[brooks85]

Semantics brooksy, but this is a picture, not real life. In the image, which is the only thing being shown (not real life), their faces are obscured. If a picture is shown of a wall, whatever is behind it is obscured; no sensible person is going to say it's not because "you could see whatever it is if you walk around the wall". If you walk around a soldier to the back, his own head obscures his face...pretty ridiculous thing to claim that concealment is independent of point of view

still trying huh idiot? The fact you just said that, even though I used it to prove your broken logic, really shows how dumb you are, truly. No opinion here whatsoever.


"Oh I can't see him, the back of his head is obscuring his face"
- said no one ever except triple d

lol moron



if you walk around the terrorist in that image, it doesn't matter the POV does it? Because his face is actually obcursed by something, not some artist POV you dumb, pathetic child lol

keep trying, only digging your hole deeper

[brooks85]

Grease. No I don't support terrorism. We have different definitions of what is terrorism. If someone came into ur home, and told u to get the penetrate out along with ur kids, what would u do? Fight back right? Well that's what's happening in Gaza. Guys like Brooks would kill anyone that wanted to take away something like his guns but someone who is coming into the someone's home and kicking them out fighting back is called a terrorist smfh. Settlers are coming and taking over land amd homes that isn't there's. They recently burned a baby alive. U know what the guy got at punishment? 6 months in jail. 6 months. If u Americans fight for ur basic civil rights, it's considered a revolutionist, if it's a Muslim fighting to protect his home and family, u guys call it terrorism. U guys don't see what's happening there, only see what American media wants u to see. Gaza and Hamas are not terrorist, they are freedom fighters fighting and standing up for basic rights. Any on the point of obscuring the face, do u guys consider Anonymous terrorists?

that is because guys like me actually know history unlike sheepy like you.

and don't talk about revolution you scumbag, you have no idea what it means nor do your cowardly people which is why they do not fight back; they run. The ones who do fight do so in the most cowardly way possible by hiding amongst innocent civilians then launching attacks from the area.

[Triple_D_Bet]

No sane person would constantly reply with all these essays, only insane folks such as yourself.

To someone as incapable of reading comprehension as you seem to be, no doubt anyone stringing words together in an intelligent manner frightens and confuses you

still trying huh idiot? The fact you just said that, even though I used it to prove your broken logic, really shows how dumb you are, truly. No opinion here whatsoever.


"Oh I can't see him, the back of his head is obscuring his face"
- said no one ever except triple d

lol moron



if you walk around the terrorist in that image, it doesn't matter the POV does it? Because his face is actually obcursed by something, not some artist POV you dumb, pathetic child lol

keep trying, only digging your hole deeper

Looks like we have some common ground brooksy! I think we can both agree that if you walk behind a theoretical person in an image, you won't be able to see their face. Glad we got that sorted out

Now that we're past that, care to comment on the rest, preferably with some kind of logical reason why describing something as hidden isn't dependent on point of view, or what bearing the concealment has on anything in the first place? And remember, it takes a little more to prove your point than simply declaring you have

[brooks85]

To someone as incapable of reading comprehension as you seem to be, no doubt anyone stringing words together in an intelligent manner frightens and confuses you



Looks like we have some common ground brooksy! I think we can both agree that if you walk behind a theoretical person in an image, you won't be able to see their face. Glad we got that sorted out

Now that we're past that, care to comment on the rest, preferably with some kind of logical reason why describing something as hidden isn't dependent on point of view, or what bearing the concealment has on anything in the first place? And remember, it takes a little more to prove your point than simply declaring you have

sorry, liberal logic doesn't work on me poor sheepy. You'll remember this sooner or later. For now, the only way out is to admit you're wrong because you clearly are as anyone can see. Kids on sesame street could figure this out, you'll get there.

There is nothing obscuring the solider's faces in that painting clearly while there is something obscuring the terrorist face, clearly.

[Triple_D_Bet]

sorry, liberal logic doesn't work on me poor sheepy. You'll remember this sooner or later. For now, the only way out is to admit your wrong because you clearly are as anyone can see. Kids on sesame street could figure this out, you'll get there.

There is nothing obscuring the solider's faces in that painting clearly while there is something obscuring the terrorist face, clearly.

Shrug, no point in having a conversation with a guy who just wants to hear himself say "liberal logic", "sheep", and other little catchphrases that don't apply. Enjoy thinking you're right; if you ever feel like trying to prove it and discovering otherwise, I'll be around

[brooks85]

Shrug, no point in having a conversation with a guy who just wants to hear himself say "liberal logic", "sheep", and other little catchphrases that don't apply. Enjoy thinking you're right; if you ever feel like trying to prove it and discovering otherwise, I'll be around

the cowardly route, I figured.

Either way, classic deference.

[bobbywaves]

There is nothing obscuring the solider's faces in that painting clearly while there is something obscuring the terrorist face, clearly.

Clearly...However Tripe isn't logical, so it doesn't compute for him.

[Triple_D_Bet]

the cowardly route, I figured.

Either way, classic deference.

Yeah, cause recognizing when someone is unwilling to even discuss their errors is "cowardly"

Clearly...However Tripe isn't logical, so it doesn't compute for him.

Appreciate you chiming in bobbo; you provide a valuable service for the forum, allowing posters to skip reading the content being discussed and just fade your opinions

[brooks85]

Yeah, cause recognizing when someone is unwilling to even discuss their errors is "cowardly"



Appreciate you chiming in bobbo; you provide a valuable service for the forum, allowing posters to skip reading the content being discussed and just fade your opinions

I'll keep saying until it doesn't need to be said, but your liberal logic isn't going to work.

Everything has been discussed and you are clearly wrong, as I said, a child on sesame street could figure this out. That is not an exaggeration. You misspoke by making some ridiculously absurd comparison and tried to back it up with nothing but nonsense. Repeating your nonsense with emoticons after isn't going to change the facts; you're wrong.

[Jayvegas420]

Simply by having waves on your side of the argument, automatically makes you wrong.

[bobbywaves]

Simply by having waves on your side of the argument, automatically makes you wrong right.

Fixed that for ya Jay.

[Ra77er]

Bobby if what Jay is correct please give me a baseball winner.


Brooks I like the emoticons, let's not take it out on them.

[bobbywaves]

Bobby if what Jay is incorrect please give me a baseball winner.

Take the Texas Rangers (-118) in confidence.

[BrickJames]

A♢ Money Card!

[Triple_D_Bet]

I'll keep saying until it doesn't need to be said, but your liberal logic isn't going to work.

Everything has been discussed and you are clearly wrong, as I said, a child on sesame street could figure this out. That is not an exaggeration. You misspoke by making some ridiculously absurd comparison and tried to back it up with nothing but nonsense. Repeating your nonsense with emoticons after isn't going to change the facts; you're wrong.

Don't kid yourself brooksy, you're going to keep saying "liberal logic" simply because you like saying it and pretending it applies. More power to ya, just don't expect us to take ya seriously when you just stamp your feet up and down and declare you're right. I suppose to someone like yourself who is only looking for a chance to prove to himself that he's right, the actual facts are obscured...good thing you don't need them eh?

Feel free to keep chiming in about how I'm wrong, dumb, ridiculous, etc...until you can prove it, looks like you're only impressing bobbo and yourself; not two opinions I'm particularly worried about

Fixed that for ya Jay.

yup, you being on the side that you're always right makes the other side (Jay's) correct...good to see you guys bury the hatchet and agree on something, and good to see you acknowledge your limitations bobbo; maybe next you can start working on them

[bobbywaves]

yup,.......you're always right

You're coming around Tripe.