So picking and choosing which countries you are talking about having green projects rather than being a specious argument on your part is now you telling me I am lying?
So you don't know what the word "
some" is nor what the word "
large" means. That's pretty sad. You do know there's a limit on age here? You are clearly under 13 if you do not know what those words mean as you do not appear to be an ELS user.
And you are in fact lying*. I cited some countries engaging in green projects. Some of those projects were large. You, being a liar, argued that I said all were doing large scale projects. Nothing in any of my posts suggests that at all.
For your reference:
[h=2]Definition of
LARGE[/h]1
obsolete : lavish
2
obsolete a : ample,
abundant b : extensive,
broad
3
a : having more than usual capacity or scope
: comprehensive <take the
large view> <will take a
larger role in the negotiations>
b : powerful,
forceful c : very successful or popular <a
large rock band>
4
a : exceeding most other things of like kind especially in quantity or size
: big b : dealing in great numbers or quantities <a
large and highly profitable business>
[h=2]Definition of
SOME[/h]1
: being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <
some person knocked>
2
a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of
something (as a class or group) named or implied <
some gems are hard>
b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me
some water> <have
some apples>
3
: remarkable,
striking <that was
some party>
4
: being at least one —used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies
You either do not know what those words, or you are a liar.
*Which it is? Small vocabulary or dishonest prick?
Again you attempt to attack me rather than back up your "superior" knowledge of nuclear weapons programs with evidence... Strange how it is YOUR statement that has no evidence, yet I am supposedly the one lying, is this what makes your debate skills "elite"?
Are you seriously rejecting that Syria, North Korea and Iran are using their programs for nuclear weapons? You once again lied about my position. I never said that all of them were. Just some. Look the two words you either do not understand or you are being a dishonest hack about because you know if you admitted it, you'd have to admit you were wrong. Which we all know you lack the maturity to do so. You lied about what I said by asking for evidence about
all of your named countries. I never said all of them, and I specifically named the ones that were.
So, do you reject that Syria, North Korea and Iran are using their programs for nuclear weapons?
Or are you unable to answer simple questions?
I actually asked you to clarify YOUR implication here notice the EXACT wording you used ... no where except above did you say the nuclear imports were power so exactly who is being incoherent in their statements?
Maybe you are an ELS user. Importing nuclear power is the same as importing nuclear plants in this context. It's really sad that you're attempting this semantic tactic as you have nothing else. Maybe you really don't know what the words "some" and "large" mean?
I do not need to admit to you I am wrong
Well, for your own maturity you should, but considering your posts, that ain't going to happen as you don't have any. You made the asinine argument that green tech doesn't work by citing countries doing both. To which you are now trying to change the subject away. You still look incredibly foolish for citing countries engaging in both as proof that green doesn't work. And your reliance upon lying about what I said when it's painfully clear I never argued what you claimed just further annihilates whatever shred of credibility you ever had here.
but if I am you sure are inept at pointing errors out, but it appears very good at attempting to insult and ridicule others.
You are the one lying about what I said.
You are the one trying to change the focus off your idiotic argument.
You are the one trying to weasel out of admitting that North Korea, Iran and Syria are using nuclear power for weapons.
I'm citing specific points where you are being dishonest or wrong. You offer
nothing but general baseless accusations against me without any rebuttal of my points. Who's winning here again?
You have yet to refute anything I said.
These traits are not "superior" debating skills unless you are using Alinsky's rules of debate, and even then it does nothing to prove you know anything more than anyone else on a subject.
I know far more than you do. Well, at least I can Google search better then you. Seriously, are you
that lazy you can't even run a simple search?
As for being a fool it would appear that when one intentionally ignores the lack of efficiency and economic sustainability of "green" energy over tried and true technology such as coal & nuclear then I can see how an ignorant fool would believe that others were actually the fool.
And there we see the fallacy of not only raising the bar, but changing the subject. And you are once again lying.
No one was discussing the efficiency of green power vs fossil. You just added that now.
To say I intentionally ignored it when it wasn't even a discussion item is pretty absurd. Seriously dude, do you even know what honesty even means? God I hope you don't have kids, they're going to grow up under your parenting to be pretty immoral people. Furthermore, you have yet to address the economic inefficiencies of nuclear itself. You are running away from addressing the issue of financing.
I guess you want to be in the running for most dishonest hack here.