Joe Six-Pack American?

[MachZer0]

Quoted for Twinkie.

MachZer0 does not have an argument. He simply wants to be attacked and then claim victim status. Yes this is deceitful, but it is not against the rules, or at least as some people interpret them. Do not fall for it. He knows he is wrong, but is playing the part.

Sorry, but I have provided links and quotes all of which prove my point.

 

[DieHappy]

He was vague precisely because he was wrong and he wanted to avoid responsibility. If you notice, he even misrepresented what was in Webster's by posting "ˈnyü-, ÷-kyə-lər" for "nucular", not understanding he was referencing the wrong pronunciation, probably because he did not know what "kyə" meant.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clear

'klir

For some reason you seem to think that the alternative provided by webster is nu clear or gnu klir but it's clearly different. The kya would be a klir if the alternative is what you claimed.

 

[Papias]

Diehappy wrote:

m-w.com is the most common, it's the first one most go to, so source shopping is an insult.

So you are saying that you only check one source (the most common one), and your opinions are not based on further research? Should we use that as a gauge of how reliable your (or Mach’s) responses on other issues are?

Mach wrote:

Pardon me but the first source offered here was Webster's and that was offered by me. So it should be safe to assume, based on your analysis, that all other offers of sources fall into the intentional source shopping category

Are you and die saying that you simply stop looking after the first source – and that other research is source shopping?

I hope we all agree here that getting an accurate opinion is done by looking at many sources, comparing them logically, checking them against the evidence, and making a rational, tentative, decision. Source shopping, on the other hand, is seeking out only sources that agree with a preconceived idea, and ignoring others. That would include stopping at the first source if it agrees with you.

Further, as A showed in post #318, he is the one who was the first to provide the source.

I wrote:

Let’s try this again, and see if you coherently respond to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 – or if you ignore these

I saw an attempt at a response to #1, and no response to 2, 3 or 4. Is this what others saw as well?

Papias

 

[MachZer0]

Are you and die saying that you simply stop looking after the first source – and that other research is source shopping?

For the record, I offered a valid source initially and your response was that I was source shopping. In fact, it would be others who appear to have gone source shopping. Webster's is a highly recognized source as a dictionary and supports my contention. My point has been made and substantiated.

 

[Papias]

Mach0 wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Are you and die saying that you simply stop looking after the first source – and that other research is source shopping?

For the record, I offered a valid source initially and your response was that I was source shopping. In fact, it would be others who appear to have gone source shopping.

So again, are you and die saying that looking past the first source you find source shopping?

Also, you have not offered any evidence in support of the sentence you start with “In fact,”.

Webster's is a highly recognized source as a dictionary and supports my contention.

Have you read posts #313 and #246, which both pointed out that your own source (Webster’s) explicitly says that you are incorrect? By not responding to those, (and then repeating that your source supports you), you give the impression that you are deliberately ignoring the evidence available, which does not make you look honest.


I wrote:

Let’s try this again, and see if you coherently respond to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 – or if you ignore these

Then, after no response to most of these I wrote:

I saw an attempt at a response to #1, and no response to 2, 3 or 4. Is this what others saw as well?</SPAN>
Papias

Ok, we've seen repeated times Mach appears to have ignored these points. As with the other points, this is giving the appearance that Mach &#8220;responds&#8221; to contrary evidence by ignoring it. Mach, help me out here by showing that this is not the case, and that you honestly and openly discuss points based on evidence. Thanks-

Papias