbiased observer that you are the attention seeker I was accused of being.

In case that doesn't sink in, the nutshell is I've come out ahead here and you've effectively wasted time spinning your tires deeper into mud you'll never free yourself from.

If you say something that sparks a particular interest, I may respond, but I think pointing out that little nutshell to you might be a great place to end this thread for me.
1/14/2013 11:09 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/14/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2013 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Here's where the war on christmas thread started getting redlined.

I moved it to a new thread. 

Here's your last post on the topic in the new thread.

Here's me, directly responding to your "evidence."

Here's you, going into hiding.
I never gave up. Here's proof.*

*I know proof isn't really your thing...you know...with the whole "believing in a young earth" brain damage you have. But just in case.
See? A timeline of the debate. I responded to your "evidence." Your denial of that is appropriate considering the fact that you think the earth is 10,000 years old.
On top of that timeline, here is me directly quoting your evidence.

I didn't paraphrase, I directly quoted you.

But again, proof isn't really your cup of tea, believing in a young earth an all.

You're right, this debate has been over for a long time. 50 years or so.

1/14/2013 11:30 AM
There is a full two weeks (14 days) between when you attempted to distort the evidence I provided (you did this on Dec. 27) and when you finally decided to respond to the real post on Jan. 8, which you demonstrate yourself in your "proof".

During those14 days, I told you multiple times you weren't addressing the real evidence and each time you REFUSED to go back and address it. Only when I pointed out you had given up did you suddenly decide to go read the actual post.

You were given plenty of chances to address the evidence, but for 14 days you didn't do it despite your willingness to try to twist it and make other posts. There is no other conclusion except that you gave up, but when that was pointed out, then you suddenly had this intense desire to go back and address the real information.

Of course it was entirely up to me whether or not I would allow the debate to start again - and I decided to say no. Since then you've begged and pleaded for the debate to start, but I haven't honored that request, nor do I plan to ever honor it.

As I've also told you many times (you really should learn to pay attention the first time), I'd rather let you wallow in the frustration of giving up and forfeiting than engage you in debate again, so that's what I'm doing.
1/14/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by bistiza on 1/14/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):
There is a full two weeks (14 days) between when you attempted to distort the evidence I provided (you did this on Dec. 27) and when you finally decided to respond to the real post on Jan. 8, which you demonstrate yourself in your "proof".

During those14 days, I told you multiple times you weren't addressing the real evidence and each time you REFUSED to go back and address it. Only when I pointed out you had given up did you suddenly decide to go read the actual post.

You were given plenty of chances to address the evidence, but for 14 days you didn't do it despite your willingness to try to twist it and make other posts. There is no other conclusion except that you gave up, but when that was pointed out, then you suddenly had this intense desire to go back and address the real information.

Of course it was entirely up to me whether or not I would allow the debate to start again - and I decided to say no. Since then you've begged and pleaded for the debate to start, but I haven't honored that request, nor do I plan to ever honor it.

As I've also told you many times (you really should learn to pay attention the first time), I'd rather let you wallow in the frustration of giving up and forfeiting than engage you in debate again, so that's what I'm doing.
I responded on the 27th.

Here is the link. I directly quoted you.

But I don't blame you, I wouldn't want to try to defend such a stupid idea.

EDIT: Added quote in case you change/delete it again.
1/14/2013 11:49 AM (edited)
I explained how you weren't addressing the evidence properly and you spent the next two weeks refusing to do so, effectively giving up on the debate.

Since you gave up and lost by forfeit, there isn't any need for me to defend the idea. Plus it's fun to watch you wallow in defeat.

The nutshell is I've come out ahead here and you've effectively wasted time spinning your tires deeper into mud you'll never free yourself from.
1/14/2013 11:48 AM
Here is your idea of me not "addressing the evidence properly:"

The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

Not sure what that has to do with the age of the earth.
The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

dahs already covered this. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Not sure why you would think it would be non-existent.
The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Can you explain this further?

1/14/2013 11:49 AM
But again, inconvenient facts aren't something you let get in the way.
1/14/2013 11:50 AM
As I said, you spent two weeks not addressing the evidence properly. You gave up. As much as you'd like to wave a magic wand and make it happen, that can't be undone.

You gave up. You lost. Get over it.

1/14/2013 12:31 PM (edited)
No, I'm pretty sure I won. Which isn't hard when you're arguing with someone who thinks the world is 10,000 years old.

I, along with several other people, directly refuted your evidence.

You have to be a stupid person to believe the earth is young. And you have to be delusional to believe you won a debate arguing on the side of a young earth.

of 37

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.