Here... I'll help you out...







...there it is. Your words acknowledging the meaning of the question as it was posed. There is no misrepresentation involved, Those are your words verbatim. So, how does it follow from this agreement that "no" should be Joe's honest answer?

Incoherent rubbish.

Now, riddle Panny-wanny, tell all the lovely folk exactly what the agreement was regarding what the question meant, as it was posed...



...then go on to explain how it follows from that meaning that "no" is an honest answer.

Pearls to swine...

Coming from you - one who has not offered a coherent argument for anything he has claimed - that charge has the force of a wet spaghetti noodle slapping up against the side of a moving freight train.

Once again your entire argument is reduced to a mere emoticon. Good job, pan... good job.

Have fun living in your imagination Pan. I'm outta here, as you've nothing resembling intelligibility to offer.

If you're so prophetic, why is it that you did not see the self-refuting content of your own words before you stated them?

Delusional is more like it.

My gawd... So now you think that your prophetic?

The question was resolved long ago by your acknowledgement of what the question meant - as posed. The meaning of the question is not a matter of contention.

--

ac·knowl·edge

Definition of ACKNOWLEDGE

1: to recognize the status of
2: to disclose knowledge of or agreement with

--

You agreed to what it meant and have breached the agreement since. Your word is worthless. Your participation is cancerous to meaningful and honest discussion.

Your words are self-refuting. I gave you enough rope, and you hung yourself with it. I'm just taking pictures.

The question was resolved long ago by your acknowledgement of what the question meant - as posed. The meaning of the question is not a matter of contention.

--

ac·knowl·edge

Definition of ACKNOWLEDGE

1: to recognize the status of
2: to disclose knowledge of or agreement with

--

You agreed to what it meant and have breached the agreement since. Your word is worthless. Your participation is cancerous to meaningful and honest discussion.

I would necessarily disagree, but that doesn't really add anything to our undestanding.

By their own belief regarding good and bad, I suppose. I do not think that those terms lead anywhere useful unless we further explain what is meant by them. They don't always mean the same thing.

It is a wise move, and I'll explain why by closing with a bit of intuitive common sense. Agreement always comes "after the fact". There can be no agreement before you know what you're agreeing to. The simple point is that entering into an agreement with another persona is to take on an obligation to another person. That person, in this case, is me. Thus, when you entered into an agreement with me about what the question meant - as it was posed - you partook in a voluntary obligation to keep that agreement. So, using the phrase "after the fact" in an attempt to remove that obligation, is nothing more than to go back on your word.

So, in short, you've proven to me, as well as any reader who is bright enough to see through the masquerade that your word was a worthless offering.

Whatever, pan... whatever. Go talk to somebody who has reason to believe what you say, because I have none.

Caio.

Laughing in the face of evidence that shows your dishonest testimony, isn't a good sign, especially considering the fact that the evidence is comprised of your own words.