I'm sorry, but I think you confuse me with someone else!!!
So I'd appreciate, if you could provide at least 2 examples of my saying "YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!______IM RIGHT!!!!!__________"

Besides, you misinterpret a simple sarcasm, and take it as abuse!

P.S. And if you cannot quote at least 2 of my messages, that would mean I was right all along: "YOUR WRONG!!!!!!!!____"

my point wasnt to prove you wrong, (that was collateral damage) i just want you to think about it. dont excuse yourselve, dont justify your self, think objectivly.
as for me, your right i shouldnt take sarcasm so personaly. but id rather talk and discuss with you rather than have to ignore you. thats no fun.
im not going to quote you. (reference foozball, "how do you beat him? you stop his game)
based on your email, you know you cant deny it, so you look for ways around it( ie i can think of ad least two "your wrongs", and one "im right" but that doesnt meet your requirements does it? you want two. suffice to say its more about the attitude you portray (that supperior attitude i was talking about in the op)

ps- it doesnt matter what you ment jane, it matters how they took it. your " simple sarcasm" is misinterprited because you didnt deliver properly. (assuming if hat was the true issue to begine with..im just sayin)

That's one view. Another one is "conclusion is a spot where the thinker finds himself at when he got tired of thinking."

The lesson is that in its truest form, truth is forever elusive. Not untrue, only elusive. The harder your grip on it, the more you find it slippery or that it shyt in your hand. Truth is awfully hard to catch, because, at its truest, truth does not exist.

(Fork... I'm wiped.)

well said

This looks like a lot of fun. I'm jumping in, OK? My idea about truth and logic, where people argue about which is which and what is what, is that the whole thing is an ART. Not only do you see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear. Unless you like to argue a lot...then you see all the stuff you don't want to see and hear, and argue about it...Also, arguing is fun, like a game people think they can win...like the lottery...you can never really win the whole thing.

Hi there Evan!!

The originator claims that arguing for the sake of arguing is abusive against logic. Does logic have feelings? Equal rights for Logic, we demand it now!

You know what? you're absolutely right.

Chess players will play chess until they die.

Weight lifters will have muscles until they die.

Writers write and joksters joke until it becomes automatic for them.

Arguers argue and never win.

(Which means that if you enjoy process more than closure, you'll truly enjoy arguing. If not, it's going to be a bumpy ride, but still fun.)

I only argue because I am good at it and usually people enjoy what they are good at, not the other way around. If I truly had my druthers, I'd be playing the harp on cloud nine, jamming with Jimi.

I am interested to know what the original antecedent was, that cause the originator to become so upset about the way people talk. And at the end, he says if you decide it's because you want to win, then don't reply. something something wink. Problem solved he said. So wouldn't that have ended the arguing about arguing posed by the original arguer himself?

i told you this was fun, evan

no you won't

Well, that's exactly it. Nobody knows what the original antecedent was. If you've thought that arguing using facts and logic was fun, you'll be surprised very pleasantly to see how very much more fun it is to argue when we don't know what the topic is, the premiss, the antecedent, the fact or even the logic. We, in this forum, specialize in this.

By the way, welcome to the forum, I am always happy to see fresh meat. I meant fresh metaphysical meat. Something to chew on -- food for the thought.

Hey Wux, don't get wuxy on me. I came here to fight, and fight I will! Unless ya'all just want to be friends. Then forget about it. Now, I like what you said Wux, so please continue. Chess players do win and lose. And an arg. can win a fight if others go along with him, or if he proves fact as holding true in all conditions at all times. After that he may have to ammend these things to suit the changing times. That provides him a whole new game. And these games are constantly being refreshed, revamped, reconfigured...

Hi. mygeneration. First time...figuring this thing out. I don't believe that absolute truth is Obtainable. But to pick up an idea and look at it to examin it carefuly, as if it were a multi-faceted object, and to compare what I see in that object to what the next person sees, I think is very interisting.

I believe that logic can be treated dismissivly.

I know you're typing madly now, Wux. Trying to get ahead of me huh? Well i'm typing while you're thinking, so now what are you going to do? Here's the thing...

We do in fact know what the original antecedent was, just not specifically. btw i am going to dismiss what evan had to say...because I can...he is talking about an emotional issue here...not one where you look at the planets and say is it a gas or an energy, etc. He is upset that people argue stupidly, purely for the sake of shedding blood, sweat and tears. Does anyone here agree?

Just kidding about dismissing you, Evan. Great idea. Multiple perspectives is the beauty of arguement.

How about this. Just by clicking on your quote, I can cause you to repeat yourself. That is similar to the way people try to control an arguement, with the purpose of making the person look silly.

I am an extremely slow reader. I apologize. But you're right: An arg or argh! can win like a playa at chess, and lose the next day, but nobody dies. So the dead (loser argh!s) reborn, born again, and continue as if nothing had happened (oh, no, doctor... just the usual five daily resurrections... and a shooting pain in my left shoulder.)

I witnessed myself to win an agument and lose my existence on a website. Oo, too many a time, for my liking.