gfm7175's "battle for senate" and "battle for house" projections

[gfm7175]

He doesn't even know what a fallacy is. Why would you expect him to know what a fallacy fallacy is?? He utterly denies logic.

He utterly discards the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various States. I've seen him deny mathematics and several theories of science as well. He even denies engineering. He is strictly a fundamentalist religious idiot.

It sounds like he is quite the denier/denialist... I bet he denies THAT too!

Sanders also claims to be an expert on psychiatry. He also is hallucinating that there is a Sybil to talk to. This is the same as Dutch. In my opinion they are socks of each other. Probably why both of them claim everyone that disagrees with them to be socks. It's an inversion.

Quite plausible.

 

[LurchAddams]

It's already been shown to you idiot. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You are describing yourself.

You are describing yourself.

So you don't want to make America Great again. Gotit.

You aren't debating. You are presenting no arguments. Insults are not arguments.

Psychoquackery.

Then learn. You and only you are responsible for your own illiteracy.

I really don't know what motivates you. Psych is a hobby for me - I figure the reason you do what you just did - it's some kind of compulsion you can't control? I really would like to know. I'm serious.

 

[LurchAddams]

Polls don't mean anything, dumbass. Discard of mathematics.

Then why do politicians care so much about them? trump was watching them daily. He called them, "ratings", don't you remember?

So what gets you out of bed, seriously. Do you wake up each day - or I guess in your case - you climb out of your coffin - and say, "how useless and irritating can I be today"?

I'm seriously asking. What makes you happy? Have you ever experienced joy? You should try it, it's pretty cool.

 

[gfm7175]

It isn't an hallucination when your posts are identical to other posters and you use the same obscure references that they do.

English errors.
What posts and posters are you talking about?
What obscure references are you talking about?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Right. It is noting that you keep asking for something that has already been presented to you.


Nope. It is a notation that you continue to ask the same question over and over and over and over and over that has already been answered over and over and over and over and over...

Your claiming you gave evidence when no one has ever seen that evidence is the problem here gfm. You simply refuse to provide evidence by claiming you already gave it but never directing anyone to where

I am not Sybil. I am gfm7175.

And yet you use the exact same obscure words and phrases as other posters here. That leads to a conclusion that you are the same person.

Nope. I don't share a brain with anybody. I do agree with a lot of what he says though. We both also accept logic, science, mathematics, history, and economics as valid sources.

ROFLMAO... How 2 people can make the same mistakes over and over when it comes to logic, science, mathematics, history, and economics and then claim they accept those things is pretty funny.

[1] gfm7175 and ITN share a brain.
[2] gfm7175 and ITN can't find said brain.
Which is it?

And you claim to accept logic? Here is an example. Joe and Brian share a boat. Joe uses it Monday and Wednesday. Brian uses it Tuesday and Thursday. When Joe shows up on Wednesday he can't find the boat. He calls Brian who also can't find the boat. They share the boat but they can't find it. Your false dichotomy fallacy is noted and it seems to be a failure in logic you share with Into the Night. It's clear people can share something and then not be able to find it.

You're TOO FUNNY sometimes...

I will never be able to match you for unintentional humor as you make claims that are clearly not supported. Such as your claim that you already provided evidence. Maybe Mike Lindell is one of your identities since he also claims to have evidence of that fraud but just never is quite able to present to anyone.

 

[gfm7175]

Can we please get back to the subject about how you're going to lose the Senate please? No one cares about all your socks, of which we're sure you have thousands.

I own nowhere near that many pairs of socks.
I am not a candidate for Senate.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

English errors.

https://www.gramlee.com/blog/indefinite-articles-a-or-an-before-h-blame-the-confusion-on-the-french/

Use “an” before words where you don’t pronounce the letter “H” such as “an herb,” “an hour,” or “an honorable man.”

"They" refers back to "posters."

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, you might want to understand grammar.

What posts and posters are you talking about?
What obscure references are you talking about?

RQAA

 

[gfm7175]

Your claiming you gave evidence when no one has ever seen that evidence is the problem here gfm.

No. Your claiming that no evidence has been presented even though my providing of said evidence is documented within several of my posts here on this forum is the problem here. You also cannot speak for others on this forum (you can only speak for yourself).

You simply refuse to provide evidence by claiming you already gave it but never directing anyone to where

It's been provided directly to you (you've been quoted) several times over the past roughly couple years. You can also look at my posts from the end of 2020 and early 2021 and see the evidence for fraud that I have presented.

And yet you use the exact same obscure words and phrases as other posters here.

What are you even talking about?

That leads to a conclusion that you are the same person.

Yeah, an illogical conclusion.

ROFLMAO... How 2 people can make the same mistakes over and over when it comes to logic, science, mathematics, history, and economics and then claim they accept those things is pretty funny.

The mistakes are yours, not ours.

[1] gfm7175 and ITN share a brain.
[2] gfm7175 and ITN can't find said brain.
Which is it?

And you claim to accept logic?

Yes.

Here is an example. Joe and Brian share a boat. Joe uses it Monday and Wednesday. Brian uses it Tuesday and Thursday.

This part is fine.

When Joe shows up on Wednesday he can't find the boat. He calls Brian who also can't find the boat.

At this point they are no longer sharing the boat (seeing as neither of them can find a boat to share atm).

They share the boat but they can't find it.

They can't share a boat that they don't have. See above.

Your false dichotomy fallacy is noted and it seems to be a failure in logic you share with Into the Night. It's clear people can share something and then not be able to find it.

It's not a false dichotomy. You now need to answer the question of what boat they are sharing, seeing as neither of them can find said boat atm. They can't share something if they can't first find it.

I will never be able to match you for unintentional humor as you make claims that are clearly not supported. Such as your claim that you already provided evidence. Maybe Mike Lindell is one of your identities since he also claims to have evidence of that fraud but just never is quite able to present to anyone.

Your 'make believe' doesn't make evidence disappear, dude. It's still there.

 

[LurchAddams]

I own nowhere near that many pairs of socks.
I am not a candidate for Senate.

Funny

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No. Your claiming that no evidence has been presented even though my providing of said evidence is documented within several of my posts here on this forum is the problem here. You also cannot speak for others on this forum (you can only speak for yourself).


It's been provided directly to you (you've been quoted) several times over the past roughly couple years. You can also look at my posts from the end of 2020 and early 2021 and see the evidence for fraud that I have presented.

Really? Care to provide a link?

The mistakes are yours, not ours.

Are you speaking for all your socks, Sybil?

This part is fine.


At this point they are no longer sharing the boat (seeing as neither of them can find a boat to share atm).


They can't share a boat that they don't have. See above.


It's not a false dichotomy. You now need to answer the question of what boat they are sharing, seeing as neither of them can find said boat atm. They can't share something if they can't first find it.

Did the boat cease to exist? They still share it. They just can't find it. Will they sharing stop if the boat is found? If neither of them are using the boat do they still share it?

But congratulations, you have just proven that according to your logic, you have not shared your evidence with anyone. Since your evidence is not here then you have not shared it.

 

[Into the Night]

I really don't know what motivates you. Psych is a hobby for me - I figure the reason you do what you just did - it's some kind of compulsion you can't control? I really would like to know. I'm serious.

Psychoquackery. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Then why do politicians care so much about them? trump was watching them daily. He called them, "ratings", don't you remember?

So what gets you out of bed, seriously. Do you wake up each day - or I guess in your case - you climb out of your coffin - and say, "how useless and irritating can I be today"?

I'm seriously asking. What makes you happy? Have you ever experienced joy? You should try it, it's pretty cool.

Polls don't mean anything, dumbass. Discard of mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Your claiming you gave evidence when no one has ever seen that evidence is the problem here gfm.

You have. You are lying. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You simply refuse to provide evidence by claiming you already gave it

He did. So have I. So have others. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

but never directing anyone to where

Nonsense. Try English. It works better.

And yet you use the exact same obscure words and phrases as other posters here.

You are describing yourself and Dutch. In my opinion you two are socks.

That leads to a conclusion that you are the same person.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and your other account(s).

ROFLMAO... How 2 people can make the same mistakes over and over when it comes to logic, science, mathematics, history, and economics and then claim they accept those things is pretty funny.

No. I think it's pretty sad. Why do you keep doing this?

And you claim to accept logic? Here is an example. Joe and Brian share a boat. Joe uses it Monday and Wednesday. Brian uses it Tuesday and Thursday. When Joe shows up on Wednesday he can't find the boat. He calls Brian who also can't find the boat. They share the boat but they can't find it. Your false dichotomy fallacy is noted and it seems to be a failure in logic you share with Into the Night. It's clear people can share something and then not be able to find it.

Not logic. Contrivance. Incomplete argument. Attempted proof by false equivalence.

I will never be able to match you for unintentional humor as you make claims that are clearly not supported. Such as your claim that you already provided evidence. Maybe Mike Lindell is one of your identities since he also claims to have evidence of that fraud but just never is quite able to present to anyone.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You can't make the evidence of election fraud by Democrats disappear by pivoting, semantics fallacies, or insults. You can't make people's judgement of that evidence disappear either.

 

[Into the Night]

I own nowhere near that many pairs of socks.
I am not a candidate for Senate.

I'm not so sure Lurch is a sock. He's more like a runty wannabe gang member. He thinks the 'cool people' are Dutch's socks.

 

[Into the Night]

https://www.gramlee.com/blog/indefinite-articles-a-or-an-before-h-blame-the-confusion-on-the-french/


"They" refers back to "posters."

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, you might want to understand grammar.


RQAA

Inversion fallacy. Attempted justification of illiteracy. Mockery. Redefinition fallacy (RQAA<->void).

 

[Into the Night]

Really? Care to provide a link?

RQAA.

Are you speaking for all your socks, Sybil?

Sybil isn't here. No can talk to your hallucination for you.

Did the boat cease to exist?

Unknown.

They still share it.

Not possible. You can't share what you don't have.

They just can't find it.

You already said this.

Will they sharing stop if the boat is found? If neither of them are using the boat do they still share it?

RQAA

But congratulations, you have just proven that according to your logic, you have not shared your evidence with anyone. Since your evidence is not here then you have not shared it.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

 

[gfm7175]

https://www.gramlee.com/blog/indefinite-articles-a-or-an-before-h-blame-the-confusion-on-the-french/

Your link supports what I said.

"They" refers back to "posters."

Whoops. You're correct on this one. I must've misread what you said. Yet, you've only ever mentioned a singular poster (ITN) so far... Who are these "posters" that you're speaking of?

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, you might want to understand grammar.

In the first instance, your own link supports me. In the 2nd instance, I misread what you said so I retract my claim of error (there is no error there).

RQAA

That is something that ITN came up with and I have chosen to make use of. Its meaning has already been explained to you.

 

[gfm7175]

Really? Care to provide a link?

I've already told you where to look. I'm not going to do your homework for you..

Are you speaking for all your socks, Sybil?

I was referring to both ITN and I, since you lumped us together. Pay attention.

Did the boat cease to exist?

Idk... did it? They can't find it atm, remember? They have no idea what happened to it. It is no longer in their possession.

They still share it.

No they don't. They can't share something that isn't in their possession.

They just can't find it.

Right, so they can't share it since they don't have it in their possession TO share.

Will they sharing stop if the boat is found?

The sharing has already stopped since the boat is no longer in their possession.

If neither of them are using the boat do they still share it?

Irrelevant. They have already ceased sharing the boat because the boat is no longer in their possession.

But congratulations, you have just proven that according to your logic,

Logic is not mine; I don't own it.

you have not shared your evidence with anyone.

Yes, I have.

Since your evidence is not here

Yes, it is here. I have already told you where you can find it. I have also already provided it to you in the past.

then you have not shared it.

I have already shared it with you and others on this forum (and whoever has happened to read my posts on this forum). It is still a part of this forum if you would go through my post history.

 

[gfm7175]

You are not as smart as you think you are, Richard...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've already told you where to look. I'm not going to do your homework for you..


I was referring to both ITN and I, since you lumped us together. Pay attention.

Idk... did it? They can't find it atm, remember? They have no idea what happened to it. It is no longer in their possession.


No they don't. They can't share something that isn't in their possession.

I guess you can't share the evidence then. Does that mean you lied when you said you provided it?

Right, so they can't share it since they don't have it in their possession TO share.

So if you don't have the actual evidence then you can't share it?

The sharing has already stopped since the boat is no longer in their possession.

No. It hasn't stopped. At this point they share a missing boat. Unless you want to argue that someone can't share something unless they actually possess it physically.

Irrelevant. They have already ceased sharing the boat because the boat is no longer in their possession.

So if the boat is recovered then they no longer share it? That is a rather ridiculous claim.

Logic is not mine; I don't own it.

I agree. You don't have any logic.

Yes, I have.

Are you sure? Because clearly you can't share something you don't have according to you.

Yes, it is here. I have already told you where you can find it. I have also already provided it to you in the past.

So your evidence is missing like the boat. OK.

I have already shared it with you and others on this forum (and whoever has happened to read my posts on this forum). It is still a part of this forum if you would go through my post history.

How can you share something you don't have?