Intresting read about Live Aid Multitracks

@Thomad Quinn, where is the non sequitur you clown? Are you going to point it out to me, or are you going to finally concede that you're an intellectually deficient schmuck who is only intersted in winning his intellectually dishonest arguments instead of learning the truth?

Non sequitur, literally "[it] does not follow", a conclusion or reply that does not follow logically from the previous statement. For instance, your 'conclusion' "Stop consuming Brian's bullshit" as a reply to the statement that you cannot say for certain that you know a given thing did not happen if you don't have any evidence for it not having happened.

It strikes me that there is a direct connection between the amount of profanity you spew and the degree to which you left without a leg to stand on in a discussion. Lashing out wildly when challenged is another symptom of what is quickly starting to look a whole lot like narcissistic personality disorder on your part. You might want to have that looked into in the future.

Are we really still talking about nobodies/trolls!? This is seriously so fucking ridiculous! EVERYONE just ignore them! The more you talk to these idiots the more they will keep opening their mouths with bullshit that no one cares about!

Thomas Quinn you intellectually dishonest halfwit, what does a non sequitur have to do with absolute certainty? Neither does intellectual honesty have anything to do with absolute certainty.

For a statement to be intellectually honest it just has to be the most likely conclusion given the available evidence. If your conclusion is not the most likely given the available evidence then you are intellectually dishonest.

If I kick my friend in the balls and he doesn't like it, and then I kick my other 2 friends in the balls and they don't like it, I can safely conclude that Freddie Mercury wouldn't like it if I kicked him in the balls. That is the most likely conclusion based on the evidence and it is not a non sequitur. And to claim the opposite would be intellectually dishonest, no absolute certainty needed.

In fact, science is based on exactly this kind of reasoning and methodology. So why did you accuse me of making non sequiturs and of being intellectually dishonest you clown, other than to confuse, obfuscate and win your intellectually dishonest argument?

[QUOTE] [b]Freddie Jupiter wrote:[/b]If I kick my friend in the balls and he doesn't like it, and then I kick my other 2 friends in the balls and they don't like it, I can safely conclude that Freddie Mercury wouldn't like it if I kicked him in the balls. [/QUOTE]

has someone kicked you (very hard) in the balls? because you talk like you've had a brain trauma.

Brenski you half-wit, either point out the non sequitur that your intellectually dishonest, fascist friend Thomas Quinn accused me of making, or piss off and stop being an intellectually deficient, intellectually dishonest prick.

[QUOTE] [b]Freddie Jupiter wrote:[/b]Brenski you half-wit, either point out the non sequitur that your intellectually dishonest, fascist friend Thomas Quinn accused me of making, or piss off and stop being an intellectually deficient, intellectually dishonest prick.
[/QUOTE]

so make up your mind, Mr Jupiter. do you want to be Gerry or Mr Weckwerth?
because one minute you behave exactly like Gerry, and the next you could be runner_70's identical twin.

I don't give a shit who you think I am because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Either point out the non sequitur your fascist friend Thomas Quinn accused me of making, or concede that you're an intellectually deficient, intellectually dishonest idiot.

Those are your only options. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because you accuse me of being Gerry. Besides, I've opened a thread for that you ass, so use it. Or is that too hard for you?

[QUOTE] [b]Freddie Jupiter wrote:[/b]I don't give a shit who you think I am because it's irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

wrong again. it's 100% relevant to the discussion. it goes toward arming us with the knowledge as to which of your many *characters* we're dealing with on any given day.

Wrong! It's completely irrelevant. Finally learn what an ad hominem is and stop making a jackass out of yourself, you jackass.

It really isn't that difficult a concert to grasp. In fact, even a primary school student with an average IQ is able to grasp what an ad hominem is, so I really don't understand why you're having so much difficulty with it. Unless of course you're an intellectually deficient moron. Are you an intellectually deficient moron?

So 1) you don't know what a non sequitur is 2) you don't know what fascism means 3) you don't know what intellectual integrity means 4) your epistemology skills are frankly terrible.

@ Thomas Quinn, quit stalling already. Point out my non sequitur or concede that you're an intellectually deficient, intellectually dishonest clown.

Perhaps you should re-read my second to last post, as I already did. No amount of self-obsessed chest thumping on your part is going to change anything.

Also, you should realize that your own high opinion of yourself is not widely shared. Therefore, you shouldn't expect your half-witted attempts at orders to be obeyed.

There is no chest thumping at all. I'm just really curious as to why you guys are prepared to talk about everything under the sun, except the issue at the centre of the argument, which is your accusation that I was intellectually dishonest and that I employed a non sequitur, and your subsequent failure to point those out, as requested.

Could it be that your failure to point those out is due to the fact that you dug yourself into a hole by being intellectually dishonest? I think yes.

Again, I already pointed it out. If you're too stupid to be able to re-read earlier posts, I'll spell it out for you - you claimed that a certain scene in the biopic did not happen. I stated that you cannot know whether or not it happened because you have no evidence one way or the other (basic epistemology), to which you replied by accusing me of the "swallowing of Brian's bullshit wholesale.", which does not in any way follow from what I wrote, making it a non sequitur. It really isn't that difficult.

I'd like to point out the hysterical irony of you saying "your accusation that I was intellectually dishonest", when you are seemingly incapable of writing a single post without accusing people of "intellectual dishonesty", the two most frequently used words in your vocabulary. Interestingly, the way in which you use the term strongly suggests that you have a very deficient grasp of its meaning. Similar to how you are incapable of understanding the basics of epistemology.