Prove it.

Hahhahahahha, why? U will just move goal post.

Because I haven't said anything wrong here   

Wrooonnngggg again.

I wasn't being argumentative. I made my comment, you guys had to start a whole issue about it. CMO managed to reply just fine initially by confirming it was Kit and that he had a good understanding of the English language. But you, like usual, want to troll and start an argument over something tiny and insignificant. 

And now here we are with you being argumentive.

I wasn't being argumentative. I made my comment, you guys had to start a whole issue about it. CMO managed to reply just fine initially by confirming it was Kit and that he had a good understanding of the English language. But you, like usual, want to troll and start an argument over something tiny and insignificant. 

You left out the fact that your comment was stupid and lazy.  It drew the reaction it deserved.

Just because one member was kind enough to treat you gently with a response doesn't mean your post wasn't worthy of ridicule.

Like i said, in the time it took to post the first comment and participate in this argumentative exchange, you could have gone back to the video many times and realized that you're the only one who was confused about Kit's name and testimonial message.

But, maybe English is your second language?  That would explain a lot!

You left out the fact that your comment was stupid and lazy.  It drew the reaction it deserved.

Just because one member was kind enough to treat you gently with a response doesn't mean your post wasn't worthy of ridicule.

Like i said, in the time it took to post the first comment and participate in this argumentative exchange, you could have gone back to the video many times and realized that you're the only one who was confused about Kit's name and testimonial message.

But, maybe English is your second language?  That would explain a lot!

Some of his comments deserve good answers/replies and the above he mentioned was 1 of them.  I don't automatically argue with a persons comments. Their comments/post have to warrant it.

Some of his comments deserve good answers/replies and the above he mentioned was 1 of them.  I don't automatically argue with a persons comments. Their comments/post have to warrant it.

With EEF, most of the time you have to read between the lines to know if he's being genuine about his opinions, or if he's just trying to be contrary while simultaneously implying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the rest of us are biased, haven't considered the "nuance", don't think objectively, or don't know enough to even have an opinion.

His condescension may not even be intentional, but it comes across that way in many posts just the same.

When you post your opinion based on the facts provided in an article or video, EEF posts that you can't rely on your opinion because there might be other facts not included in reports to consider.  Captain. Obvious?  or just oblivious?

That seems to be one of his M.O.s -- telling others they don't know enough to form an opinion, but he can't comprehension that he also can't produce opposing evidence to contradict your opinion.  It's pointless and argumentative, nothing more.

I just read a bunch of facts on a particular car.  My opinion is that's a car I'd like to own.



EEF-ism: There might be recalls not included in the report you read.  Also, there might be unsatisfied owners who haven't posted to any forums.  The plant the car is made in might be in Mexico, too.  Do you really want to support Mexican workers over American workers?

Nothing he said is proven to be false, but neither has he looked deep enough to know either way.  He just throws that crap on the wall to start arguments.

#Contraryism

 

With EEF, most of the time you have to read between the lines to know if he's being genuine about his opinions, or if he's just trying to be contrary while simultaneously implying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the rest of us are biased, haven't considered the "nuance", don't think objectively, or don't know enough to even have an opinion.

His condescension may not even be intentional, but it comes across that way in many posts just the same.

When you post your opinion based on the facts provided in an article or video, EEF posts that you can't rely on your opinion because there might be other facts not included in reports to consider.  Captain. Obvious?  or just oblivious?

That seems to be one of his M.O.s -- telling others they don't know enough to form an opinion, but he can't comprehension that he also can't produce opposing evidence to contradict your opinion.  It's pointless and argumentative, nothing more.

I just read a bunch of facts on a particular car.  My opinion is that's a car I'd like to own.



EEF-ism: There might be recalls not included in the report you read.  Also, there might be unsatisfied owners who haven't posted to any forums.  The plant the car is made in might be in Mexico, too.  Do you really want to support Mexican workers over American workers?

Nothing he said is proven to be false, but neither has he looked deep enough to know either way.  He just throws that crap on the wall to start arguments.

#Contraryism

 

THis is why I rarely read links he post as he has no street credit to warrant taking the time to do so. 

THis should also be mentioned, since Kit and others believe training is necessary to exercise a right. NY is requiring 18 hours of training in order to get your CCW.  Compare this to HI's 4 or 6 hours (cant' remember).  So do those who agree with Kit also agree with 18 hours of training?  How about 50 hours or 100 hours?  Where do you draw the line?  This is why ZERO hours should be the requirement.

People have to learn language before they can have freedom of speech.    Sometimes you have to be reasonable.   Criminals can't own guns.   You have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm.  To carry you have to take a short class.

What kind of learning?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What kind of learning?

Maybe start with conversational sarcasm?

 

And now here we are with you being argumentive.

Takes two to tango

Hahhahahahha, why? U will just move goal post.

You're backpedaling.

With EEF, most of the time you have to read between the lines to know if he's being genuine about his opinions, or if he's just trying to be contrary while simultaneously implying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the rest of us are biased, haven't considered the "nuance", don't think objectively, or don't know enough to even have an opinion.

His condescension may not even be intentional, but it comes across that way in many posts just the same.

When you post your opinion based on the facts provided in an article or video, EEF posts that you can't rely on your opinion because there might be other facts not included in reports to consider.  Captain. Obvious?  or just oblivious?

That seems to be one of his M.O.s -- telling others they don't know enough to form an opinion, but he can't comprehension that he also can't produce opposing evidence to contradict your opinion.  It's pointless and argumentative, nothing more.

I just read a bunch of facts on a particular car.  My opinion is that's a car I'd like to own.



EEF-ism: There might be recalls not included in the report you read.  Also, there might be unsatisfied owners who haven't posted to any forums.  The plant the car is made in might be in Mexico, too.  Do you really want to support Mexican workers over American workers?

Nothing he said is proven to be false, but neither has he looked deep enough to know either way.  He just throws that crap on the wall to start arguments.

#Contraryism

 

Swoosh.

The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.

You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.

THis is why I rarely read links he post as he has no street credit to warrant taking the time to do so.

Self fulfilling prophecy.

Besides, if I had no "street cred" then all the better to read the links because you don't have to take my word for anything.

half?
#objectiveexceptwhensubjective

Swoosh.

The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.

You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.

Takes two to tango

Swooossshhhh

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You're backpedaling.

Hahahhahha

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Self fulfilling prophecy.

Besides, if I had no "street cred" then all the better to read the links because you don't have to take my word for anything.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Any learning so you can exercise your right to free speech.   The bare minimum is needed.   
As for ccw,  the bare minimum to be able to shoot straight and know when it's allowed to shoot. 

Everyone needs a teacher.

U didnt answer, what kind of learning to exercise free speech?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Swoosh.

The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.

You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.

What EEF says serves a purpose.   A big problem here and  with other groups that passionately support a subject is group think and too narrowly focused.  Where everyone thinks a certain way and aren't able to give consideration to other ideas.  That can become dangerous and leads to ineffectiveness.
To be the most effective you need to know as much relevant information as possible on both sides and be unbiased when making decisions.  When it comes to the 2A, that would be researching things from supporters and opponents, and being neither for or against the 2A for decision making.  That requires sometimes playing devil's advocate and bringing in outside ideas.