OT: Seattle is DYING - thanks to a LIBTARD city council, judges and head prosecutor

LOL! ME being "anti-social?" Have you EVER read ANY your vicious posts, SL0WMAN? Unlikely - you ATTACK anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, which is WHY you don't have any kids - they would have killed you by now.

ck to Better University , Higher IQ, and much more MONEY.

And neither can you, which is the whole point.

And Dan makes his claim when he obviously has no idea if it is true or not.

If I were as silly a Dan, that might be a motivation. In my universe you don't reveal that kind of information if you don't have to - it can give other people a competitive advantage in a variety of situations.

I'm pointing out that Dan doesn't know how much money I've got, so his claim to have more than I have is an unfounded assertion, which is to say , a lie.

But a rather limited capacity to do joined up logic. Clearly, his IQ test didn't put much emphasis on the particular skill, and his famous university didn't manage to instill it. You can send a dimbo to Harvard, but not even Harvard can teach them to think.

You may not appreciate having your stupidity pointed out, but it isn't anti-social. The rest of society does need to know quite how unreliable and downright wrong your posts can be.

Another stupid hypothesis from Flyguy. The prospect that one's kids might grow up into people who might kill you is pretty remote. None of my eight nieces and nephews has killed anybody yet. One of the nieces works for Oxfam in Timor-Leste and is actively trying to save lives at the moment - between Covid-19 and a tropical cyclone she's pretty busy.

And I don't attack people who have the temerity to disagree with me. I merely react to people who post dangerous nonsense by posting corrections.

You may experience this as an attack - you do seem to be devoted to a range of remarkably silly and potentially dangerous ideas - but if you could learn enough to post less misleading nonsense, I'd have less reason to correct your errors.

No point in trying to help Bill with his logic errors. So will just post the highlights.

Better university, higher IQ, and a bunch more money.

Dan

Dan thinks there are errors in my logic, but he can't point them out. He does seem to have a very limited capacity to handle joined up logic.

And a remarkable capacity for self-delusion. His IQ may be as high as Clive Sinclair's but his capacity to exploit it in any useful way seems to be at least as limited.

Your logic is faulty. My claim is an unfounded assersion, but not a lie. If I really have more money than Dumbo, then my claim is the truth and not a lie.

Okay I pointed out your logic error.

Cluck, cluck, cluck. Who is the person afraid to reveal their wealth?

Higher IQ, better university , More cash, less scared of the boogy man.

Dan

And if I claimed to have more money than you have, it would be an equally unfounded assertion.

Unfounded assertions do happen to be lies.

Somebody with Dan's grasp of logic is going to be a rather unhelpful advisor.

Actually you compounded your logic error with a semantic error.

Who is the person foolish enough to think that it might be a good idea?

Foolish enough to keep his wealth under the mattress, in cash, rather than investing it where it can earn dividends?