And the topsoil swapper strikes again!
I just saw this posted on Fark.com. Just a little food for thought. linksys router
I just saw this posted on Fark.com. Just a little food for thought. linksys router
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bought a G5 and Got Two bags of topsoil
- Thread starter Pipian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
advres said:
damn funny - and see, pics help so much.
But whats puto? At first I was thinking some put a bunch of dog crap in the box
D
Well lets all first refer to P-P-P-Powerbook...
(Well hey, at least its funny)
Next...
It could be he was posting off a cell phone as his wife/mom was driving for some reason... Or it could be he packed the car, ran back in the house as I often do, had already posted on the forums, when he ran back he saw someone had replied so he replied but got misunderstood... Something like that.
Or maybe he couldnt goto the store and someone in the family had to go return it for him? Who knows.
(Well hey, at least its funny)
Next...
It could be he was posting off a cell phone as his wife/mom was driving for some reason... Or it could be he packed the car, ran back in the house as I often do, had already posted on the forums, when he ran back he saw someone had replied so he replied but got misunderstood... Something like that.
Or maybe he couldnt goto the store and someone in the family had to go return it for him? Who knows.
Kyle? said:Just for the fun of it, if the fate of the world rested on your logical capabilities, we'd all be doomed.
You've missed one key step in your process here, a premise correlating your behavior to the conclusion that this individual is not a scammer. Of course, you intended this as a given, but even so, your stated premise only deals with your likely behavior, not the individual in question, and so any correlation you would be able to draw is pure speculation, since your behavior has no effect on this individuals behavior. This is assuming you are not this individual in question, of course.
PS This is not a personal attack. Just having fun with your reply. :8
hahaha no problem...however, i must refute your claims
i never implied that my reasoning was correct reasoning. simply that it was reasoning. my premise was flawed, and my conclusion was derived from this flawed premise.
It was, however, reasoning. I have drawn a reasoning diagram proving this.
by the way, the only reason i'm bringing up all this crap is because i have a philosophy (logic and reasoning) test next week.
(and if anybody's wondering, yes. its very simple.)
