Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
That was complex? I guess if you operate at a 5th grade level that might be considered complex.
|
Jealous that he's operating at a couple grade levels beyond you?
j/k
Quote:
|
You've demonstrate that you are beyond that level, and yet you think that was complex?
|
He made an effort to link together several issues and concepts, which is beyond most of the efforts in this thread. He actually touched on base motivations and outcomes. That displays that he at least thought through why he believes what he believes. That is greater than the snide comments and admission of swallowing the official story because it was presented first and with most authority. I give him marks for his effort.
Quote:
|
And he didn't get hammered for his initial post, he got hammered because he took the 'I'll take my ball and go home' approach when his 'complex' theory was exposed for exactly what it was. Flabbibulin ripped it to shreds and rather than counter he gave up, and was rightly mocked for the manner in which he did so.
|
I thought Flabbibulin's post was trite and insulting, making juvenile leaps of logic meant to belittle the poster in question. He completely failed to acknowledge the differences in the situations or the scales of magnitude. His predicament was a result of having mandatory insurance, while the WTC situation was a matter of an owner including a multiplier clause in the event of a terrorist attack. In one instance we're talking about having his sh*tbox replaced and the other reaping billions of dollars. I didn't see that as an argument of the posters logic, but a shot at it instead. I've yet to see anyone bother to actually discuss the issue the poster raised, that being the wind fall for many of those who had a vested interest in many related interests.