Are fireworks too dangerous to use?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Again, this thread. When I answered your question by asking if you understood what "largely" meant...

Which means that I claimed it meant "all"?

You just missed the reference in the OP to extreme dryness, didn't you?

No, my claim was that I didn't use law until you mentioned ban.

It was? Better check post 44. BTW, you spelled "use" incorrectly in that post.

Nope.

Yep.

I know you've had problems with comprehension before... Did you try to comprehend it?

You've claimed I've had problems with comprehension before. Have you ever proven it?

hmm... You ignore the question and try to distract... Does this mean you are incapable of providing any evidence to the contrary?

You claimed that your "proof" in in this thread. Where?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So since we agree that the OP was mostly about injuuries, we agree on everything? lol And you talk about Damo dancing?

It was mostly about injuries. It's also about danger from dryness.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Sometimes. Other times I just answer his questions with questions. It usually shuts him up pretty quickly. However here it is a conversation of ideas. Should we ban something because it is dangerous to the user? I say "no" and stated why. Should we ban something because it puts others in danger? I say "sometimes" and stated why.

As it happens, I agree.

We're just clearing up a few details.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It was mostly about injuries. It's also about danger from dryness.

The fire hazard was mentioned at the end, yes.

But I have not discussed any laws. So you'll have to continue talking with Damo about that.

 

[Damocles]

Which means that I claimed it meant "all"?

You just missed the reference in the OP to extreme dryness, didn't you?

Since it is the only line that isn't about injuries, yes you inferred that I said "all"... I pointed out to you the difference between your inference and what I said. It usually takes stating something more than twice before you get it, but you almost got it on that second shot, you only made me point it out a couple more times... Good job!

It was? Better check post 44. BTW, you spelled "use" incorrectly in that post.

Ah... k. I made no claim. I spoke of "such words" in post 44... So let me cement it clearly here for you. I didn't use "law" until you mentioned "ban" then I directly referenced the context...

I wouldn't claim I hadn't used "ban" as I had asked somebody if they wanted to ban cars based on the same logical progression they used to support a ban of fireworks. It is why you used "ban" in the next post, which I quoted and answered.

Yep.

k

You've claimed I've had problems with comprehension before. Have you ever proven it?

Several times in this thread alone.

You claimed that your "proof" in in this thread. Where?

So you try the same tactic and avoid the question, can you in fact provide any evidence to the contrary or do you through inference apparent in avoiding the question accept the evidence or proof provided in this thread?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The fire hazard was mentioned at the end, yes. But I have not discussed any laws. So you'll have to continue talking with Damo about that.

That's cold. I thought you and he danced to the same tune.

 

[Damocles]

As it happens, I agree.

We're just clearing up a few details.

If such is the case then we are wasting time.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Since it is the only line that isn't about injuries, yes you inferred that I said "all"... I pointed out to you the difference between your inference and what I said. It usually takes stating something more than twice before you get it, but you almost got it on that second shot, you only made me point it out a couple more times... Good job!

So your perception of an "inference" is to blame?

Ah... k. I made no claim. I spoke of "such words"... So let me cement it. I didn't use "law" until you mentioned "ban" then I directly referenced the context...

LOL. Context.

So you try the same tactic and avoid the question, can you in fact provide any evidence to the contrary or do you through inference apparent in avoiding the question accept the evidence or proof provided in this thread?

Can you cite this "proof", or not?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

That's cold. I thought you and he danced to the same tune.

Cold? No, it is accurate. Perhaps you should try and focus so you can remember which discussion is with whom.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If such is the case then we are wasting time.

I don't think so. I enjoy our interactions. If you'd rather not continue, say so.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Cold? No, it is accurate. Perhaps you should try and focus so you can remember which discussion is with whom.

So you didn't say you and he dance to the same tune?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So you didn't say you and he dance to the same tune?

This is nonsense. Damo and I agree on something so you now think we must agree on everything?

Seems to me that you are the one dancing now. It becomes more about the people posting and less about the topic itself.

 

[Damocles]

So your perception of an "inference" is to blame?

It isn't a perception, it was what was inferred. (BTW - a quick grammar lesson. If you are speaking of another (you) use infer, if you are speaking of yourself (I) use imply.

LOL. Context.

yes, context. I spoke of your previous thread... Then you had many questions about the meaning of my post, causing me to rewrite it several times before you could actually comprehend what I said. At that point you usually start talking about dancing shoes.

Can you cite this "proof", or not?

Again you avoid the question. I have stated it several times, this thread is itself enough proof. (What did I prove here again? )

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

This is nonsense. Damo and I agree on something so you now think we must agree on everything? Seems to me that you are the one dancing now. It becomes more about the people posting and less about the topic itself.

So you didn't say that you guess that you and he dance to the same tune?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It isn't a perception, it was what was inferred. (BTW - a quick grammar lesson. If you are speaking of another (you) use infer, if you are speaking of yourself (I) use imply.

It wasn't my intention to infer or imply it. In fact, I am not the author of the excerpt quoted in the OP, am I? Maybe your perceptions are the issue.

yes, context. I spoke of your previous thread... Then you had many questions about the meaning of my post, causing me to rewrite it several times before you could actually comprehend what I said. At that point you usually start talking about dancing shoes.

LOL, was that inferred? Or implied?

Again you avoid the question. I have stated it several times, this thread is itself enough proof. (What did I prove here again? )

If the proof is in this thread, why can't you cite it?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So you didn't say that you guess that you and he dance to the same tune?

I did say we danced to the same tune. I didn't say we were identical dancers.

 

[Damocles]

It wasn't my intention to infer or imply it. In fact, I am not the author of the excerpt quoted in the OP, am I? Maybe your perceptions are the issue.



LOL, was that inferred? Or implied?



If the proof is in this thread, why can't you cite it?

I've already linked to this thread in this thread... why do you want me to do that again?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I did say we danced to the same tune. I didn't say we were identical dancers.

Who implied that you were?

What led you to infer such a thing?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I've already linked to this thread in this thread... why do you want me to do that again?

So you linked to a thread that apparently doesn't contain the proof you claimed it does, and that - in your mind - constitutes proof?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Who implied that you were?

What led you to infer such a thing?

You seem to think that Damo and I must agree on everything if we dance to the same tune.