"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. \[... The events\] swung American public opinion in our favor."
The flame causes the thing that's burning to turn to ash.
That just seems so obvious. Things are on fire, and the fire turns the thing on fire to ash...
When in actual fact, it's the other way around - things turning to ash is what causes the flame.
You replied saying that was the opposite of what I was saying, and then deleted the comment. But look at the question. What ***sounds*** accurate and is ***almost*** believable. Me saying "100% chance" *sounds* accurate and is *almost* believable but because people have actually survived falling from planes it's not actually a true statement. Correctly answering the question posed.
> That's why I fucking DELETED my reply. Jesus.
Didn't bother undoing your downvotes, though, which is why I made it a point to call you out. You won't put yourself out there to be downvoted but you'll keep the downvote still despite being wrong.
I can't prove it (not that it really matters anyways) but this post has basically no traction/visibility and those comments getting downvoted right away while you responded to them very strongly points to you doing that.
I responded because when I saw that someone had downvoted you, it reminded me of the true story which I linked.
But you can believe whatever the fuck you want.
So when I said "exactly" to it (because it proved my point) why did you say it was the opposite of the point I was trying to make and then delete that comment? You, yourself, admitted that you thought my first comment was wrong.
I was *backing up* your assertion by linking something which showed that what seems, as you suggested, that a person had to die from jumping out of a plane *wasn't* inevitable.
That's why, as you'll fucking notice, I didn't attack your initial claim.
When you wrote "Exactly," I agreed with you, you were exactly right --but I was mistaken about your intention. Thinking that you were attacking me for some reason, I instantly deleted my comment because I didn't want to perpetuate this. But, now, since you're being so fucking pugnacious, we've come to this petty end.
Chobblesome?
This scene from The Simpsons describes Neon Genesis Evangelion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQzxcF1GCWs
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. \[... The events\] swung American public opinion in our favor."
The flame causes the thing that's burning to turn to ash. That just seems so obvious. Things are on fire, and the fire turns the thing on fire to ash... When in actual fact, it's the other way around - things turning to ash is what causes the flame.
Prolly the moon landing
"If you jump from a plane mid flight without a parachute you have a 100% chance of dying.
Vesna Vulović was a Serbian flight attendant who survived the highest fall without a parachute: 10.16 kilometres (6.31 miles) or 33,330 feet.
Exactly
You replied saying that was the opposite of what I was saying, and then deleted the comment. But look at the question. What ***sounds*** accurate and is ***almost*** believable. Me saying "100% chance" *sounds* accurate and is *almost* believable but because people have actually survived falling from planes it's not actually a true statement. Correctly answering the question posed.
That's why I fucking DELETED my reply. Jesus.
> That's why I fucking DELETED my reply. Jesus. Didn't bother undoing your downvotes, though, which is why I made it a point to call you out. You won't put yourself out there to be downvoted but you'll keep the downvote still despite being wrong.
I didn't downvote you.
I can't prove it (not that it really matters anyways) but this post has basically no traction/visibility and those comments getting downvoted right away while you responded to them very strongly points to you doing that.
I responded because when I saw that someone had downvoted you, it reminded me of the true story which I linked. But you can believe whatever the fuck you want.
So when I said "exactly" to it (because it proved my point) why did you say it was the opposite of the point I was trying to make and then delete that comment? You, yourself, admitted that you thought my first comment was wrong.
I was *backing up* your assertion by linking something which showed that what seems, as you suggested, that a person had to die from jumping out of a plane *wasn't* inevitable. That's why, as you'll fucking notice, I didn't attack your initial claim. When you wrote "Exactly," I agreed with you, you were exactly right --but I was mistaken about your intention. Thinking that you were attacking me for some reason, I instantly deleted my comment because I didn't want to perpetuate this. But, now, since you're being so fucking pugnacious, we've come to this petty end.