Originally Posted by
elcruxio
Ah yes. That wasn't actually a lie. What you did was that you invented my argument order (with gross simplifications) by cutting it from the earlier posts I had written.
No, I didn't "invent" anything. When you use "A" as a premise for argument P, you can't turn around when you come to Q, R, X, Y, Z, and say that "A" was never said, or that "A" is actually "B", and demand that we now ignore "A". Yet another lie from you, trying to defend the first lie.
I had beforehand already differentiated between types of cycling which made all the difference in following posts and which you so graciously chose to disregard. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to take earlier posts into consideration.
From me to the guy who has revealed himself not to understand the word "premise", nor its function, it is a simple matter of you rereading the thread, and you will notice, that your premises change constantly, and that when I addressed a specific premise, I only go back when said premise is a contradicts or a large moderation of a previous premise.
I can't get anywhere with you. On the one hand, you demand that I quote your own post constantly, that I have to repost what have already been said by both of you. On the other hand, if I do that, I have to quote the post i
n it's entirety or close to it, otherwise it's out of context, and I shouldn't attach any value to your premises ("the building-up", as you put it), when you have moved on. Also, I shouldn't dare compare what you say now to what you said before, even in the same paragraph. And if I do, I "invent the order" of your quotes and whatnot.
What a waste of time this has been.