quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

im not going to show one single quote

I know.

Nor will you cite a text or do anything to progress the argument.  Otherwise you would have likely done all that ages ago.  Putting an arbitrary requirement "If you do X I'll do Y" is just a transparent lie and one that you have already tried.

until you answer that question

Then you have disproved your argument.  If the point was "Reading textbooks alone can demonstrate that X is true" clearly your position is false.  Since being part of your imaginary soap opera is not reading a textbook.  QED.

Glad that you have finally come clean about that.

Also is there a reason you are barely able to write English? or is this just a way to keep your troll-account separate from your other less trollish accounts?

[profitis]

except it was you who requested a 'series of inescapable steps to force a conclusion' @sarkeizen.clearly you are either unwilling or incapable of reaching a consensus for step 1.step 1 is crucial for determining your competency for the next few steps @sarkeizen.your stubborn refusal to answer my question sheds more light on your incompetency than if you had just answered 'no' and then stood your ground.congratulations,you bailed out of your own argument @sarkeizen.saves me the hassle. And now you want to be my english teacher as compensation for your inability to be a good science student?pah!

[sarkeizen]

except it was you who requested a 'series of inescapable steps to force a conclusion'

And which you haven't provided.

If you read carefully, which you didn't.  What is being said is that *IF* you cannot provide a textbook cite which clearly forces your conclusion.  Then you need to provide a textbook cite and a series of steps to force your conclusion from there.  Anything else is you just making things up.

@sarkeizen.clearly you are either unwilling or incapable of reaching a consensus for step 1

If consensus is required then your step does not force anything.  So according to you I showed that "Step 1" can not force any conclusion that makes your point.  If I can come up with some other outcome from "step 1" then it isn't an "inescapable step" now is it?  QED.
So thanks for admitting that you lost the argument.

And now you want to be my english teacher as compensation for your inability to be a good science student?pah!

No I just said that you kind of suck terribly at English.  Is it deliberate?  Seems like it.

[profitis]

no you showed that step 1 forced a major ginormous conclusion @sarkeizen.you showed that you are de facto totaly incompetent to stand trial in this karpen case.i asked a question that 99.9% of the scientist population groups would give the thumbs-up for.tell you what,go and phone or email your local varsity science department and ask them if my question is logic @sarkeizen.i,l wait here for your 1)answer and 2)explanation.since you want to be the expert on formatting logic,we wait for your reply from the mouths of the real mcoy...

[sarkeizen]

l wait here for your 1)answer and 2)explanation

The answer is, it can be shown that it doesn't force YOUR conclusion.  If it did, then no other outcome would be possible.  However it *is* possible to have a different outcome than the one you want.  Hence the next "step" is not *forced*.  QED.

Do you not know what "forced" means?  Do you not realize how your step 1 does not force your conclusion?

.since you want to be the expert on formatting logic,we wait for your reply from the mouths of the real mcoy...

So seriously is the crappy English deliberate?  It seems like it is.