|
Post by Arachis on Feb 9, 2005 21:00:34 GMT -5
and when do children use sticks?
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Feb 9, 2005 21:20:47 GMT -5
When do children use sticks? When they're poking each other's eyes out of course. It's not even close to as bad as those old people though, running around, impaling each other, sawing pidgeons in half...oh wait, wrong thread.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 9, 2005 22:07:27 GMT -5
its a welll known fact that sticks are most often used by people between the ages of 40-140, and that the percentage of time of day using a stick increases as the age does. Can you give me hard evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 10, 2005 0:13:35 GMT -5
www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=101330&pageno=3looking at the various titles one realizes that each one refers to a kind of aged person. There is no definitive survey of the matter that I could find. Plus, I would appreciate it if you stopped Filibustering. Your arguing over a point that is common knowledge. If you truly believe that younger people are more inclined to use sticks than older people, you prove it to me, as it is more common for me to see someone old using one than someone young using one.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 10, 2005 0:53:47 GMT -5
Your evidence is lackluster at best; the link you gave me points to a single title with a specific focus on walking sticks and their users.
Because my arguements in no way resemble the dictionary definition of a "filibuster", I take your statement as a bleak example of evasion. It might be common knowledge that sticks are used by seniorites, but not that said seniorites are their primary users.
If you search Google Images for "stick", you will not find as many photographs of senior citizens as you will of younger users.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 10, 2005 1:07:08 GMT -5
thats a bad reason. How many old people do you know who post pictures on the internet?
also, the dictionaries defenition doesnt reflect its use, and what you were doing was filibustering. You were trying to stall the necessary conclusion by making me prove trivial details that were obvious. In essence stalling is the same as filibustering.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 10, 2005 1:21:53 GMT -5
In that case, we are equal, for neither one of us can prove our reasons.
Ah, but you are so blatantly incorrect! The dictionary, if you may recall, appeared many years AFTER language was developed; its function was that of a reference tome, not a rulebook. Modern dictionaries adhere to this spirit with almost daily revisions, especially visible in online publications! But I digress...
Although what you describe is indeed a filibuster, your justification of applying the term to my statements is utterly false. I have indeed been "stall[ing] the necessary conclusion" (as any proper counter-arguement should), but the details you imply are far from "obvious". To date, you have failed to unearth proper evidence for your claims, making this supposedly blatant phenomenon you describe suspiciously invisible. Please back your statements up or desist now with your honour still intact.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 10, 2005 1:56:40 GMT -5
Will you not stop this foolish and pointless argument? You are trying to have me prove that mercury is colored silver. Its obvious that I am in the right, but without actually procuring mercury, it is near impossible to prove my point. In the same way, its obvious that older people are more inclined to use sticks than younger people and your affirming to the contrary is simply being obstinate in order to forego the rest of the statement. Next time you should have me prove that sticks in fact exist, and stall even longer. Just accept the consequences and give up on a futile argument that only aggravates me and other readers.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 10, 2005 2:33:56 GMT -5
You are trying to have me prove that mercury is colored silver. Its obvious that I am in the right, but without actually procuring mercury, it is near impossible to prove my point. Ah, but one can always obtain a photograph! Your arguement does not follow the same curves as your comparison. How exactly is your proposed precentile obvious? Are we taught in school that senior citizens use sticks more than children do? Or is it, perhaps, a process of subconscious counting that you describe? If your statement is indeed "obvious", then put it to test: ask at least 10 objective people whether they are aware of your hypothesis and check their answers against yours! Keep in mind that your declination (probably along the lines of "I will not resort to so foolish a level in order to prove something so blatantly obvious! You're wasting my time!") will only further disintegrate your claims. Save your hopes; they work not against me. No debate functions properly without valid evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 10, 2005 2:49:11 GMT -5
What you guys are doing is called making soup out of an axe.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 10, 2005 2:51:12 GMT -5
Is that a Russian expression, by any chance?
Unless Arachis has gone utterly mad, I do believe this debate is not as serious as we make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 10, 2005 9:39:24 GMT -5
Ok, Ill ask 10 random people, and you will see. Most of them will say that older people use sticks more than younger people.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 10, 2005 19:28:58 GMT -5
It'll probably depend on how deceptively you formulate your question. But let's wait and see...
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Feb 11, 2005 4:39:00 GMT -5
He wasn't before?
"I'm mad, you're mad, we're all mad here..." -Alice in Wonderland (not sure if it was the Cheschire Cat or the Mad Hatter)
Do pencils count as sticks? (sows more dischord...)
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 11, 2005 9:41:54 GMT -5
nope
|
|