The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Motorcycle Junky on January 22, 2016, 10:19:13 AM
-
Proposing all space photos are just CG or photoshopped is an easy way to explain away the NASA program but have you guys taken a trip to LA to see the fully functional Endeavour Shuttle?
Seems like you'd be staring reality in the face simply looking at the actual capsules and space craft used to take many of the images you choose to ignore.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/905/e316Xw.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5e316Xwj)
(http://<a target="_blank" href="https://imageshack.com/i/p5TLbupuj"><img src="http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/905/TLbupu.jpg" border="0"></a>)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/905/TLbupu.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5TLbupuj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/911/6rSYMY.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/pb6rSYMYj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/905/pnQYAl.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5pnQYAlj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/905/1oOlQ8.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p51oOlQ8j)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/910/rjjINs.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/parjjINsj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/907/7a1kRb.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p77a1kRbj)
-
Wow, a fake shuttle. Who would have thought something like that could ever be constructed? ::)
-
Wow, a fake shuttle. Who would have thought something like that could ever be constructed? ::)
To ignore evidence when it is presented is to show fear and ego, both stemming from insecurity.
-
Proposing all space photos are just CG or photoshopped is an easy way to explain away the NASA program but have you guys taken a trip to LA to see the fully functional Endeavour Shuttle?
Seems like you'd be staring reality in the face simply looking at the actual capsules and space craft used to take many of the images you choose to ignore.
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post.
-
Proposing all space photos are just CG or photoshopped is an easy way to explain away the NASA program but have you guys taken a trip to LA to see the fully functional Endeavour Shuttle?
Seems like you'd be staring reality in the face simply looking at the actual capsules and space craft used to take many of the images you choose to ignore.
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post.
I don't know, does your son's Millennium Falcon come with a dead Han Solo? Derail with SWTFA spoilers :3
-
He sure looks dead. He's all plastic-y and stiff. At least he doesn't have a Star Killer planet thing that explodes at the push of a button.
-
Wow, a fake shuttle. Who would have thought something like that could ever be constructed? ::)
Well that "fake" shuttle is a million times more "real" than the thousands of theoretical ground/atmospheric GPS transmitters that no one in all the GPS threads has produced (not even one).
-
Wow, a fake shuttle. Who would have thought something like that could ever be constructed? ::)
This is literally all argument that is left for TFES
-
Hey, guys, look! This proves that the space missions were real!
(http://www.thespacestore.com/image/cache/data/product/TOYCOMPLEX-DARON-2-500x500.jpg)
-
Jroa your not making the argument you think you are making
-
Hey look! Proof the Space Shuttle was made of wood:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Space_Shuttle_Pathfinder_Highsmith.jpg)
-
So by your guys logic, seeing a fully mission capable space craft in person with examples of the engines sitting out to touch first hand isn't enough. So seeing fighter jets or anything else in person leave them open to be deemed fake because you don't want to believe they could fly.
You guys are funny. The trolling is strong. I sincerely hope you guys are just joking. If not, I encourage you to go see the Endeavour in person. You will realize it's very much real and would complete shatter your baseless accusations.
-
The shuttle pictured in my post can be touched. Engines and all. It's also made partly of wood. Am I supposed to believe that the Space Shuttle that flies in space is made of wood?
-
The shuttle pictured in my post can be touched. Engines and all. It's also made partly of wood. Am I supposed to believe that the Space Shuttle that flies in space is made of wood?
It's a fallacy to claim that because one thing is made of wood something else must also made of wood.
-
Congrats on still not learning to comprehend.
-
Congrats on still not learning to comprehend.
That would be you that has zero comprehension.
Glad we are at an agreement that these two posts are worthless.
Proposing all space photos are just CG or photoshopped is an easy way to explain away the NASA program but have you guys taken a trip to LA to see the fully functional Endeavour Shuttle?
Seems like you'd be staring reality in the face simply looking at the actual capsules and space craft used to take many of the images you choose to ignore.
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post.
Hey, guys, look! This proves that the space missions were real!
(http://www.thespacestore.com/image/cache/data/product/TOYCOMPLEX-DARON-2-500x500.jpg)
-
Ooh, ooh, don't forget this one:
Proposing all space photos are just CG or photoshopped is an easy way to explain away the NASA program but have you guys taken a trip to LA to see the fully functional Endeavour Shuttle?
Seems like you'd be staring reality in the face simply looking at the actual capsules and space craft used to take many of the images you choose to ignore.
-
Why do you always blame other people when you say something incorrect?
-
I didn't say anything incorrect.
I do appreciate the constant attention you give me, however. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. Too bad for you, though, you always end up looking like an idiot. If I didn't like the name 'Discount Chemist' so much, I might call you 'Lobster' or 'Crab' since you are so easy to trap. I toss out the bait, click 'Show new replies to your posts' and sure enough, there you are.
-
I didn't say anything incorrect.
If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post.
I do appreciate the constant attention you give me, however. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. Too bad for you, though, you always end up looking like an idiot. If I didn't like the name 'Discount Chemist' so much, I might call you 'Lobster' or 'Crab' since you are so easy to trap. I toss out the bait, click 'Show new replies to your posts' and sure enough, there you are.
Well I guess that's better than being a bottom feeder.
-
The Wright Brothers flight was a fallacy, too. Those "historic movies" you see were filmed using a model airplane in a sand box in a movie studio.
Therefore : Aircraft flights on the earth are just as impossible as space flights.
-
If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post.
I didn't. ???
Well I guess that's better than being a bottom feeder.
Sigh. Crabs are considered bottom feeders, Discount Chemist.
-
The Wright Brothers flight was a fallacy, too. Those "historic movies" you see were filmed using a model airplane in a sand box in a movie studio.
Therefore : Aircraft flights on the earth are just as impossible as space flights.
Haven't you learnt yet that TheEngineer never says anything, but he says it absolutely precisely?
While I liked your Wright Brothers analogy, the 777s and A320s etc that I have flown in seemed pretty real to me!
It's hard to hard argue against people that so love their little conspiracies!
-
Congrats on still not learning to comprehend.
....
Glad we are at an agreement that these two posts are worthless.
One of your posts.
Ooh, ooh, don't forget this one:
...
If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post.
I didn't. ???
As you can see you did not say anything about your post not being worthless, you added another post to the worthless post list. Try and keep up.
Well I guess that's better than being a bottom feeder.
Sigh. Crabs are considered bottom feeders, Discount Chemist.
Sigh. That's why I mentioned it. You called me a lobster and crab and then didn't call me a bottom feeder. That's like calling someone a skunk because they have white and black on.
-
Congrats on still not learning to comprehend.
....
Glad we are at an agreement that these two posts are worthless.
One of your posts.
Ooh, ooh, don't forget this one:
...
If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post.
I didn't. ???
As you can see you did not say anything about your post not being worthless, you added another post to the worthless post list. Try and keep up.
As you can see you said "If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post." Wrong does not mean worthless. Apparently you still can't even keep your arguments straight. Try to keep up with your own posts.
Sigh. That's why I mentioned it. You called me a lobster and crab and then didn't call me a bottom feeder. That's like calling someone a skunk because they have white and black on.
Lol! This is the lamest attempt to back peddle from you in a while. The sentences in this quote don't even make sense.
Remember when I said these 'gotcha' games that you like to play with me always end up with you looking like an idiot?
Well, here are two more examples.
-
Congrats on still not learning to comprehend.
....
Glad we are at an agreement that these two posts are worthless.
One of your posts.
Ooh, ooh, don't forget this one:
...
If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post.
I didn't. ???
As you can see you did not say anything about your post not being worthless, you added another post to the worthless post list. Try and keep up.
As you can see you said "If you are going to say you didn't say anything wrong, don't acknowledge you said something wrong in your previous post." Wrong does not mean worthless. Apparently you still can't even keep your arguments straight. Try to keep up with your own posts.
They are worthless because you used a fallacy, which is incorrect.
But no, once again it's my fault you said something wrong.
Sigh. That's why I mentioned it. You called me a lobster and crab and then didn't call me a bottom feeder. That's like calling someone a skunk because they have white and black on.
Lol! This is the lamest attempt to back peddle from you in a while. The sentences in this quote don't even make sense.
Remember when I said these 'gotcha' games that you like to play with me always end up with you looking like an idiot?
Well, here are two more examples.
Back peddalling? You are terrible at debating.
-
But no, once again it's my fault you said something wrong.
So you are saying you believe an incorrect ('wrong') post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, wrong = worthless. Got it.
Back peddalling? You are terrible at debating.
Says the guy who posted this unintelligible quote:
Sigh. That's why I mentioned it. You called me a lobster and crab and then didn't call me a bottom feeder. That's like calling someone a skunk because they have white and black on.
Lol. That one still makes me laugh.
-
But no, once again it's my fault you said something wrong.
So you are saying you believe an incorrect post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, incorrect = worthless. Got it.
No. Another fallacy. I am saying your post was worthless because you used a fallacy. using a fallacy is incorrect.
Back peddalling? You are terrible at debating.
Says the guy who posted this unintelligible quote:
Sigh. That's why I mentioned it. You called me a lobster and crab and then didn't call me a bottom feeder. That's like calling someone a skunk because they have white and black on.
Lol. That one still makes me laugh.
I guess if you need to laugh off your mistakes you will.
-
What's really funny is how your quest to find just one little mistake from me causes you to say some of the most idiotic stuff. So, now that you have claimed a few times that I have used a fallacy, please provide the quote where I did so. I'll wait.
-
What's really funny is how your quest to find just one little mistake from me causes you to say some of the most idiotic stuff. So, now that you have claimed a few times that I have used a fallacy, please provide the quote where I did so. I'll wait.
It's not a quest. All I have to do is read your posts and I can see they are wrong.
"My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post."
"So you are saying you believe an incorrect post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, incorrect = worthless. Got it."
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
Are we including Ad Hominems? This becomes a very simple exercise if that is the case.
-
Nope, sorry. That was not the claim.
-
Nope, sorry. That was not the claim.
:'(
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
The quotes are in my previous post. They are from this thread. Also pretty much most times you mention a kid you are using a fallacy.
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic. There are many fallacies.
-
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic. There are many fallacies.
Probably?!? You mean you don't know?!? Lol. Please quote where I employ this probable fallacy.
-
Haven't you learnt yet that TheEngineer never says anything, but he says it absolutely precisely?
Backhanded compliment if I've ever heard one. That's just mean.
-
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic. There are many fallacies.
Probably?!? You mean you don't know?!? Lol. Please quote where I employ this probable fallacy.
Perhaps read the part of my quite that you omitted. It would tell you the quotes were in my previous post.
-
So no quotes again, huh? Why would that be?
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
Your first post was a fallacy:
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space?
Straw Man.
Everything else was downhill from there.
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
Your first post was a fallacy:
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space?
Straw Man.
Incorrect. My post was not a straw man argument. Good try though.
-
So no quotes again, huh? Why would that be?
What's really funny is how your quest to find just one little mistake from me causes you to say some of the most idiotic stuff. So, now that you have claimed a few times that I have used a fallacy, please provide the quote where I did so. I'll wait.
It's not a quest. All I have to do is read your posts and I can see they are wrong.
"My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post."
"So you are saying you believe an incorrect post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, incorrect = worthless. Got it."
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
Your first post was a fallacy:
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space?
Straw Man.
Incorrect. My post was not a straw man argument.
It was a text book example of one. Nobody was arguing that your son's toy is capable of space flight, yet you choose to refute that particular point. That's what a straw man is.
By the way, I don't want to shatter your dreams or anything, but when it comes to the Millennium Falcon, there is no "actual one that flies in space". They are all models. Sorry. :-\
-
It was a text book example of one. Nobody was arguing that your son's toy is capable of space flight, yet you choose to refute that particular point. That's what a straw man is.
I guess you also can't read? My post was a direct refutation of the OP.
By the way, I don't want to shatter your dreams or anything, but when it comes to the Millennium Falcon, there is no "actual one that flies in space". They are all models. Sorry. :-\
What?!? Say it ain't true! ::)
-
So no quotes again, huh? Why would that be?
What's really funny is how your quest to find just one little mistake from me causes you to say some of the most idiotic stuff. So, now that you have claimed a few times that I have used a fallacy, please provide the quote where I did so. I'll wait.
It's not a quest. All I have to do is read your posts and I can see they are wrong.
"My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post."
"So you are saying you believe an incorrect post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, incorrect = worthless. Got it."
Sigh. Where I used the fallacy, Discount Chemist.
-
So no quotes again, huh? Why would that be?
What's really funny is how your quest to find just one little mistake from me causes you to say some of the most idiotic stuff. So, now that you have claimed a few times that I have used a fallacy, please provide the quote where I did so. I'll wait.
It's not a quest. All I have to do is read your posts and I can see they are wrong.
"My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post."
"So you are saying you believe an incorrect post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, incorrect = worthless. Got it."
-
Hey look! Proof the Space Shuttle was made of wood:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Space_Shuttle_Pathfinder_Highsmith.jpg)
Umm, the Plane that the shuttle's on top of seems like it might be made of wood. The shuttle itself is the small thing on top.
-
Sorry, but you said 'fallacy'. Please show me where and what the fallacy is.
Your first post was a fallacy:
My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space?
Straw Man.
Incorrect. My post was not a straw man argument.
It was a text book example of one. Nobody was arguing that your son's toy is capable of space flight, yet you choose to refute that particular point. That's what a straw man is.
By the way, I don't want to shatter your dreams or anything, but when it comes to the Millennium Falcon, there is no "actual one that flies in space". They are all models. Sorry. :-\
Sarcasm is not a strawman fallacy. It would only be a strawman if the statement was meant to be taken seriously. Or, did you think his son's toy was a real spaceship?
-
Umm, the Plane that the shuttle's on top of seems like it might be made of wood. The shuttle itself is the small thing on top.
Uh...duh? I know what the Space Shuttle looks like, thank you.
-
So no quotes again, huh? Why would that be?
What's really funny is how your quest to find just one little mistake from me causes you to say some of the most idiotic stuff. So, now that you have claimed a few times that I have used a fallacy, please provide the quote where I did so. I'll wait.
It's not a quest. All I have to do is read your posts and I can see they are wrong.
"My son has a Millennium Falcon. Am I supposed to believe this thing is the actual one that flies in space? And was part of a very mediocre movie?
'Cause that is exactly what you are saying in your post."
"So you are saying you believe an incorrect post is the same thing as a worthless post? You have said that at least twice now. So to you, incorrect = worthless. Got it."
Yep, still don't see it. 'Argument by analogy' is not a fallacy, just so you know. Most arguments rely on analogy. So, you are wrong again, Discount Chemist.
-
False analogy or weak analogy are arguments of analogy that are poorly suited.
-
Too bad for you, that's not what you said. You said the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Which is not a fallacy at all.
In case you forgot:
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic.
Remember when I said you were so easy to trap? Here is another example. I can't believe you have not learned your lesson by now. I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it. So I asked you to point out where I made the fallacy (knowing I made no fallacy) thus setting the trap (baiting). You, wanting to get that 'gotcha', quickly took the bait and climbed right into the crab pot. And then the trap was sprung, making you look like an idiot, yet again, Discount (Crab) Chemist.
-
Too bad for you, that's not what you said. You said the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Which is not a fallacy at all.
In case you forgot:
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic.
Although sokarul's title of the fallacy may be incorrect, the substance isn't. A false analogy is indeed an informal fallacy. I am not saying the fallacy was committed either way, but on its face there is a problem with argumentation.
I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it.
That is truly sad.
-
A false analogy is indeed an informal fallacy.
I don't recall saying otherwise.
I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it.
That is truly sad.
Why is that? Except for the fact that it would make me a really good lawyer.
-
A false analogy is indeed an informal fallacy.
I don't recall saying otherwise.
No but you do willfully refuse obvious inferences just to try and make someone wrong, even if there is truth in what they say. In that respect, yes, you would be a good lawyer.
I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it.
That is truly sad.
Why is that? Except for the fact that it would make me a really good lawyer.
[/quote]
It means that you are no longer interested in learning something new.
-
It means that you are no longer interested in learning something new.
That can in no way be inferred from the statement "I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it".
What the statement means, is that I research and learn before I say something. Which, by the way, if practiced by RE'ers, would serve to keep most of you from looking so foolish all the time.
-
It means that you are no longer interested in learning something new.
That can in no way be inferred from the statement "I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it".
Of course it can. If I interpret it to mean that you only ask questions whose answers lie in the set of knowledge you already possess, then you are not asking questions on matters that lie outside of your current knowledge.
What the statement means, is that I research and learn before I say something. Which, by the way, if practiced by RE'ers, would serve to keep most of you from looking so foolish all the time.
Perhaps we are not concerned with looking foolish? It appears that almost everyone who visits this site is unconcerned with appearing foolish.
-
Too bad for you, that's not what you said. You said the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Which is not a fallacy at all.
In case you forgot:
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic.
Remember when I said you were so easy to trap? Here is another example. I can't believe you have not learned your lesson by now. I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it. So I asked you to point out where I made the fallacy (knowing I made no fallacy) thus setting the trap (baiting). You, wanting to get that 'gotcha', quickly took the bait and climbed right into the crab pot. And then the trap was sprung, making you look like an idiot, yet again, Discount (Crab) Chemist.
You didn't actually refute anything I claimed. You really have no grasp on debate technique.
And no you would be a good lawyer. Every time you don't address a claim you give it up.
-
Too bad for you, that's not what you said. You said the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Which is not a fallacy at all.
In case you forgot:
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic.
Remember when I said you were so easy to trap? Here is another example. I can't believe you have not learned your lesson by now. I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it. So I asked you to point out where I made the fallacy (knowing I made no fallacy) thus setting the trap (baiting). You, wanting to get that 'gotcha', quickly took the bait and climbed right into the crab pot. And then the trap was sprung, making you look like an idiot, yet again, Discount (Crab) Chemist.
You didn't actually refute anything I claimed. You really have no grasp on debate technique.
And no you would be a good lawyer. Every time you don't address a claim you give it up.
Sounds to me like you are butt hurt. Why does having people prove you wrong get you so mad? We admit when you occasionally make a point. We just wish we did not have to dredge through your pile of excrement to find that point.
-
You didn't actually refute anything I claimed.
Sure I did. You claimed the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Except that is not a fallacy, which you now apparently agree to, after I refuted your claim.
And no you would be a good lawyer. Every time you don't address a claim you give it up.
Lol. Proof reading fail, yet again.
-
You didn't actually refute anything I claimed.
Sure I did. You claimed the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Except that is not a fallacy, which you now apparently agree to, after I refuted your claim.
False analogy or weak analogy are arguments of analogy that are poorly suited.
And no you would be a good lawyer. Every time you don't address a claim you give it up.
Lol. Proof reading fail, yet again.
[/quote]
Ok, terrific.
-
Now if only you could say "I was wrong". "Ok, terrific" will have to suffice, I suppose.
Remember what I said about playing these games and you always looking idiotic? Perhaps you should reevaluate your tact on this site.
-
Now if only you could say "I was wrong". "Ok, terrific" will have to suffice, I suppose.
Remember what I said about playing these games and you always looking idiotic? Perhaps you should reevaluate your tact on this site.
Why should I say I'm wrong. Shouldn't I just blame other people like you do?
Remember when I said that every time you don't respond to a claim you give it up? Perhaps you should reevaluate your debating style.
-
The amount of butt-hurt you got to fit into one post is amazing!
-
You know what's not amazing? Your rebuttals.
-
Like I said.
-
Lol you took the bait and are now like Jupiter. I can't believe you walked right into that one.
-
Too bad for you, that's not what you said. You said the fallacy was 'argument by analogy'. Which is not a fallacy at all.
In case you forgot:
The fallacy is probably argument by analogy or Syllogistic.
Remember when I said you were so easy to trap? Here is another example. I can't believe you have not learned your lesson by now. I don't ask a question unless I already know the answer to it. So I asked you to point out where I made the fallacy (knowing I made no fallacy) thus setting the trap (baiting). You, wanting to get that 'gotcha', quickly took the bait and climbed right into the crab pot. And then the trap was sprung, making you look like an idiot, yet again, Discount (Crab) Chemist.
You didn't actually refute anything I claimed. You really have no grasp on debate technique.
And no you would be a good lawyer. Every time you don't address a claim you give it up.
Sounds to me like you are butt hurt. Why does having people prove you wrong get you so mad? We admit when you occasionally make a point. We just wish we did not have to dredge through your pile of excrement to find that point.
And Jane has her mod position taken away. Disgraceful.
-
Lol you took the bait and are now like Jupiter. I can't believe you walked right into that one.
I just feel sorry for you now.
-
Lol you took the bait and are now like Jupiter. I can't believe you walked right into that one.
I just feel sorry for you now.
And I'm laughing at you. Hope you see how stupid you "trap"claims are.
-
Sigh. Proofreading, Discount Chemist.
-
<--------