Results 91 to 100 of 189
-
05-15-2015, 11:06 AM #91UnregisteredGuest
Aristotle.
You are so much fun to have craneal sex with. You get huffy and puffy and you start stammering, misspelling words and contradict yourself a multitude of times in the same paragraph.
We affectionately refer to you as the "Doc Justice Doll" wind it up and watch it go bezerk.
Keep trying to figure out who I am; you would be so surprised!
Remember "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"
37A.
-
05-15-2015, 11:16 AM #92UnregisteredGuest
-
05-15-2015, 12:36 PM #93UnregisteredGuest
Dude you are sounding like a ticking time bomb! I am not a MDP officer, nor am I the "ski" poster. Why so angry? You are talking to several different folks and you seem to think they are one- not so. Moral boundaries? What are you talking about? Slow down and realize this site is not that serious.
-
05-15-2015, 12:56 PM #94UnregisteredGuest
If you want to have some fun, print these, or have Dr. Mark Axelberd log on to the site and read them.
Then ask him to come-up with a psychological profile of the good "Doc" based on his rants.
It should make very interesting reading!
It may scare the hell out of you as well ! ! ! ! !
-
05-15-2015, 08:47 PM #95UnregisteredGuest
As stated the specific gravity of mercury is 13.56, accordingly most elements float in it at earth's gravity. What did you say your education was in again??? Simply put you were incorrect when you told a person he was so dense that he would float in mercury and you are incorrect in the above post. You seem to have a problem being corrected.
-
05-15-2015, 09:48 PM #96
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 512
See post 71, I admitted I was wrong and you were correct on sinking versus floating.
As I was speaking of density I thought you gave the value of density of mercury 13.6 g/cc. You gave the specific gravity which is unitless. However I have never once in chemistry seen someone use specific gravity.
You apparently are the one who cannot admit they are wrong. You were wrong about my wife, you still haven't provided a link for any blog where she has written about HPD, you have not conceded that my wife didn't use foul language, you have not conceded your incorrect assumption about the park and fisheries management, you have not conceded you were wrong in thinking that most Ph.D.s sit around debating the philosophical meaning of life, you have not conceded you were incorrect in assuming that biologist partake in law enforcement functions and chasing away fishermen, you have not conceded your incorrect assumption that my wife doesn't think fishing should happen within the park, you have not conceded that you were incorrect in stating that I had slandered your profession and fellow officers (actually this is a double whammy since not only are you wrong in your assertion but the correct term is libel), you have not conceded that I could easily determine who you are, you have not conceded that I have not given up all rights to privacy, and you have not conceded that it was you who made defamatory statements. I think we can leave it there. I'll also admit there may have been another idiot helping you.
Also you have not been able to refute a single assertion I have made of your colleagues or profession. Your only arguments of any substance have no merit as you only can attack the messenger and not the message.
Could you please point out where I have contradicted myself multiple times in the same paragraph, not saying it's not possible, just that I would love to see it. So far the only things you have gotten right is my wife's name and profession, and my address.
-
05-15-2015, 09:49 PM #97
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 512
-
05-15-2015, 10:30 PM #98UnregisteredGuest
-
05-16-2015, 12:05 AM #99
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 512
I said it may be several people. Its hard to keep track of who is replying since no one uses any kind of tag to differentiate. Lets be honest no one could perfectly figure out if its the same person replying or not, particularly when the writing styles are similar. That's how I know when Abella post because of his writing style. I find it funny that people confuse us when are writing styles vary so markedly.
I was just noting that I had admitted I was wrong freely and immeadiately. Was that not your contention that I could not admit a mistake? I was also pointing out how my opposition was not willing to admit to any of theirs. I also pointed out that it may be multiple people making false statements, to which not a single one was backed with any facts or evidence.
Like your statement that I could not admit a mistake. It was a false statement. I don't think you intentionally made it (I.e. lied), but it was false nonetheless.
If you were not the one bringing my family into I apologize to you for making the wrong assumption, and thank you for not being that low of a life form.
Stay safe and God bless.
-
05-16-2015, 01:03 AM #100UnregisteredGuest
I am not a betting person; but if I was, I would bet that the following terms would be included in that report:
Paranoid, schizophrenic, delusional, possibly bi-polar, self absorbed, suffering from a Napoleonic complex, issues with anger management, and others.
But like I said, I am not a betting person.
37A
Bookmarks