Law Covering Sexual Contact With Students Passes House

[Pocahontas]

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

You are so right Al. The ACLU at work again pushing their socialist agenda. Oh Anime that was my freshman year and I really enjoyed that class evil woman taking advantage of a 19 year old boy my roommate took her class the next quarter and got a A too.

Hey that explains alot about your grammar skills Isaac!

[Texasbelle]

Oh Isaac.....you just got . How's it feel?????????????

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman.

If you cannot see that contradiction then I am genuinely surprised you have the motor function to operate a computer keyboard.

>My original statement was neither misleading nor unclear in any way as we can ALL see in your quote of my text.

Correct, it was neither misleading nor unclear, it was just wrong. I corrected it. then you changed the subject.

And we see here you admitting that my number was wrong, but my statement was neither misleading nor was it unclear as you indicated in your initial paragraph....and you have the audacity to use a term like contradiction.

YOU chose to argue a point I never made...namely freshman only, and that's why you're still on my ignore list.

FURTHERMORE, I never changed the subject, it's still about the proposed bill, you CHOSE to argue my numbers, and the number of people you INCORRECTLY thought I said the bill would affect rather than remain on topic. AGAIN, 100% your fault, and I'm pretty sure is a lie as well, because if you read the story then you already knew the proposed bill would affect considerbly more than incoming freshmen at NSU only. I guess it's true what they say about giving a man enough rope.

>you are creating arguments out of nothing just for the sake of arguing

I corrected your erroneous numbers and then you began arguing against my actual, factual, legitimate numbers with ad hominem and straw man arguments.

I NEVER argued your numbers, and I'm STILL not arguing your numbers.

I'm arguing you habitual omission of several hundreds students that are also affected by the proposed law, but do not fall into the category of undergraduate student, AND your insistance that the term ONLY or a synoym of said term appeared in my initial stat. I never made the stipulaation Freshman only, I merely provided aguess at the total number of the largest group of individual affected by the law in my area . Simply put, you've just told ANOTHER lie, the logical conclusion for someone of your ilk.

>feel free to remind me again why you were on my ignore list in the first place.

We all know why, because I constantly correct you erroneous posts.

No, it's because you lie. I'm an adult, more than capable of making mistakes, and value the input of others ESPECIALLY when I'm wrong. Unlike many of you, I appreciate the education process and I'm not ashamed to learn from other

...the "problem" is you're still trying to argue a point.

A) I never even tried to make, and

B) that you have fabricated by intentionally omitting every single clarification I have made where you have expressed an inability to think for yourself.

As I have stated numerous times, you are creating an argument out of nothing. I gave you an inaccurate estimate of the number of incoming Freshmen to NSU every fall, EVERYTHING else is the bull**** lie you're trying to perpetuate here....and look, you've even succeeded in winning the hearts of the three stooges (I guess they've already forgotten about the car seat fiasco, huh)?

[joepole]

>you have the audacity to use a term like contradiction.

Of course I do, when you post things like:

"I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman."

>YOU chose to argue a point I never made...namely freshman only

See there it is, again. You most certainly specified Freshmen only:

"...have an influx of about 9000 freshmen..."

>...the "problem" is you're still trying to argue a point.
>A) I never even tried to make

You made the statement that 9,000 college Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year. My point was that 9,000 Freshmen do not come to Natchitoches every year. Then I posted the actual number of college freshmen that coem to Natchitoches every year and you:

1. Stated that this number was not the complete set of people affected by this law. This is called "changing the subject/putting up a straw man argument" because I wasn't arguing about whether or not any of there people were affected by any law, I was arguing that your "9,000 Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year" was incorrect.

2. Said that you were mistaken because the enrollment was higher when you were there, a statement also shown to be incorrect.

I seriously hope you're being intentionally obtuse in the hope that it will obfuscate the fact that you're completely wrong to those that don't care to read every post because if you aren't then this is a lack of reading comprehension that is stunning in its magnitude, even for you.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

I went to LA Tech and even in the "day" I would have never guessed that each spring we had 9000 new freshmen come in I think joepole has the facts in order and yes "obtuse" is the perfect word for "the" problem on this board. Great post joepole

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>you have the audacity to use a term like contradiction.

Of course I do, when you post things like:

"I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman."

Then you apparently don't know the definition of the term "only" OR the specific reason I did not use that term.

But we ALL know your smarter than that, that's why I use terms like "butthole" to describe you instead of idiot.

>YOU chose to argue a point I never made...namely freshman only

See there it is, again. You most certainly specified Freshmen only:

"...have an influx of about 9000 freshmen..."

And exactly where do you see the term or a synonym of the term "only" in my sentence? As I indicated above, there is a very specific reason I DID NOT use that term.

>...the "problem" is you're still trying to argue a point.
>A) I never even tried to make

You made the statement that 9,000 college Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year. My point was that 9,000 Freshmen do not come to Natchitoches every year. Then I posted the actual number of college freshmen that coem to Natchitoches every year and you:

1. Stated that this number was not the complete set of people affected by this law. This is called "changing the subject/putting up a straw man argument" because I wasn't arguing about whether or not any of there people were affected by any law, I was arguing that your "9,000 Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year" was incorrect.

2. Said that you were mistaken because the enrollment was higher when you were there, a statement also shown to be incorrect.

I never intended to change the subject away from who the law affected by providing an estimate to support my opinion. That was 100% of your own doing. My sole intention was to show how a law like this would adversely affect teachers in my hometown to a greater extent than teachers in other areas, like Shreveport/Bossier for instance. I EVEN indicated that I used my town specifically because of the special circumstances that exist in Natchitoches.

As I've indicated all along, you're making up arguments for the sake of argument. You've neither argued nor even attempted to address the topic of this thread

I seriously hope you're being intentionally obtuse in the hope that it will obfuscate the fact that you're completely wrong to those that don't care to read every post because if you aren't then this is a lack of reading comprehension that is stunning in its magnitude, even for you.

Maybe if you tried sticking to the subject instead of arguing individuals in basically about 95% of your total posts, then you wouldn't be so far out of the loop in the first place and wondering why someone else is being "obtuse".

Remember, no one said freshmen only other than you...

[Isaac-Saxxon]

"obtuse"
This is the perfect word for a social deviant that is the master of smoke and mirrors. Plain facts will in no way change this obtuse individuals mind. Broken record.

[joepole]

OK, now I know you're doing this on purpose. Otherwise you're trying to honestly tell me that when you say "have an influx of about 9000 freshmen" you aren't specifying only Freshmen, you're saying the phrase "9,000 freshmen" means "9,000 freshmen and persons of other assorted ages and grades?"

>My sole intention was to show how a law like this would adversely affect teachers in my hometown to a greater extent than teachers in other areas, like Shreveport/Bossier for instance. I EVEN indicated that I used my town specifically because of the special circumstances that exist in Natchitoches.

...and in doing so you used wildly incorrect population numbers. I corrected them.

To take a page from your book:

How were we supposed to know that "if you've never lived here" meant only Natchitoches? Where in that sentence do you see the term or a synonym of the term "only?"

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by joepole

OK, now I know you're doing this on purpose.

LOL, ya think?

A famous quote from Brainsmasher, "numbers matter only in quantifiable measurements"

And a famous quote I once heard from my A/C repairman "if you ain't measurin', then your're guessin'".

It's those darn unquantifiable measurements that always come back to git cha!

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

OK, now I know you're doing this on purpose. Otherwise you're trying to honestly tell me that when you say "have an influx of about 9000 freshmen" you aren't specifying only Freshmen, you're saying the phrase "9,000 freshmen" means "9,000 freshmen and persons of other assorted ages and grades?"

AGAIN, not one single time did the term "only" appear in my post. This is, and always has been 100% your own spin. I gave you an estimate of the number of individuals this would affect, in the largest group my town had to offer, incoming freshmen. Nothing more, nothing less.

>My sole intention was to show how a law like this would adversely affect teachers in my hometown to a greater extent than teachers in other areas, like Shreveport/Bossier for instance. I EVEN indicated that I used my town specifically because of the special circumstances that exist in Natchitoches.

...and in doing so you used wildly incorrect population numbers. I corrected them.

What a coincidence, I never argued your corrections nor am I arguing them now nor is this the first time you've read this statement.

Take the hint.

To take a page from your book:

How were we supposed to know that "if you've never lived here" meant only Natchitoches? Where in that sentence do you see the term or a synonym of the term "only?"

Well you could have used the context of the entire post like a normal human being instead of picking it apart and starting arguments over moot points like a common troll because I specifically mentioned Natchitoches in the second paragraph. You even could have looked directly underneath my avatar and found out exactly where "here" is, and that's assuming you don't already know where I live like every other regular user of this forum....of course that would require utilizing your intelligence for good rather than "evil", and that's just not your style, is it?

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by rhertz

LOL, ya think?

A famous quote from Brainsmasher, "numbers matter only in quantifiable measurements"

And a famous quote I once heard from my A/C repairman "if you ain't measurin', then your're guessin'".

It's those darn unquantifiable measurements that always come back to git cha!

The number itself IS insignificant because:
a) It's ALL based on an estimate.
b) The bill affects all students under the age of 19.

The argument is that Joe insists on omitting 5 schools from his total because I guessed at the total of number of members in the largest group, in my area, to be affected. I in no way shape, or form indicated that these were the only students affected by the proposed bill, nor does the term "only" even appear in my post, not to mention had you actually read the story, you would have already known exactly who all would be affected by this bill.

You patting him on the back for said action shows that you didn't read the entire thread....period.

[joepole]

Again:

I know you didn't say this bill affected only Freshmen (nobody, to my knowledge) has) but you did say that 9,000 Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year, which was wrong. Which is why I corrected it.

>AGAIN, not one single time did the term "only" appear in my post.

I was using the context of the entire post like a normal human. I assumed when you said "9,000 Freshmen" you meant "9,000 Freshmen." You have since clarified that "9,000 Freshmen" really means "9,000 Freshmen, Sophomores, rodeo clowns, ninjas, and Vietnamese fishermen."

[piemaker720]

Originally Posted by joepole

Again:

I know you didn't say this bill affected only Freshmen (nobody, to my knowledge) has) but you did say that 9,000 Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year, which was wrong. Which is why I corrected it.

>AGAIN, not one single time did the term "only" appear in my post.

I was using the context of the entire post like a normal human. I assumed when you said "9,000 Freshmen" you meant "9,000 Freshmen." You have since clarified that "9,000 Freshmen" really means "9,000 Freshmen, Sophomores, rodeo clowns, ninjas, and Vietnamese fishermen."

Touche' Joe. I like that.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

Again:

I know you didn't say this bill affected only Freshmen (nobody, to my knowledge) has) but you did say that 9,000 Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year, which was wrong. Which is why I corrected it.

On once again, for at least the second time today, I've never argued your corrections or insinuated they were incorrect in anyway. The argument is and always has been your insistence that I the proposal only affected freshman because that's the only group I used in my example.

>AGAIN, not one single time did the term "only" appear in my post.

I was using the context of the entire post like a normal human. I assumed when you said "9,000 Freshmen" you meant "9,000 Freshmen." You have since clarified that "9,000 Freshmen" really means "9,000 Freshmen, Sophomores, rodeo clowns, ninjas, and Vietnamese fishermen."

NO, I have clarified that freshmen are not the only group of individuals affected by the proposed bill and that I never implied that they WERE the only people affected by this proposed bill. Had you actually used the context of the entire post, you would have realized exactly who all will be affected by this proposal if it becomes law.

This is just another example of an apparently habitual and uncontrollable desire to tell lies. Is anyone surprised the resident christians find your skill in said tactic to be so fascinating?

[joepole]

>your insistence that I the proposal only affected freshman because that's the only group I used in my example.*

I never** said you did, all I did was correct your way-off estimate of the number of Freshmen and then correct your "there used to be more" defense of your original incorrect estimate.

Again, at no point did I ever claim that you said the law only affected Freshmen.

I did also give the umber of affected college students (which was also way under 9,000) but that was only after you began changing the subject/scope of the discussion.




*I'm assuming that's supposed to read "...that I said the proposal only affected..."

**not once in this entire thread