It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fight Club Pub.

page: 561
40
<< 558  559  560    562  563  564 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 




Sky? You look good in drag!




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Question for everyone's opinion:

Is private 'clarification' from a debate moderator something that should be given any weight in a debate?

It seems rather unfair, especially when introduced mid-debate to undermine an argument an opponent has already committed to.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Was I not suppose to post my response that fast???

...looks around innocently with no sarcasm or snarkiness whatsoever....




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
[edit on 3/9/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
Sky? You look good in drag!


I thought this was Sky in drag.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


I guess I think that once the debate topic is written, it's up to the debaters to decide what it means. Asking the moderator for clarification seems strange to me, and sort of beside the point. I don't think their opinion should have any more weight than anyone else you might ask for insight into a topic.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Is private 'clarification' from a debate moderator something that should be given any weight in a debate?


No and it has already been addressed.

From here on out, to effectively eliminate the misunderstandings and such, requests for clarification should be made publicly in the FCP.

Skeptic did indeed request clarification and I responded with a clarification of my intention...further stipulating that the contention of the term "internet" was to taken upon inside the debate.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a surreptitious changing of the topic without the explicit consent/agreement/comprehension of both Fighters.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Heike has agreed to skeptic1 redoing her first argument. Her post will be deleted shortly and the 24 hour deadline will be based on the timestamp of this post.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Hey FCP, good news on a few counts!

1. We do not have another lightening-speed Fighter on our hands.

2. We do have a sporting and generous one.

3. And a new, and truly, committed one

Long live the DF and FCP!!!

*pours tequila into one of the 'ammunition' shot-glasses, downs liquid and restores glass to an impromptu bandolier which is fashioned out of chewed through dog-leashes and repurposed Maker's labels*



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


It's all fixed now.

Sorry for any trouble or confusion.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
My opening is up. TheMythLives's brevity seems to be contagious; I think this is far and away my shortest debate post to date.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I think this is far and away my shortest debate post to date.


Are you feeling okay?
 

Skeptic1 - No worries...



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


reply to post by skeptic1
 



OMG

are you tow guys doing speed debate?


1 skyfloating = 2 skeppy?



 


good morning pub

i,ll take all the donuts heike doesn.t want




Originally posted by Ian McLean
Question for everyone's opinion:

Is private 'clarification' from a debate moderator something that should be given any weight in a debate?

It seems rather unfair, especially when introduced mid-debate to undermine an argument an opponent has already committed to.


my humble opinion:
no, i guess it is unfair as you mention it.
especially in the middle of the debate.
is looks as if "you" are not able to built up a case of your own


morning ian!


@skeppy
ok just see no skyfloating at all
next time



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Just got my opening statement up, take a gander!

Ian, you made a hell of an opening mate!

I enjoyed my last debate with Antar but that was really hard work in terms of researching Shakespeare. I think this will be a nice change of pace for me, as I already know the basics of the financial crisis.

Lets keep it rocking!


[edit on 10-3-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Well done, 44ss.


Yes, this one should be fun - there certainly is a wealth of information to draw upon, isn't there?


I shall now delve into my "New York Post" archives, and emerge victorious with my next reply.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by orange-light

ok just see no skyfloating at all



Reading and Enjoying almost all the Debates and even the inane chatter of the FCP. Just not saying anything. Its good Meditation practice.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


lol!

Truth be told, that was the only hack tabloid I could think of.
Probably coz I read about Spitzer's story in there...



[edit on 10-3-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Morning everyone.

Another beautiful day in the land of debate.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Another beautiful day in the land of debate.


Prove it!

SQ1: Can an imaginary land be considered objectively 'beautiful'?




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


hi sky good to see you


i was refering to the speed of posting!
but glad when it gets you away from behind your oven


 


morning guys


Originally posted by Ian McLean


SQ1: Can an imaginary land be considered objectively 'beautiful'?






since the land is imaginary it can be imaginary beautiful - in my own imagination!

and beauty is usually not objectively
it lays in the eyes of the beholder and therefore it is subjectively




SQ: prove that it is not beautiful at all!



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 558  559  560    562  563  564 >>

log in

join