Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27718380-20160103185047/@comment-27718380-20160103191055

Draugluin the werewolf wrote: Heartgold1234 wrote:

Draugluin the werewolf wrote:

Heartgold1234 wrote:

Draugluin the werewolf wrote: both of you behaved extremely badly and neither of you was in the right both of you were equally rude (in different ways) and there was the fact that every time Ed tried to apologise you shoved your arguments (which weren't really unopposable and the way you presented them showed that you thought that anyone who thought differently was an idiot) you did actually call me delusional when I explained the background for Corgito Ergo Sum (that nothing can be proven except one's own existence (as something at least))

On the other hand I think that you are a good person, a good member of the community, an intteligent person and as far as internet safety goes a friend. To 'every time Ed tried to apologise' I said that there was no way I could, and I wouldn't lie to him. It was fairly clear about thirty seconds later that he was lying himself when he got angry. That was on chat, and each time after I was thinking about the first, so he never tried to apologise because it was a lie. He was absolving responsibility. Also, when I 'showed that... was an idiot' I was merely stating that you had to be stupid to think that way, which you did. You could take that to be their views, but you can't know for certain. That's why I phrased it that way. please let's not get into this now I've already made my mind up I'm stating my reasons. I'd rather someone presented evidence and rational arguments for their point of view to I could believe it more easily, than being forced to accept them.

I've presented reasons and rational arguments and I'd also like to show up something else I said that both of you were equally in the wrong and the "on the other hand" sentence now I'm unfollowing before on of you gets me in trouble Unless I start shouting you should be fine. ;) You also didn't present arguments, reasons yes. But no evidence, so they do not properly make an argument.