Why whats this? The $%*! frustration thread of science! Hmm what should I submit, Oh I know! This:
Shoot, I'm bored anyways...
I thought we were done with this argument...
It wasn't an argument, rather a set of statements. I just pointed out the absurdity of Shadow's logic -- if anything, it's a correction.
Directed at Hypernerd; referring to Shadow;
not an argumentThis isn't a court of law, though.
True, but irrelevant; hence the
[...]
(Damn it feels good to use that on you...)
Shadow, it's basic logic -- something you should know by this point. Your conclusion of this being a certain Justin does not even inductively follow the premise of him holding the name.
Hardly argumentative, methinks...
I do not say he is, but I do not say either that he is NOT. To me, he is a third unless he proves otherwise
Are you insane? Seriously, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Inquiry, but not argument.
1. Yes, I am insane. So are you. We are ALL insane in our own way.
2. So says you. I continue to remain neutral on the topic.
WTF to Shadow;
But, I don't believe I responded to this one.
There was no joke, but you did miss the point. If he's either of the two I know, there's gonna be trouble, so I just want to know to be on the safe side.
Nothing new needs to be said here.
All of your premises(statements of Hypernerd, Shadow and I) do not lead to the structure of an argument. Think before you step.