i think i might be quitting

Singlemalt · May 24, 2016

Xiu said:
im not trying to win a pissing contest with you. im sure you're very intelligent. And a former surgeon? Impressive and admirable. All those who were arguing with the OP about citation and scholarly articles in the other thread have years in academia and have probably been published yourselves. AmIright?Hardly seemed like a fair "fight". But then I read the op say he had a very hard time. And mentioned the problems he had. And then this thread was bumped.

I'm sorry that my pointing out the malicious nature of bringing up this old thread has made you upset. I asked why, and no one will give me an answer. So I'll be forced to draw my own conclusions, which I had.

View attachment 3690300

The OP called into question the validity of the cited study, he himself doubted it. So did we, but apparently we didn't do it in a manner satisfactory to him; whence he became a bit defensive and more combatitive. Ex. I tend to be sceptical of any public health document that tries to infer behavior is a disease and is partially funded by a gov't agency (Nat Inst of Drug Abuse) which has an agenda to control public behavior

abalonehx · May 24, 2016

Is that Gregory House? In 1979?

Bob Zmuda · May 24, 2016

Xiu said:
im not trying to win a pissing contest with you. im sure you're very intelligent. And a former surgeon? Impressive and admirable. All those who were arguing with the OP about citation and scholarly articles in the other thread have years in academia and have probably been published yourselves. AmIright?Hardly seemed like a fair "fight". But then I read the op say he had a very hard time. And mentioned the problems he had. And then this thread was bumped.

I'm sorry that my pointing out the malicious nature of bringing up this old thread has made you upset. I asked why, and no one will give me an answer. So I'll be forced to draw my own conclusions, which I had.

View attachment 3690300

SHUT UP.

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

Xiu said:
im not trying to win a pissing contest with you. im sure you're very intelligent. And a former surgeon? Impressive and admirable. All those who were arguing with the OP about citation and scholarly articles in the other thread have years in academia and have probably been published yourselves. AmIright?Hardly seemed like a fair "fight". But then I read the op say he had a very hard time. And mentioned the problems he had. And then this thread was bumped.

I'm sorry that my pointing out the malicious nature of bringing up this old thread has made you upset. I asked why, and no one will give me an answer. So I'll be forced to draw my own conclusions, which I had.

View attachment 3690300

You came in with your mind already made up, posting conclusions. If you do not know what went on prior to getting here take a little time and bother to actually read. But then you wouldn't be able to post your pompous priggery with impunity.

This should help you

srh88 · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
The OP called into question the validity of the cited study, he himself doubted it. So did we, but apparently we didn't do it in a manner satisfactory to him; whence he became a bit defensive and more combatitive. Ex. I tend to be sceptical of any public health document that tries to infer behavior is a disease and is partially funded by a gov't agency (Nat Inst of Drug Abuse) which has an agenda to control public behavior

you hurt his feelers

Bob Zmuda · May 24, 2016

hyphyjoose said:
I posted an article about a study done on data gathered by an institution in New Zealand over the last 40 years, with each wave of data being studied by other instutitions internationally (and the data will continue to come in until the participants stop participating)--they then tried to derail my original thread by saying it was corrupted because of the funding used to provide the research. i contended their point as well as their personal implication about my appeals and they continued to argue with me.. so now i'm getting harassed cause I joked about winning the argument in "what did you accomplish today"--because all anyone did was sit around for 4 hours and bitch at each other. lmao

basically curious2garden is going around necroing old threads and trying to insult me with emotionally sensitive posts i made when I was young and going through some painful stuff because of an argument that occurred in a completely different thread

Didn't read! Woo!

tangerinegreen555 · May 24, 2016

Bob Zmuda said:
SHUT UP.

Don't hold in your feelings Bob!

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

Bob Zmuda said:
SHUT UP.

Most succinct post of the day

abalonehx · May 24, 2016

I smell the presence of mustard.

srh88 · May 24, 2016

curious2garden said:
Most succinct post of the day

abalonehx · May 24, 2016

Sorry just misheard a Ghost lyric.

cannabineer · May 24, 2016

Xiu said:
im not trying to win a pissing contest with you. im sure you're very intelligent. And a former surgeon? Impressive and admirable. All those who were arguing with the OP about citation and scholarly articles in the other thread have years in academia and have probably been published yourselves. AmIright?Hardly seemed like a fair "fight". But then I read the op say he had a very hard time. And mentioned the problems he had. And then this thread was bumped.

I'm sorry that my pointing out the malicious nature of bringing up this old thread has made you upset. I asked why, and no one will give me an answer. So I'll be forced to draw my own conclusions, which I had.

View attachment 3690300

This reads as
"I came in with my mind made up, and you are wrong." Which makes the following uncannily prophetic.

curious2garden said:
You seem very comfortable just showing up and rendering a judgement without bothering to read any of the pesky facts. YOU ROCK!

Singlemalt · May 24, 2016

Note, no one harassed the OP until he began to take issue with how we answered his query; and didn't tell us the rules he expected us to abide by.

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

cannabineer said:
This reads as
"I came in with my mind made up, and you are wrong." Which makes the following uncannily prophetic.

srh88 · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
Note, no one harassed the OP until he began to take issue with how we answered his query; and didn't tell us the rules he expected us to abide by.

did he really expect anything different though coming here with a study that was saying pot heads are broke as hell terrible people

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
Note, no one harassed the OP until he began to take issue with how we answered his query; and didn't tell us the rules he expected us to abide by.

In the interest of full disclosure the chances are slim to none I would have abided by any rules. I have a problem with authority.

whitebb2727 · May 24, 2016

abalonehx said:
Is that Gregory House? In 1979?

I thought that's who it is.

Gregory house was a character.

His name is Hugh Laurie.

srh88 · May 24, 2016

curious2garden said:

this is hilarious

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

srh88 said:
did he really expect anything different though coming here with a study that was saying pot heads are broke as hell terrible people

He came here ASKING for us to gut it. We did!! Then he lost his shit because we used methodology and no story telling sheesh.

Oops we then attempted to politely explain and that's when he threw the first ad hominem after that it was a free for all.

i think i might be quitting

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod