Carlyboi:
argue with your dictionary

Lol ...

You've apparently dragged it down the path of:

"yahoo" is not "robbery" according to what MY dictionary defines robbery as; but it is "robbery" according to what YOUR dictionary defines robbery as.

Rather than go the route of checking which dictionary of these two is more authoritative (that I believe is laborious and unnecessary); I will rather make you see that while these two definitions have a difference (i.e. one says it involves use of threat of violence, the other doesn't), they in fact have a commonality, which is that they both agree that robbery is stealing.

1. Will you then agree with these dictionaries that yahoo is stealing?

2. Will you also then agree with several dictionaries that consider the words "steal" and "rob" to be synonyms?

TAO11:


Yes I cowed you into silence.

The sermon of excuses you gave for deciding to chicken out is unacceptable ...

oh really!i didnt get the memo lol!silence indeed!hahaha

Carlyboi:
oh really!i didnt get the memo lol!silence indeed!hahaha

Did you deliver a sermon of excuses stating why you needed to run away?

Yes!

What then are we not talking about?

TAO11:


Lol ...

You've apparently dragged it down the path of:

"yahoo" is not "robbery" according to what MY dictionary defines robbery as; but it is "robbery" according to what YOUR dictionary defines robbery as.

Rather than go the route of checking which dictionary of these two is more authoritative (that I believe is laborious and unnecessary); I will rather make you see that while these two definitions have a difference (i.e. one says it involves use of threat of violence, the other doesn't), they in fact have a commonality, which is that they both agree that robbery is stealing.

1. Will you then from agree with these dictionaries that yahoo is stealing?

2. Will you also then agree with several dictionaries that consider the words "steal" and "rob" to be synonyms?

synonyms doesn't mean the same thing they're similar...and it doesn't mean you can use words that are similar in meaning interchangeably while writing!rob mostly involve taking something with force whereas you can steal something without using force infact mostly stealing doesn't involve force at all...do you get it now?so your reasoning here is really flawed and illogical...

TAO11:


Did you deliver a sermon of excuses stating why you needed to run away?

Yes!

What then are we not talking about?

Run away!lol!if me saying I have better things to do with my time than engaging in meaningless arguments is running away!Then I'm sorry you still have a long way to go intellectually or maybe you're simply confused

Carlyboi:
synonyms doesn't mean the same thing they're similar...and it doesn't mean you can use words that are similar in meaning interchangeably while writing!rob mostly involve taking something with force whereas you can steal something without using force infact mostly stealing doesn't involve force at all...do you get it now?so your reasoning here is really flawed and illogical...

okay you agree that rob and steal are often used synonymously by many dictionaries.

But you didnt say anything about if you agree with these two dictionaries on their commong grounds, which is that they both agree that stealing is involved.

Will you then be willing to acknowledge that

yahoo is (at least) stealing?

but not prepared yet to admit it as robbery just for the sole reason that YOUR dictionary goes to add "threat of violence" while other dictionaries don't

TAO11:


And if you already know what "chickened out" meant, then congrats. But I will still ask why you allowed for the impression that you're encountering it for the first time.

He who is frustrated is he that complains and make excuse for why they want to run away at every opportunity they get to do so, and not he who has not done any of these.

You need to prove that I'm waffling and not merely to state it. Your task is not as simple as you think boy.

of course you're lil girl I can pick much sense in what you have been typing especially in your last 10 or more replies you seem to be clutching at straws if you ask me?prove do you mean stating it or pointing it out cos I did that so many times already!and she who is frustrated is the one that can't understand or accept the fact or is pained bout the reality that not everyone is interested in writing epistles or a continuous debate about an already trashed issue!what part of this topic is done and I'm done don't you understand...you're starting to come across like some infantile young adult who has not so much matured mentally!

TAO11:


okay you agree that rob and steal are often used synonymously by many dictionaries.

But you didnt say anything about if you agree with these two dictionaries on their commong grounds, which is that they both agree that stealing is involved.

Will you then be willing to acknowledge that

yahoo is (at least) stealing?

but not prepared yet to admit it as robbery just for the sole recause that YOUR dictionary goes to add threat of violence while other dictionaries don't

keep shifting the goal post young girl!you went from not equating yahoo with armed robbery to saying that it is simply robbery and I should admit now you're urging me to agree that yahoo is stealing and not really robbery anymore lol!you are so amusing babygirl but I give it to you you seem kinda intelligent tho but whether I agree or not is inconsequential cos from the onset I said yahoo shouldn't be equated with armed robbery which you won't let me drink water and drop cup over before you later said is robbery..i have always stated that cyberfraud is a criminal act and immoral and it is most obtaining money by false pretence so if you like calling it obtaining money by guile or trick or if it's stealing you wanna personally call it I'm less concerned bout that!and I wont still agree that it is stealing but all I have always maintained is that cyberfraud is not the same crime with armed robbery or robbery you can not equate them in whatever context!so since you have eaten your humble pie now!can I have some breathing space lol!

Carlyboi:
Run away!lol!if me saying I have better things to do with my time than engaging in meaningless arguments is running away!Then I'm sorry you still have a long way to go intellectually or maybe you're simply confused

You gave cheap excuses, and then left; well that is not running away actually, it is in fact wimping out.


Like you will openly admit it right?

Carlyboi:
Also when the op put op the post was armed robbery mentioned or just robbery if armed robbery was mentioned dont you think it's so illogical of you to equate cyberfaud and robbery in this particular context!its just like me saying fraud or financial fraud can be equated can be equated with armed robbery simply cos they cause pain to their victims and stealing money is involved...so hope you can easily spot your flaws so yahoo can't be equated with robbery,armed robbery in this context

Your "argument" for the most part here is gibberish and unintelligible, and I kid you not. May be you should be more explicit with what you intended.

As uncoordinated and gibberish as your argument is here, it is still important that I inform you that whether or not "yahoo" [sic] is robbery is not to be determined by the knowledge of the op.

To think we have to appeal to the knowledge (or opinion) of the op as opposed to formulating an independent argument is to have committed a fallacy known in argumentation as argumentum ab auctoritate.

Furthermore, I notice you are trying hard to equate the terms "fraud" and "financial fraud" as exactly one and the same thing. To do that you will need to show that the term "fraud" excludes non-financial gain (contrary to what I have shown), but you haven't done that.

Similarly, you are trying hard to equate the terms "robbery" and "armed robbery" as exactly one and the same thing. To do that you will have to go an extra mile to first explaining away the prefix "armed" that accompanies the word "armed robbery".

The word "armed" clearly shows the term "armed robbery" to be robbery of a specific kind; i.e., one involving the use of arms.

Even the definition of "robbery" that YOU provided from YOUR OWN dictionary makes no mention of possession of arms.

How then in your weird mind does "armed robbery" become exactly one and the same thing as "robbery".

One (armed robbery) obviously involves arms while the other doesn't (even according to YOUR dictionary, let alone mine). It still beats me why you don't see the obvious. You need the service of an ophthalmologist??

"yahoo" [sic] clearly involves stealing from others. So, "yahoo" [sic] is robbery (at least according to the meaning of robbery I have presented), but even if you don't want to trust my dictionary's definition of "robbery", you should at least trust the two dictionaries (mine and yours) when they both agree on the common ground that "robbery" involves stealing

Thus, "yahoo" [sic], (at least for the sake of back and forth) you will agree is stealing.

And I never at anytime during the course of this exchange equated "yahoo" [sic] with armed robbery. That is a straw man fallacy on your part there, you should do better.

Carlyboi:
of course you're lil girl I can pick much sense in what you have been typing especially in your last 10 or more replies you seem to be clutching at straws if you ask me?prove do you mean stating it or pointing it out cos I did that so many times already!and she who is frustrated is the one that can't understand or accept the fact or is pained bout the reality that not everyone is interested in writing epistles or a continuous debate about an already trashed issue!what part of this topic is done and I'm done don't you understand...you're starting to come across like some infantile young adult who has not so much matured mentally!

By prove I mean you should demonstrate or construct an argument leading to that statement by way of evidence or reason or both. Not just simply say or state it. It's not just to as simple as announcing it.

The definition of frustration you give here is superficial because it can go both ways. I can make similar claim against you if I want to. I only need to say you can't understand my argument or you just won't accept what is obvious.

But my definition which describes your cheap excuses of why you need to run away not only aptly captures your frustration, it also shows you to be confused as you have ran away (after giving "reason" as to why that is necessary) and returned more than on one occasion. But nothing similar to this can be said about me.

You also made recourse (more that twice) to hide your comments instead of quoting properly the way you've been doing before. And when challenged about that you gave a disjointed and disconnected response of not having much time.

How more frustrated and confused do you want to get if all these is not frustration?

Carlyboi:
keep shifting the goal post young girl!you went from not equating yahoo with armed robbery to saying that it is simply robbery and I should admit now you're urging me to agree that yahoo is stealing and not really robbery anymore lol!you are so amusing babygirl but I give it to you you seem kinda intelligent tho but whether I agree or not is inconsequential cos from the onset I said yahoo shouldn't be equated with armed robbery which you won't let me drink water and drop cup over before you later said is robbery..i have always stated that cyberfraud is a criminal act and immoral and it is most obtaining money by false pretence so if you like calling it obtaining money by guile or trick or if it's stealing you wanna personally call it I'm less concerned bout that!and I wont still agree that it is stealing but all I have always maintained is that cyberfraud is not the same crime with armed robbery or robbery you can not equate them in whatever context!so since you have eaten your humble pie now!can I have some breathing space lol!

You wrote: "you went from not equating yahoo with armed robbery to saying that it is simply robbery"

Can you please highlight my statement where I first equated "yahoo" [sic] with armed robbery?

"yahoo" [sic] is robbery as I have demonstrated, but for the sake of YOUR dictionary's definition of "robbery" which includes the phrase ("threat of violence" in addition to stating that it is "stealing" ) ", then you are necessarily obliged to admit that "yahoo" [sic] is at least stealing as it involves the crime of stealing from others through false pretense, thievery, etc.

Carlyboi:
You keep holding on to straws and you're not making any sense??One you can never make me feel inconsequential cos you're a Nobody?and nobody can!also you said I'm contemplating yahoo robbery in your words!where and when the only thing I said is if I ever go into yahoo...so I don't know if you 're dyslexic or hallucinating or maybe you're just deliberately making yourself befuddled!what has been involved in yahoo got to do with living in poverty...what sort fallacy is that...is just like saying all runs girls come from a poor background or all weed smokers are thugs or street urchins if you are smart enough you would know that a yahooboy doesn't necessarily have to come from a poor background and that's why I said you must be suffering from low self esteem to think everyone is living the people that you surround yourself with...further you said I compared you with Karl Marx!how?I said you're doing a poor job of imitating intelligent people and great thinkers...lol...i can't even rank you alongside okonjo iweala lol!so it's time to bring yourself back to earth from where my word must have taken you by erroneous assumption lol!when I said you were seeking attention or trying to score cheap points you said No!but now you have agreed with my position that Yahoo is not the same kind of crime with ritual killing and kidnapping so what's the meaningless tirade for?or maybe you didn't even check my posts on this topic before sheepishly engaging me?Your statement and my position is the same thing but you have beating yourself up over my words but you would eventually agree on the same position!I also stated that yahoo is crime and immoral but you can still equate with some of those heinous crimes!Then about your statements bout have I eaten today!you said you were mocking me but added literally how can you be joking and you added literally do you even know the meaning of literally??Smh!also you said I assumed we were in the same country by talking bout a date...i only suggested and besides what also makes you think?we can't be living in the same country!there is no way cos you haven't told me where you live and neither have I and unless you have checked my profile which you accused me of narcissism for then there is no erroneous assumption there and then...but asides the date thing I first mentioned you can engage me offline if you have got anything productive to talk bout do we need to be in the same country or city to do that too?if we assume you're even partially right bout the going on a date thing which I even said on a lighter note cos I don't even know what you look like and I don't do blind dates lol!then you where do you live really or something in a very condescending manner like you don't live on planet earth then you come back to say oh you don't mean to insult me with it after you have realized you goofed big time and also you said you don't intend to put me down by your statement that I saw Europe or North America as a big deal!who??it's You!young girl you're the One who said where I have been and who I have met you can't attain the same you're also the one asking a ridiculous question of where do I reside really!so it shows that where you live and where you have been to are the the things that give you that feeling of euphoria and a false sense of Superiority!anyways choose your words carefully babygirl so that they wont come back and bite you in the Ass and stop needless bragging and providing unsolicited information bout your life how good you think it Is it is a huge turn off and makes you look shallow more of an empty barrel which makes too much noise!let your works speak for You and also dont brag bout phantom achievement and accomplishment to someone you know jack bout on a faceless forum!that very posh you may think you have might just be like living in the gutter to Them!ok!

I had promised to sift out your hidden comments, the following is my reply to one of those two hidden comment of yours:

You wrote: “One you can never make me feel inconsequential cos you're a Nobody?and nobody can”

Why does this gibberish sound like you’re already feeling inconsequential? Just asking tho!


You continued: “also you said I'm contemplating yahoo robbery in your words!where and when the only thing I said is if I ever go into yahoo ...”

Why were you scared to quote the whole thing? Why did you have to introduce ellipses to the part of the statement that gave the context?

The full statement is to the following effect: If I go into yahoo today, I won’t wear it like a badge

This is the context, and it shows that you could imagine and entertain the possibility (i.e. Maybe or maybe not). This was what I meant when I stated that your statement here is not the same thing as planning but rather characterizes indecision or contemplation.


You wrote: “what has been involved in yahoo got to do with living in poverty ... what sort fallacy is that...is just like saying all runs girls come from a poor background or all weed smokers are thugs or street urchins if you are smart enough you would know that a yahooboy doesn't necessarily have to come from a poor background”

If you think carefully about your question here, you will realize it’s actually directed at you and not me because your primary justification for speaking in favor of (or being “neutral” about) “yahoo” [sic] is that there is so much poverty in the land. So, you should sort out your own contradiction instead of request me to do that.


You wrote: “further you said I compared you with Karl Marx!how?I said you're doing a poor job of imitating intelligent people and great thinkers...lol”

What you’re failing to realize is that I never compared myself to Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Abraham Lincoln; I never even suggested it. You came up with that comparison (from wherever you got the idea), only to quickly add that I am not precisely at their par.

My argument thence was that I did not compel you to think along that line, and whether or not you consider your comparison of me and them to be factual or just an opinion doesn’t change the fact that you came up with that independently on your own devoid of any compulsion from me.

So, to say I’m psychologically and intellectually immature is to have contradicted your own mind which in the first place came up (on its own) with such a great comparison


You continued: “but now you have agreed with my position that Yahoo is not the same kind of crime with ritual killing and kidnapping”

The foregoing is a straw man fallacy. There is no new refutation to give to that.


You wrote: “Then about your statements bout have I eaten today!you said you were mocking me but added literally how can you be joking and you added literally do you even know the meaning of literally??Smh”

Yes, I was literally mocking you! Deal with it.

You continued: “also you said I assumed we were in the same country by talking bout a date...i only suggested and besides what also makes you think?we can't be living in the same country!”

Of course, we POSSIBLY could be living in the same city, country or continent, but not necessarily or certainly. You needed to have been sure of that first before you requested engaging me offline over some breakfast, lunch, or dinner table.

You had simply assumed; hence you jumped the gun.

Carlyboi:
To be candid you have not made any sense here!that i put up a position and you interpreted as a fact and not an opinion is your business!i never told it is a fact!the only thing i said is a fact is that cyber fraud is a soft crime and your ranting wont change that afterall you are educated you can delve deeper into cyber fraud and its meaning and categorization and you also said i cant match you intellectually really!that must be the joke of the year!Really!You?are you day dreaming or hallucinating anyways!i am done here and you seem to be very idle cos really the reason you keep sending me replies that are meaningless and seems like attempts to sound half smart i dont know!but seems you are attracted to me...so you can keep quoting me since it gives you so much joy!ok!there is nothing left to be said here on this topic or my position here for me...but since my statement that you quit with the quoting and replies made you assume some false of triumph or victor then keep it up!but you should not rant if i choose to ignore you tho!bye

The following is my reply to the second of those hidden comment of yours, after I have sifted it as shown above:


You wrote: “To be candid you have not made any sense here!that i put up a position and you interpreted as a fact and not an opinion is your business!i never told it is a fact!the only thing i said is a fact is that cyber fraud is a soft crime and your ranting wont change that afterall”

Let’s examine what your earlier statement was. You said: “Fyi you quoted me first and I gave you a reply my opinion”

To know what this so-called opinion is, we need to first know what my position is when I quoted (which you replied to in the negative).

And my position when I quoted you was that ”yahoo” is robbery (going by my dictionary’s definition which I later showed).

And your negative reply to my position is obviously that:

“yahoo” is NOT robbery … This is the reply which you now claim is an opinion. Hence, you don’t necessarily think it is correct. Why then have you been wasting your time and energy?


And then you waffled about how it is not true that you can’t match me intellectually, among other wafflings like I needed your attention which I have shown to be illogical and a boomeranging argument.

TAO11:



The following is my reply to the second of those hidden comment of yours, after I have sifted it as shown above:


You wrote: “To be candid you have not made any sense here!that i put up a position and you interpreted as a fact and not an opinion is your business!i never told it is a fact!the only thing i said is a fact is that cyber fraud is a soft crime and your ranting wont change that afterall”

Let’s examine what your earlier statement was. You said: “Fyi you quoted me first and I gave you a reply my opinion”

To know what this so-called opinion is, we need to first know what my position is when I quoted (which you replied to in the negative).

And my position when I quoted you was that ”yahoo” is robbery (going by my dictionary’s definition which I later showed).

And your negative reply to my position is obviously that:

“yahoo” is NOT robbery … This is the reply which you now claim is an opinion. Hence, you don’t necessarily think it is correct. Why then have you been wasting your time and energy?


And then you waffled about how it is not true that you can’t match me intellectually, among other wafflings like I needed your attention which I have shown to be illogical and a boomeranging argument.

You've not said anything different from your earlier ramblings here!and I have not deviated from my position!I said its my opinion does that make it incorrect?I said you can choose to agree or disagree and since you're smart enough if you think bout it..you would be able to conclude if it's just an opinion or a fact!stop regurgitating what I have earlier posited rhetorically you have made no sense!with this particular post

TAO11:



You gave cheap excuses, and then left; well that is not running away actually, it is in fact wimping out.


Like you will openly admit it right?

Left for where please?Run to?you have any u replied post?lol!you're hallucinating!

TAO11:



I had promised to sift out your hidden comments, the following is my reply to one of those two hidden comment of yours:

You wrote: “One you can never make me feel inconsequential cos you're a Nobody?and nobody can”

Why does this gibberish sound like you’re already feeling inconsequential? Just asking tho!


You continued: “also you said I'm contemplating yahoo robbery in your words!where and when the only thing I said is if I ever go into yahoo ...”

Why were you scared to quote the whole thing? Why did you have to introduce ellipses to the part of the statement that gave the context?

The full statement is to the following effect: If I go into yahoo today, I won’t wear it like a badge

This is the context, and it shows that you could phantom the possibility (i.e. Maybe or maybe not). This was what I meant when I stated that your statement here is not the same thing as planning but rather characterizes indecision or contemplation.


You wrote: “what has been involved in yahoo got to do with living in poverty ... what sort fallacy is that...is just like saying all runs girls come from a poor background or all weed smokers are thugs or street urchins if you are smart enough you would know that a yahooboy doesn't necessarily have to come from a poor background”

If you think carefully about your question here, you will realize it’s actually directed at you and not me because your primary justification for speaking in favor of (or being “neutral” about) “yahoo” [sic] is that there is so much poverty in the land. So, you should sort out your own contradiction instead of request me to do that.


You wrote: “further you said I compared you with Karl Marx!how?I said you're doing a poor job of imitating intelligent people and great thinkers...lol”

What you’re failing to realize is that I never compared myself to Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Abraham Lincoln; I never even suggested it. You came up with that comparison (from wherever you got the idea), only to quickly add that I am not precisely at their par.

My argument thence was that I did not compel you to think along that line, and whether or not you consider your comparison of me and them to be factual or just an opinion doesn’t change the fact that you came up with that independently on your own devoid of any compulsion from me.

So, to say I’m psychologically and intellectually immature is to have contradicted your own mind which in the first place came up (on its own) with such a great comparison


You continued: “but now you have agreed with my position that Yahoo is not the same kind of crime with ritual killing and kidnapping”

The foregoing is a straw man fallacy. There is no new refutation to give to that.


You wrote: “Then about your statements bout have I eaten today!you said you were mocking me but added literally how can you be joking and you added literally do you even know the meaning of literally??Smh”

Yes, I was literally mocking you! Deal with it.

You continued: “also you said I assumed we were in the same country by talking bout a date...i only suggested and besides what also makes you think?we can't be living in the same country!”

Of course, we POSSIBLY could be living in the same city, country or continent, but not necessarily or certainly. You needed to have been sure of that first before you requested engaging me offline over some breakfast, lunch, or dinner table.

You had simply assumed; hence you jumped the gun.

if you wish talk bout the date part a million times it won't change the fact that you goofed on that!your sense of self-denial is quite strong so I'm not surprised you continued wriggling and twisting your words it's typical!if you want to go on a date with me or want to sit at the same table say or better still talk bout something else...since its possible no gun was jumped!stop contradicting yourself!I can never compare you to Maya Angelou or even Oprah Winfrey not to tlk of Marx and Lincoln I said you're doing a poor job of imitating them!you no reach you and Karl Marx in the same sentence intellectually!hahaha!even if you wish it's gonna be wistful thinking even in a 100 years lol!.....moving on..you said I'm already feeling inconsequential cos I said you're a nobody that you can never make me feel inconsequential...what part of that statement traumatized you to say that tho lol!I'm sorry to break it to you but you're a nobody lil girl!it's only people with low self-esteem,no self-worth and self pride that allow peoples perception to basically define them and it is what makes the feel good about themselves...I'm unassuming so peoples words don't get to me or determine how I live and how I feel...!do you get it now?

TAO11:


Your "argument" for the most part here is gibberish and unintelligible, and I kid you not. May be you should be more explicit with what you intended.

As uncoordinated and gibberish as your argument is here, it is still important that I inform you that whether or not "yahoo" [sic] is robbery is not to be determined by the knowledge of the op.

To think we have to appeal to the knowledge (or opinion) of the op as opposed to formulating an independent argument is to have committed a fallacy known in argumentation as argumentum ab auctoritate.

Furthermore, I notice you are trying hard to equate the terms "fraud" and "financial fraud" as exactly one and the same thing. To do that you will need to show that the term "fraud" excludes non-financial gain (contrary to what I have shown), but you haven't done that.

Similarly, you are trying hard to equate the terms "robbery" and "armed robbery" as exactly one and the same thing. To do that you will have to go an extra mile to first explaining away the prefix "armed" that accompanies the word "armed robbery".

The word "armed" clearly shows the term "armed robbery" to be robbery of a specific kind; i.e., one involving the use of arms.

Even the definition of "robbery" that YOU provided from YOUR OWN dictionary makes no mention of possession of arms.

How then in your weird mind does "armed robbery" become exactly one and the same thing as "robbery".

One (armed robbery) obviously involves arms while the other doesn't (even according to YOUR dictionary, let alone mine). It still beats me why you don't see the obvious. You need the service of an ophthalmologist??

"yahoo" [sic] clearly involves stealing from others. So, "yahoo" [sic] is robbery (at least according to the meaning of robbery I have presented), but even if you don't want to trust my dictionary's definition of "robbery", you should at least trust the two dictionaries (mine and yours) when they both agree on the common ground that "robbery" involves stealing

Thus, "yahoo" [sic], (at least for the sake of back and forth) you will agree is stealing.

And I never at anytime during the course of this exchange equated "yahoo" [sic] with armed robbery. That is a straw man fallacy on your part there, you should do better.

Do you know I only read the first part and the last part of your epistle?cos you're making no sense!how on earth would you say you can't dwell on the op as far as this topic...from what argument? with who?a topic was posted I countered the op...based on the post..then you come here to tell me now I should not discuss within the op's context and on topic but I should rather engage you or yahoo is robbery warped thinking how is that my business?I'm not obliged to engage you outside the topic at hand..the fact that I have to point that out to you shows you're not smart at all!it is my prerogative and I never said or quoted anything outside the ops word and who said the op is the only with information or knowledge bout the post or not limited...but the op owns the post...so talking out of the post is even illogical...I'm already getting nauseated bout your inconsistent and lame attempts of a response!how can you say you're smart and say such crap!seriously!you'd rather prefer I engage you in a meaningless tirade outside the ops post!but when I said I have better things to do with my time and you're seeking attention you were ranting and barking and crying out like a bereaved you think everyone has interest in meaningless discussion like you!lastly if you agree that cyberfraud can't be equated with armed robbery or robbery why on earth have you been constituting a nuisance to me and on here for bout 5 days now!I'm honestly hoping all is well with you!also you can't mock someone with something untrue!you goofed!also the fact that a lot of boys go into cyberfraud due to poverty doesn't mean everyone does people have different motives and situations for engaging in any act which is not limited to cyber fraud!so your unintelligent position that my statement if I go into yahoo today and which you have interpreted to me planning and later you switched to mere contemplation is due to poverty is not only flawed,fallacious,sickening illogical and dumb!but it's also myopic,comical and trashy and crappy at the same time!such reasoning is only befitting of lil kids who don't know better and are not matured in thoughts!

TAO11:


You wrote: "you went from not equating yahoo with armed robbery to saying that it is simply robbery"

Can you please highlight my statement where I first equated "yahoo" [sic] with armed robbery?

"yahoo" [sic] is robbery as I have demonstrated, but for the sake of YOUR dictionary's definition of "robbery" which includes the phrase ("threat of violence" in addition to stating that it is "stealing" ) ", then you are necessarily obliged to admit that "yahoo" [sic] is at least stealing as it involves the crime of stealing from others through false pretense, thievery, etc.

Hide my comments but you can see and reply them!Run away?...while I have consistently replied despite your continued nuisance!answer this questions did the op talk bout robbery or armed robbery,did my post talk bout robbery or armed robbery and also is the act of robbery and stealing the same thing?Can you see how confused you're now!

Carlyboi:
Hide my comments but you can see and reply them!Run away?...while I have consistently replied despite your continued nuisance!answer this questions did the op talk bout robbery or armed robbery,did my post talk bout robbery or armed robbery and also is the act of robbery and stealing the same thing?Can you see how confused you're now!

Yes, you did hide your comments, and you know it! The usual things is to quote me in such a way that my original comments are left distinct and separate, and then yours follows either by a line by line "refutation" or otherwise. I could have missed out your comment if I hadn't combed through very closely. The fact that you're denying this speaks volume, after you first admitted it earlier only to give the excuse of time constraint which was a ridiculous excuse.

Also, you did run away! You gave excuses stating why you needed to run away, before then leaving, only to return after I dragged you severally for leaving. You did that back and forth more than once. In case you're amnesiac, the following are some excerpts from some of your "run-away" notes:

"... I don't have such time on my hands ... I have to leave you to your long notes ..."

"so me saying I'm done means I'm no more interested in the back and forth ..."

" ... you're already stressing me with your long notes ..."

among other excuses and run-away sermons.

Not only that, you also cunninly begged me not to reply you again when you wrote: "if you have got some education to do, put it up on you space ..."


You wrote: "answer this questions did the op talk bout robbery or armed robbery,did my post talk bout robbery or armed robbery and also is the act of robbery and stealing the same thing?"

Regardless of all the specific kinds of crime the op was talking about, regardless of all the specific kinds of crimes you mentioned in your post; to reply me on things different from what I specifically engaged you on is to commit a straw man fallacy. May be the the idea of I'm bringing on here eludes you because you find it to be too conceptually dense.

Robbery and stealing can be used interchangeably depending on the dictionary you consult as you have evidently seen. So, to pretend no dictionary describes them exactly the same way is to deceive yourself.

More-so, even if I am willing to put aside my dictionary (for the sake of argument and maturity) and consider yours, then you will still find that the two dictionaries have a common ground (or intersection) for the meaning of robbery, i.e. to steal.

Furthermore, even If I argue from the angle of the definition of "stealing" or "steal", i.e., to take something (that does not belong to you) illegally (a definition which you should have no problem with if everything is okay); then will you deny the fact that "yahoo" [sic] involves taking something (that does not belong to you) illegally?

And if you won't deny this obvious fact, then are you prepared to naturally accept the logical conclusion that follows?

i.e. that; "yahoo" [sic] is stealing?

In summary,

if you agree with my dictionary's definition of robbery (and that of others like it), then you will have to conclude that: "yahoo" [sic] is robbery!

and if even you choose not to agree with it (and you agree with yours only), you still can't help agreeing with the fact that (at the minimum): "yahoo" [sic] is stealing!

Carlyboi:
Do you know I only read the first part and the last part of your epistle?cos you're making no sense!how on earth would you say you can't dwell on the op as far as this topic...from what argument? with who?a topic was posted I countered the op...based on the post..then you come here to tell me now I should not discuss within the op's context and on topic but I should rather engage you or yahoo is robbery warped thinking how is that my business?I'm not obliged to engage you outside the topic at hand..the fact that I have to point that out to you shows you're not smart at all!it is my prerogative and I never said or quoted anything outside the ops word and who said the op is the only with information or knowledge bout the post or not limited...but the op owns the post...so talking out of the post is even illogical...I'm already getting nauseated bout your inconsistent and lame attempts of a response!how can you say you're smart and say such crap!seriously!you'd rather prefer I engage you in a meaningless tirade outside the ops post!but when I said I have better things to do with my time and you're seeking attention you were ranting and barking and crying out like a bereaved you think everyone has interest in meaningless discussion like you!lastly if you agree that cyberfraud can't be equated with armed robbery or robbery why on earth have you been constituting a nuisance to me and on here for bout 5 days now!I'm honestly hoping all is well with you!also you can't mock someone with something untrue!you goofed!also the fact that a lot of boys go into cyberfraud due to poverty doesn't mean everyone does people have different motives and situations for engaging in any act which is not limited to cyber fraud!so your unintelligent position that my statement if I go into yahoo today and which you have interpreted to me planning and later you switched to mere contemplation is due to poverty is not only flawed,fallacious,sickening illogical and dumb!but it's also myopic,comical and trashy and crappy at the same time!such reasoning is only befitting of lil kids who don't know better and are not matured in thoughts!

You wrote: "Do you know I only read the first part and the last part of your epistle?"

Really!!! Okay I believe you, are you good now? ... But tell no one that I realized that the reality is that you fled the arguments therein only to give this cover-up excuse.

You waffled: "how on earth would you say you can't dwell on the op as far as this topic...from what argument? with who?a topic was posted I countered the op...based on the post..then you come here to tell me now I should not discuss within the op's context and on topic but I should rather engage you or yahoo is robbery warped thinking how is that my business?I'm not obliged to engage you outside the topic at hand..the fact that I have to point that out to you shows you're not smart at all!it is my prerogative and I never said or quoted anything outside the ops word and who said the op is the only with information or knowledge bout the post or not limited...but the op owns the post...so talking out of the post is even illogical"

I have given you a befitting response to this above where I perceived that you're actually incapacitated to have been able to grasp what I meant when I noted that you committed the argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. I am not obliged to trust as fact whatever the op thinks. So, I am not to base my argument on his view (which may be an opinion after all), and doing this is not one and the same thing as going outside the realm of what he posted or what you posted. No, what I simply did what to choose to restrict my self to some (and not all) of the crimes which you or the op have enumerated. This is not going out of context, rather it is staying within I really hope you wont struggle again to grasp what I'm delineating. pity

Furthermore, while I may choose to comment in relation to the op's topic, while I may choose to engage you on what you wrote at the outset, I am not obliged to talk in relation to every single crime you or the op enumerated, I may actually choose to restrict my self to one (or more) of those, not necessarily all. And you will only consistent if you challenge me only on what I engaged you on. To challenge me on what I didn't engage you on (regardless of the number of specific crimes you enumerated) is tantamount to commuting the fallacy known as straw man.

You wrote: "my statement if I go into yahoo today and which you have interpreted to me planning and later you switched to mere contemplation is due to poverty"

Please highlight any of my statement where I noted that you're planning to engage in yahoo. And if you can't then you may want to stop lying going forward. ... My claim has always been that you're contemplating. I also used words and phrase like "indecision", and "... you hinted that you may ..."

For the remaining part here you clearly waffled about things that I have trashed already like:
*me seeking your attention
*your desperate attempt to equate "robbery" and "armed robbery" as one and the same thing
*etc.

To address these here again for the umpteenth time will only be tantamount to beating a dead horse.

TAO11:


You wrote: "Do you know I only read the first part and the last part of your epistle?"

Really!!! Okay I believe you, are you good now? ... But tell no one that I realized that the reality is that you fled the arguments therein only to give this cover-up excuse.

You waffled: "how on earth would you say you can't dwell on the op as far as this topic...from what argument? with who?a topic was posted I countered the op...based on the post..then you come here to tell me now I should not discuss within the op's context and on topic but I should rather engage you or yahoo is robbery warped thinking how is that my business?I'm not obliged to engage you outside the topic at hand..the fact that I have to point that out to you shows you're not smart at all!it is my prerogative and I never said or quoted anything outside the ops word and who said the op is the only with information or knowledge bout the post or not limited...but the op owns the post...so talking out of the post is even illogical"

I have given you a befitting response to this above where I perceived that you're actually incapacitated to have been able to grasp what I meant when I noted that you committed the argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. I am not obliged to trust as fact whatever the op thinks. So, I am not to base my argument on his view (which may be an opinion after all), and doing this is not one and the same thing as going outside the realm of what he posted or what you posted. No, what I simply did what to choose to restrict my self to some (and not all) of the crimes which you or the op have enumerated. This is not going out of context, rather it is staying within I really hope you wont struggle again to grasp what I'm delineating. pity

Furthermore, while I may choose to comment in relation to the op's topic, while I may choose to engage you on what you wrote at the outset, I am not obliged to talk in relation to every single crime you or the op enumerated, I may actually choose to restrict my self to one (or more) of those, not necessarily all. And you will only consistent if you challenge me only on what I engaged you on. To challenge me on what I didn't engage you on (regardless of the number of specific crimes you enumerated) is tantamount to commuting the fallacy known as straw man.

You wrote: "my statement if I go into yahoo today and which you have interpreted to me planning and later you switched to mere contemplation is due to poverty"

Please highlight any of my statement where I noted that you're planning to engage in yahoo. And if you can't then you may want to stop lying going forward. ... My claim has always been that you're contemplating. I also used words and phrase like "indecision", and "... you hinted that you may ..."

For the remaining part here you clearly waffled about things that I have trashed already like:
*me seeking your attention
*your desperate attempt to equate "robbery" and "armed robbery" as one and the same thing
*etc.

To address these here again for the umpteenth time will only be tantamount to beating a dead horse.

oh really a dead horselol!you're flogging yourself you're dead horse here and you seem to be a drowning man trying to grab at anything?do you agree that cyberfraud can't be equated with armed robbery and robbery?cos you even did already so I don't need to dwell on that!what does "perpetrating your Yahoo robbery means in your words"that should be your third reply to me!why are you such a blatant liar!smh!for the part that my position on ops topic was in relation to the whole topic I didn't separate them...but lets assume you still wanna claim you decided to choose the easy route which is agreeing that kidnapping and ritual killing is not the same kind of crime with cyberfraud fraud in degree and kind that means you conceded right there but if you want to single out armed robbery vis-à-vis to the crimes the op mentioned you can't reduce armed robbery to mere robbery cos the op didn't mention robbery no one has alluded to be op has an authoritative knowledge or information bout this topic at hand but if you want to discuss anything out of the ops context right here you might to create a new post and whoever is willing to engage you would react!you can't just jump on my mention and quote me halfheartedly that's lazy attempt at making or sounding smart you can say cyberfraud is armed robbery not cyberfraud is robbery like you stated even though but positions are wrong!So that's where you goofed!and next time don't that again naive and incoherent

TAO11:


Yes, you did hide your comments, and you know it! The usual things is to quote me in such a way that my original comments are left distinct and separate, and then yours follows either by a line by line "refutation" or otherwise. I could have missed out your comment if I hadn't combed through very closely. The fact that you're denying this speaks volume, after you first admitted it earlier only to give the excuse of time constraint which was a ridiculous excuse.

Also, you did run away! You gave excuses stating why you needed to run away, before then leaving, only to return after I dragged you severally for leaving. You did that back and forth more than once. In case you're amnesiac, the following are some excerpts from some of your "run-away" notes:

"... I don't have such time on my hands ... I have to leave you to your long notes ..."

"so me saying I'm done means I'm no more interested in the back and forth ..."

" ... you're already stressing me with your long notes ..."

among other excuses and run-away sermons.

Not only that, you also cunninly begged me not to reply you again when you wrote: "if you have got some education to do, put it up on you space ..."


You wrote: "answer this questions did the op talk bout robbery or armed robbery,did my post talk bout robbery or armed robbery and also is the act of robbery and stealing the same thing?"

Regardless of all the specific kinds of crime the op was talking about, regardless of all the specific kinds of crimes you mentioned in your post; to reply me on things different from what I specifically engaged you on is to commit a straw man fallacy. May be the the idea of I'm bringing on here eludes you because you find it to be too conceptually dense.

Robbery and stealing can be used interchangeably depending on the dictionary you consult as you have evidently seen. So, to pretend no dictionary describes them exactly the same way is to deceive yourself.

More-so, even if I am willing to put aside my dictionary (for the sake of argument and maturity) and consider yours, then you will still find that the two dictionaries have a common ground (or intersection) for the meaning of robbery, i.e. to steal.

Furthermore, even If I argue from the angle of the definition of "stealing" or "steal", i.e., to take something (that does not belong to you) illegally (a definition which you should have no problem with if everything is okay); then will you deny the fact that "yahoo" [sic] involves taking something (that does not belong to you) illegally?

And if you won't deny this obvious fact, then are you prepared to naturally accept the logical conclusion that follows?

i.e. that; "yahoo" [sic] is stealing?

In summary,

if you agree with my dictionary's definition of robbery (and that of others like it), then you will have to conclude that: "yahoo" [sic] is robbery!

and if even you choose not to agree with it (and you agree with yours only), you still can't help agreeing with the fact that (at the minimum): "yahoo" [sic] is stealing!

if me saying I can't be writing longnotes to your meaningless epistle after you accused me of doing shorter replies is running away and there is no time I didn't send a reply to whatever junk you posted to me shows you situation can't be helped!you're simply dumb or confused or your brain can't even grapple with simple things'!and stop shifting the goal post stick to something the fact that different dictionaries describe robbery differently means your interpretation is limited and not absolute or universal vis-à-vis your claim that cyberfraud is robbery

Carlyboi and TAO11, you both need to shut it down. You're derailing the thread with these unnecessary arguments.

Carlyboi:
You've not said anything different from your earlier ramblings here!and I have not deviated from my position!I said its my opinion does that make it incorrect?I said you can choose to agree or disagree and since you're smart enough if you think bout it..you would be able to conclude if it's just an opinion or a fact!stop regurgitating what I have earlier posited rhetorically you have made no sense!with this particular post

Your claim was to the effect that: "yahoo" [sic] is NOT robbery.

You came out very assertive and forceful about it initially.

After some heat, you said: It is just your "opinion".

I explained the meaning of the word "opinion", and I showed that using it in relation to your claim have the following implication:

my position that "yahoo" [sic] is NOT robbery could be right, but I must also confess that it could be nonsense

That's what the use of the word "opinion" brings your argument to, from your own admittance.

But I gave you a lifeline that perhaps you mistakenly chose the wrong word "opinion" --- a lifeline which you are reluctant to accept. It is not too late tho.

Carlyboi:
Left for where please?Run to?you have any u replied post?lol!you're hallucinating!

I have already quoted excerpts from your runaway excuses culled from your runaway notes, in case you've immediately forgotten as expected, here you go:

"so me saying I'm done means I'm no more interested in the back and forth ..." This is just one of them

So, you decide where you ran to. It wasn't quite easy for me to determine where it was you ran to, I have given it some thought!

Carlyboi:
if you wish talk bout the date part a million times it won't change the fact that you goofed on that!your sense of self-denial is quite strong so I'm not surprised you continued wriggling and twisting your words it's typical!if you want to go on a date with me or want to sit at the same table say or better still talk bout something else...since its possible no gun was jumped!stop contradicting yourself!I can never compare you to Maya Angelou or even Oprah Winfrey not to tlk of Marx and Lincoln I said you're doing a poor job of imitating them!you no reach you and Karl Marx in the same sentence intellectually!hahaha!even if you wish it's gonna be wistful thinking even in a 100 years lol!.....moving on..you said I'm already feeling inconsequential cos I said you're a nobody that you can never make me feel inconsequential...what part of that statement traumatized you to say that tho lol!I'm sorry to break it to you but you're a nobody lil girl!it's only people with low self-esteem,no self-worth and self pride that allow peoples perception to basically define them and it is what makes the feel good about themselves...I'm unassuming so peoples words don't get to me or determine how I live and how I feel...!do you get it now?

You wrote: "if you wish talk bout the date part a million times it won't change the fact that you goofed on that!your sense of self-denial is quite strong so I'm not surprised you continued wriggling and twisting your words it's typical"

I have taught you countless number of times that, when you make a claim and you mean it (not a mere empty claim) then you have the obligation to establish or construct a valid argument leading to the claim, while adducing evidence or reason. You need to realize that to make a claim is not one and the same thing as to prove it. I won't tolerate this mistake again.

However, I have shown that in one of your comments you talked about engaging me offline and in the same breath you clarified what you meant by referring to a talk over the table. This obviously cannot, by any stretch of imagination, mean telephone calls, or sms, etc. the context clarified what you meant by offline.

It is this same context that clarifies your very first mention of engaging me offline in an earlier comment for which no context was given.

So, you jumped the gun, and there is no escaping, for you, from that fact.


Yo wrote: "I can never compare you to Maya Angelou or even Oprah Winfrey not to tlk of Marx and Lincoln I said you're doing a poor job of imitating them!you no reach you and Karl Marx in the same sentence intellectually!hahaha!even if you wish it's gonna be wistful thinking even in a 100 years lol!.....moving on"

You're still failing to grasp or you're pretending not to grasp an important argument here.

The argument is that, on my part I never made any attempt to bring up those names (or any name for that matter) and view my self in some light close or far from those names. You independently came up with the naming of names (perhaps to present yourself as well read ); and not only did you name names you talked about them in the light of my arguments. So, whether I'm doing an excellent job as theirs or I'm doing it poorly is not my argument here. The argument is that you must have been compelled in some way to bring up that comparison, but I'm certainly not the one who directly compelled you.

So, to turn around and say I am intellectually and psychologically immature in light of that your comparison (which although you suggested I'm not getting right) is to have contradicted your own mind. .

So, to turn it on me that it's only my wishful thinking to be like them [when it is indeed you who independently come up with that comparison (though a remote one you may argue)] is to be doing a poor damage control job. you should do better ...

You wrote: "you said I'm already feeling inconsequential"

I challenge you to highlight where I said this. and if you can't, then you may consider to stop lying!. Regarding "inconsequential" I used it first when I made a statement, and I quickly clarified that it is not to say you're inconsequential. Your defense mechanism then quickly kicked in and you said I can never make you feel inconsequential when I actually never said that in the first place.

Your unwarranted defense became suspicious, and I asked why does this sound to me like your'e feeling inconsequential. Although my question here came naturally, I was still very careful not to say you're inconsequential, all because in most cases I can always predict successfully what allegation you'll come up with in your next 3 or so reply.

Carlyboi:
if me saying I can't be writing longnotes to your meaningless epistle after you accused me of doing shorter replies is running away and there is no time I didn't send a reply to whatever junk you posted to me shows you situation can't be helped!you're simply dumb or confused or your brain can't even grapple with simple things'!and stop shifting the goal post stick to something the fact that different dictionaries describe robbery differently means your interpretation is limited and not absolute or universal vis-à-vis your claim that cyberfraud is robbery

Regarding the fact that you delivered run-away sermons before taking flight after which you returned when I dragged you, I culled three (3) excerpts from your run-away notes, and it beats me why you restricted yourself to one of them. What about the one which says: "so me saying I'm done means I'm no more interested in the back and forth ..." ?? You clearly delivered tons of run-away sermons, there is no escaping that

And even the excuse of "longnotes" which you gave here for one of your run-away notes is actually a poor spin of what had really transpired. I never requested that your reply necessarily has to be long, I only requested that you stop picking and choosing. You were obviously smelling the rat and running away from some points, and even for those which you choose to address, you've failed woefully and consistently at addressing them effectively.

And regarding the different ways in which different dictionaries have defined robbery, you will at least agree with me that "yahoo" [sic] involves stealing from others under false pretense, thievery, etc. and in which case you will have to agree therefore at the minimum that,

"yahoo" [sic] is stealing

even if you're not prepared to agree with my dictionary's definition which implies that "yahoo" is robbery from its definition of robbery which I shared with you. haha

Carlyboi:
oh really a dead horselol!you're flogging yourself you're dead horse here and you seem to be a drowning man trying to grab at anything?do you agree that cyberfraud can't be equated with armed robbery and robbery?cos you even did already so I don't need to dwell on that!what does "perpetrating your Yahoo robbery means in your words"that should be your third reply to me!why are you such a blatant liar!smh!for the part that my position on ops topic was in relation to the whole topic I didn't separate them...but lets assume you still wanna claim you decided to choose the easy route which is agreeing that kidnapping and ritual killing is not the same kind of crime with cyberfraud fraud in degree and kind that means you conceded right there but if you want to single out armed robbery vis-à-vis to the crimes the op mentioned you can't reduce armed robbery to mere robbery cos the op didn't mention robbery no one has alluded to be op has an authoritative knowledge or information bout this topic at hand but if you want to discuss anything out of the ops context right here you might to create a new post and whoever is willing to engage you would react!you can't just jump on my mention and quote me halfheartedly that's lazy attempt at making or sounding smart you can say cyberfraud is armed robbery not cyberfraud is robbery like you stated even though but positions are wrong!So that's where you goofed!and next time don't that again naive and incoherent

You asked: "do you agree that cyberfraud can't be equated with armed robbery and robbery"

First, I have never anywhere equated "armed robbery" and "robbery" as one and the same thing. To make that claim for me must really be the result of your hallucination. That's a straw man!

Second, I noted that "yahoo" [sic] is robbery going by the dictionary definition of "robbery" I shared with you which you don't have to agree with because your dictionary included an additional condition.

However, you will agree that "yahoo" [sic] involves stealing from others through false pretense, thievery, etc., are you then prepared to be seen as having some dignity by acknowledging at the minimum that "yahoo" [sic] is stealing ??

Your conspicuous silence regarding this particular question is deafening! Have some balls c'mon!

You asked: "what does "perpetrating your Yahoo robbery" means in your words"?

Could you please highlight where I made this statement you've attributed to me, or attach a screenshot of it just like I did when you tried denying making some statement?? That's a lie you made up, and if you think it's not, then live up to my challenge.

Regarding the last part about the op's post in relation to which you waffled much and what not. It is obvious you have got some comprehension problem or you're just pretending to be dumb.

But I will make an attempt to break it down to the kindergarten level that you are:

The op enumerated a number of crimes (without necessarily saying that anyone is of the same degree as the other)

For some weird reason, you noted that your beloved "yahoo" [sic] should be excluded from the listing because it is not of the same degree as any of the other crimes (even though the op never said each of the crime he/she listed is of the same degree as any of the other)

I challenged your position that "yahoo" [sic] is itself a form of robbery (although not armed) and there is no reason why it should not be discussed in the context of other crimes.

It doesn't have to be one and the same as "armed robbery" in order to merit the list of crimes. Moreover, none of the other crime is one and the same as the other (or of the same degree as any of the other). Why didn't you argue that kidnapping for e.g. should be removed from the list because it is not of the same degree as any of the rest??

You obviously just have a soft spot for a specific one of those crimes, perhaps because of your acknowleged contemplation of it!

[I hope I have been able to communicate down to your level now, right? ... good boy!] lol

demolinka:
We need to be deliberate in what we are teaching the next generation; in schools, on TV, in politics, at home... Enforce ban on songs that promote stupendous wealth (legit or otherwise), no more flashy videos with semi nude girls, no more aristos on campuses, celebration of innovation, REDUCTION IN SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS (OR TIE IT TO THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY)...

Let's try those ones

Thumbs up

on point