Slarti

That's because he doesn't care that he believes false things.

There is now. [emoji38]

There obviously is a yes or no answer. You either did or you didn't. As I expected, you avoid answering the question as you would either have to admit you were wrong (a yes) or obviously lie (a no). I am not going to "claim victory" as that isn't important to me (even though you will claim that it "obviously is") but, irrespective of that, you lose. Not to me, but in front of everyone else on the forum as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in what is right or wrong, you are just interested in putting your opinion out as the right opinion, irrespective of the supporting evidence - you're basically a very bad spin doctor. Your logic has been shown to be invalid, your arguments unsound and your command of basic English to be flawed. I really should have known better to expect that you would have matured any in the four/five months since you were put on ignore. I never "announced the ignore function", I just told you the ramifications of, once again, failing to answer a simple question. Before your flawed logic comes out again, I had to read your post to know that you never answered the question and I put you on ignore before posting this.

Well, a lot of them definitely are.

You know what, I could get into all this with answers but I would just be repeating myself again and I'm sure that others will be bored with it all. Just answer one question. I expect you will obfuscate and try to avoid answering but, here goes: Did you make a statement that, at the time of making it, you were unable to demonstrate the truth of and claim that statement as fact? You either did or you didn't. No semantics or pedantry. A simple yes or no. No expansion required. As I said, I expect you to avoid answering. This would not be you getting into the semantics of the use of a word as I specifically have said that no expansion on a yes or no answer is required. If you do so however, I will put you on ignore and you will miss out on "this part of BAWA that [you] enjoy" (your words, not mine) and will need to find someone else to start a needless trivial debate with.

Nobody would ever say that about mulch, you crazy person, you. [emoji38] What we really need is a new Paranoid f**ker Bill for those that think everyone has a vendetta against them.

Don't know where your quote comes from but it says "should", not must.

Leave me out of it.

Oops. [emoji38]

I would expect us to lose, so we should try and keep this rescheduled game to as late as possible so that, if the season is curtailed again before we play it, our points per game is higher.

Hence my assumption.

No

I'll assume you're just being silly.

Ya big girl. [emoji38]

The Fergus?

That's not today - there's no cones "managing" the traffic to the entrance to the recycling centre. [emoji38]

So now you know what my aim was without me saying so? You a mind reader now? My aim was to see the information you used to ascertain your "facts", nothing more. You not being willing to provide that information is what has led this thread into a (mainly) pile of shit. Thanks for that, by the way. So we can proceed by knowing that when you say "fact" you mean "your view" then. Cool, let's get on with it then - what exactly is the point of the dice example supposed to be? You never previously said the event was in the past, are you changing the goalposts now? I'm not being pedantic, your example is flawed. For your past dice example to be anywhere near accurate you would need to not know if any sixes had come up in the 10,000 throws for it to be in any way analogous to lockdown saving lives. What you don't seem to get is that I would assume, before the event, that at least one six would come up in 10,000 throws, I would even put money on it, but it would still be a gamble, I could still lose. That is why it isn't a fact. Unless the dice had ::: on all sides (and discounting it landing on its edge) there is NO guarantee that a six will come up in any amount if throws - pick any number you want, it makes no difference, in that amount of throws there is NO guarantee of a six. I am also assuming that you are talking about fair dice, from a mathematical viewpoint. You do know that a fact has to be demonstrable, don't you? Something can be true, but it is only a fact if you can demonstrate it, e.g. via observation or experiment. "Fact" is not a synonym for "true". It is only a fact if it can be shown to be true. For example, if there is life on another planet then it is true that there is extra terrestrial life, but it's only a fact when it is shown to exist, until then, it is still true but not a fact. As I previously said, it may turn out that you are correct but that doesn't mean that what you are saying can be regarded as a fact at this time. I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by lockdown has saved more than zero lives. Do you mean that there is at least one person alive that would have contracted and died due to the virus if not for lockdown, or do you mean that, in total, there are more people alive than there would have been if there hadn't been a lockdown?

Almost right. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-53696936/beirut-explosion-video-of-church-altar-s-survival-brings-hope

That depends on what you consider a language and what you consider a dialect.

I don't care about what someone's personal choice of pronoun is either, I'll still call them he or she as I see it, same with Sevco, even if they want to be called Rangers, even if "those in authority" tell me different. Just my opinion, I'm not trying to force anyone to comply but I may point out their mistake now and again.

They well known fascists? [emoji38]

On this matter, I am 100% in agreement with Antrin, and here's why (just my tuppence worth): When Rangers (the company) went into administration, Rangers (the club) accepted the points deduction without any "different entities" talk. To me, this amounts to an acceptance that they were one and the same thing. The only time the "different entities" stuff came up was when they were looking for an excuse that their club wasn't dead. The new company were transfered the "share" in the SPL/League that the old company held and bought the ground etc from the old company. The club wasn't exactly sold as a going concern, i.e. a business that is operating and making a profit. Just because a team called Rangers was allowed in (bypassing other more deserving teams who had been adhering to the rules for years waiting to get in) is irrelevant to the matter. Whether the SPL/League/SFA/SPFL/UEFA/FIFA agree(d) or not, IMO, this is a different club. Just because someone else says that something is the case, it doesn't mean that I have to accept that their opinion is correct. Airdrie Utd/Airdrieonians only started claiming the old Airdrieonians history after Rangers/Sevco got away with what they did. IMO, it's made a total mockery of our national game. Let's face it, if it hadn't been one of the two arsecheeks, there wouldn't be any argument about whether or not they were dead, they would just be dead.

Ah, you see, it wasn't pointless. [emoji38]