You put that in quotes, but I've never said that. Perhaps it's because you don't know how those work?
The fact that you brought up my name specifically,
linked to the post and tried to make a funny implies that you're having one on against somebody you feel has wronged you and that you'd like to take a quick stab at for eRep.
Quotes don't always mean "somebody said this", they can mean "these words are linked as an idea". The way you act makes me believe that's the way you think.
No, quotes are not supplementary supporting material. If a quote directly addresses what someone said, why bother to rewrite it? You are pulling a new definition out of your ass.
Because, as I loving said, quotes are not all-encompassing and without contextualisation they're completely irrelevant.
In a debate, the pattern works like this; you provide evidence to what you are trying to state and then you describe how the evidence proves what you are asserting.
Every loving 7yo who does debate class knows this and it's how you create strong, successful arguments without sounding like a loving pounce who can't rely on his own words to carry the argument (making you sound weak and wrong).
McJob didn't say "wow that's poor debate" he acted as though he didn't understand it and opted not to respond til I broke it down for him.
Given that your head is constantly high above in the loving clouds, way above us tiny little peasants, I can see how you might imagine that to be true.
If you'll forgive me, your honor, there's just one thing; I understand what the quote loving means, but I had no idea how it was relevant to the idea of banning child research and hardcore research from being
sold (not distributed which you can legally do for free, just banned from selling for profit). I asked you to clarify your stance, and you cried like a little school-girl that the big handicap didn't know what the quote meant.
Take a couple loving steps down off the ladder, you pretentious forgetwit.
