Swoosh.
your link is behind a paywall...

Maybe just try to address the issue I raised instead of pointless snark.

LOL!  Paywall?  Right.   

Look who's all snarky and simultaneously wrong!



********************

LOL!  Paywall?  Right.   

Look who's all snarky and simultaneously wrong!

So now you are calling me a liar? You think I just made up out of thin air that there was a paywall? It blurs out the article and tells me I have to become a member which comes with a monthly cost.

Gosh you love to start stupid pointless fights.

So now you are calling me a liar? You think I just made up out of thin air that there was a paywall? It blurs out the article and tells me I have to become a member which comes with a monthly cost.

Gosh you love to start stupid pointless fights.

You're obviously unable to follow a link unless it supports your own beliefs.

No surprise you can't access something you don't want to acknowledge destroys your opinion.

Maybe you could do some investigating on your own to find a link that works instead of whining to me that I'm not spoon-feeding you information you could easily find if you cared enough to try?

Just a thought -- one I find occurs almost every time you post here.

You're obviously unable to follow a link unless it supports your own beliefs.

No surprise you can't access something you don't want to acknowledge destroys your opinion.

Maybe you could do some investigating on your own to find a link that works instead of whining to me that I'm not spoon-feeding you information you could easily find if you cared enough to try?

Just a thought -- one I find occurs almost every time you post here.

This is another one of your pointless arguments, but as we both know you just love to argue.

I didn't claim you copied and pasted the results incorrectly, I reasoned why the numbers were questionable so you just posting a link to the article you got the numbers from doesn't do anything.

This is another one of your pointless arguments, but as we both know you just love to argue.

I didn't claim you copied and pasted the results incorrectly, I reasoned why the numbers were questionable so you just posting a link to the article you got the numbers from doesn't do anything.

Do your own research.  You don't believe what i post anyway, so why bother trying to educate you?

Do your own research.  You don't believe what i post anyway, so why bother trying to educate you?

I didn't ask you to educate me. I attempted to have a discussion about the accuracy of the numbers and what they really meant. I guess you couldn't miss the opportunity to turn it into another dumb argument.

I didn't ask you to educate me. I attempted to have a discussion about the accuracy of the numbers and what they really meant. I guess you couldn't miss the opportunity to turn it into another dumb argument.

Besides you often deflecting, now you're playing the victim card.  Nice evolution.

range too far, spotting scopes too expensive....

I didn't ask you to educate me. I attempted to have a discussion about the accuracy of the numbers and what they really meant. I guess you couldn't miss the opportunity to turn it into another dumb argument.

No.  A discussion is a two way effort.  You provide nothing of value while asking that I do all the work of posting facts and data.

I'm not your intern.  do the work, and maybe then you can engage in intelligent discussions instead of all the back and forth bickering.

It doesn't take intelligence to ask a question you could just as easily answer on your own -- if you're not too lazy, that is.

Besides you often deflecting, now you're playing the victim card.  Nice evolution.

You really have become Flapp's little attack dog. Hope he buys you the premium kibble.

No.  A discussion is a two way effort.  You provide nothing of value while asking that I do all the work of posting facts and data.

I'm not your intern.  do the work, and maybe then you can engage in intelligent discussions instead of all the back and forth bickering.

It doesn't take intelligence to ask a question you could just as easily answer on your own -- if you're not too lazy, that is.

Provide nothing of value? I didn't make a counter argument, I questioned the reliability of the data. Questioning the reliability of data doesn't require me to prove something else first. I think you just get offended because I questioned something you posted. You can't have that so you have to pound on your chest.

You have access to the website, you could post the data but instead you want me to go get a subscription just to go read information for an argument you want to make. Not doing your homework for you and not going to engage in another stupid argument with you.

Provide nothing of value? I didn't make a counter argument, I questioned the reliability of the data. Questioning the reliability of data doesn't require me to prove something else first. I think you just get offended because I questioned something you posted. You can't have that so you have to pound on your chest.

You have access to the website, you could post the data but instead you want me to go get a subscription just to go read information for an argument you want to make. Not doing your homework for you and not going to engage in another stupid argument with you.

Yes, you ARGUED that the data is not RELIABLE.  Stop mincing words.  If I question your integrity, it's just another way of saying I don't think you're an honest person. 

You really have become Flapp's little attack dog. Hope he buys you the premium kibble.

Next tactic when caught using another one is name calling. Welcome evolution.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You really have become Flapp's little attack dog. Hope he buys you the premium kibble.

Kind of funny how nobody volunteers to back you up.  Maybe you should offer kibble plus medical coverage?   

Maybe nobody here likes how you act?  Or just maybe nobody agrees with what you say for the most part, especially since you tend to cause every thread to devolve into being about you?

A Disrupter is not just a weapon on Star Trek.