Are fireworks too dangerous to use?

[Canceled.2014.1]

If enjoying our discussions means I'm a "fan", then I guess I must concede that point.

TF and Blabo seem to have realized that Damo and yourself actually support bans on fireworks and have apparently fled the thread to avoid a circular firing squad.

By "fan" I mean repeatedly quoting me, and in this case using me as a portion of your argument.

TF and Bravo were, I believe, talking about bans on fireworks due to personal injuries. I support bans during times of serious danger of major fires.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So you dance to the same tune?

If you consider facts and truth to be tunes, I guess we do.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

By "fan" I mean repeatedly quoting me, and in this case using me as a portion of your argument. TF and Bravo were, I believe, talking about bans on fireworks due to personal injuries. I support bans during times of serious danger of major fires.

TF and Bravo were, I believe, talking about bans on fireworks.

 

[Damocles]

Yep. Because that's all I excerpted. You didn't read the linked opinion piece, did you?



Yep. It doesn't mean "all", in any context, does it?

It does mean "most" in every context.

Where is a "ban" mentioned in the OP?

Again, I didn't us such words until you did then I quoted the appropriate post to put it in proper context.

It seems to matter a great deal, according to what I see.

Then you are nearly blind.

I mentioned a law? Where?

In the post that stated that a governor supported a ban quoting my post referencing the first thread where the governor mentioned asked for laws to be passed to temporarily ban fireworks during high fire danger seasons... You attempt to remain ignorant of the context of your original post, the one that you drew quotes from users out of context to support a different type of ban...

What did say that could be construed as "promoting"?

When you stated in that post I quoted that somebody other than a republican governor (yourself) supported (incorrectly as pointed out clearly to you in this thread) the "same ban"...

Was there a law involved? Cite it.

Read your own previous thread.

Where in this thread is "law" mentioned, or "ban"? Except by yourself, of course.

It's been pointed out several times in this post alone as well as several more times in this thread. Read the post I quoted when I first used the word "law"... Are you incapable of short term memory?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If you consider facts and truth to be tunes, I guess we do.

So cite the "laws" your dancin' partner keeps talking about.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

TF and Bravo were, I believe, talking about bans on fireworks.

Indeed they were. But I also believe that they, like Damo and I, were addressing the idea of banning fireworks because of the injuries. Since that was obviously the main thrust of the OP. I doubt they were arguing that fireworks should be allowed during droughts and times of extreme fire hazards.

But, to make sure, you could go back through the other 2 threads you have started concerning the bans on fireworks and see if either of them posted in those.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

So cite the "laws" your dancin' partner keeps talking about.

Hmm, I don't believe I have mentioned laws at all.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It does mean "most" in every context. Again, I didn't us such words until you did then I quoted the appropriate post to put it in proper context.

But it doesn't mean "all" in any context.

Again, I didn't us such words until you did then I quoted the appropriate post to put it in proper context.

You didn't? Link up.

In the post that stated that a governor supported a ban quoting my post referencing the first thread where the governor mentioned asked for laws to be passed to temporarily ban fireworks during high fire danger seasons... You attempt to remain ignorant of the context of your original post, the one that you drew quotes from users out of context to support a different type of ban...

Is a "ban" mentioned in my OP?

...Read your own thread.

I have. Have you?

It's been pointed out several times in this post alone as well as several more times in this thread.

It's been claimed, not proven. So, can you prove it?

 

[Damocles]

So cite the "laws" your dancin' partner keeps talking about.

Here ya go...

Republican Governor Martinez sent a letter last week to municipal leaders around the state asking that they impose bans.

hint... government bans are set by laws.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Hmm, I don't believe I have mentioned laws at all.

Nor did you, but you guessed you and your partner dance to a tune called facts and truth, and the Dancin' Dalai mentioned laws.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Here ya go...hint... government bans are set by laws.

They are? Which laws did Governor Martinez sign?

 

[Damocles]

But it doesn't mean "all" in any context.

Yet you tried to say that I said "all"?

You didn't? Link up.

You want me to link to this thread? I'm sorry you can't find it...

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?42110-Are-fireworks-too-dangerous-to-use

Is a "ban" mentioned in my OP?

Did I say it was?

I have. Have you?

Have you? Link up... (note for the stupid, this is in reference to your wanting me to link to the thread earlier).

It's been claimed, not proven. So, can you prove it?

I have, in this thread several times, can you provide any supporting evidence opposing that proof?

 

[Damocles]

They are? Which laws did Governor Martinez sign?

Are you really this stupid? The post I quoted talked about supporting laws (bans)... Does your other thread talk about a governor supporting bans?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yet you tried to say that I said "all"?

When? Link up.

You want me to link to this thread? I'm sorry you can't find it...

Your claim was that I used "ban" in this thread before you did, wasn't it? See post 12.

Did I say it was?

Didn't you?

Have you?

I have.

I have, in this thread several times, can you provide any supporting evidence opposing that proof?

So post the proof. Here. Now.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Are you really this stupid? The post I quoted talked about supporting laws (bans)... Does your other thread talk about a governor supporting bans?

You might want to read the other OP and the linked article again. The governor supports a ban. The governor wants a law. Yet there is no law.

 

[Damocles]

When? Link up.

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

Your claim was that I used "ban" in this thread before you did, wasn't it? See post 12.

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

Didn't you?

Nope.

I have.

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

So post the proof. Here. Now.

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

 

[leaningright]

Damo, you have the patience of Job.

 

[Damocles]

You might want to read the other OP and the linked article again. The governor supports a ban. The governor wants a law. Yet there is no law.

Which I noted here. Your RCDD is showing again.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you have the patience of Job.

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.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Nor did you, but you guessed you and your partner dance to a tune called facts and truth, and the Dancin' Dalai mentioned laws.

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