239d
@wajoma saidRoark only made a deal with Peter Keating, another architect, not the owners of the property or the owner of the architecture company
Hmmm, but when Howard Roark makes a black and white deal with conditions clearly understood by both parties it's boohoo nothing written, boohoo not a standard contract, boohoo.
As to be expected, contradiction and inconsistency.
239d
@athousandyoung saidThe book doesn't go into what authority Keating had to make such deals.
Roark only made a deal with Peter Keating, another architect, not the owners of the property or the owner of the architecture company
239d
@athousandyoung saidNo need to announce it.
Searchable full text of The Fountainhead:
https://archive.org/details/TheFountainhead/page/n279/mode/2up
I'm reviewing the text at the moment to see if I can clarify exactly how the negotiations went with textual excerpts for support. As a famous Governor of California once said,
I'll be back.
BTW that's not how to read a book.
239d
1 edit
@wajoma saidNo need to tell me that there's no need to announce it.
No need to announce it.
BTW that's not how to read a book.
No, that's how you study a book you already read and support your arguments about it. That's how I picked up on so many details in Atlas Shrugged that you were completely oblivious to.
239d
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidHaha. like the fictional metal was blue green, and not green blue. Which you claimed was through your superior knowledge and as it turns out it was the search capabilities of some site.
No need to tell me that there's no need to announce it.
No, that's how you study a book you already read and support your arguments about it. That's how I picked up on so many details in Atlas Shrugged that you were completely oblivious to.
239d
I'm happy to provide a bit of free education for you:
https://saskdebate.ca/resources/resources-for-coaches/examples-and-evidence
For every argument you make in a debate, examples and/or evidence are necessary to prove your point. Every debater should know how to use evidence in their speeches. Not only is it a requirement in the judge’s rubric, evidence also helps you provide real world context for your arguments.
Evidence can take many forms: statistics, studies, examples, or illustrations. Try to provide at least two pieces of evidence for each point. In prepared debates, statistics and studies are expected because of the amount of time you have had to prepare. Whereas in impromptu debates, examples and your spec knowledge are all you have to draw on. In that case, focus on providing real world examples where the motion can be related.
239d
@wajoma saidI didn't claim anything. I provided facts about what Rand actually wrote instead of how you relied on vague memories of how you felt when you read the book once decades ago.
Haha. like the fictional metal was blue green, and not green blue. Which you claimed was through your superior knowledge and as it turns out it was the search capabilities of some site.
@wajoma saidEven assuming for the sake of argument Keating had legal authority to bind the owners to not make any changes from the design Roark submitted a breach of the contract couldn't possibly include a remedy that Roark could blow it up. And Roark would surely know that.
The book doesn't go into what authority Keating had to make such deals.
239d
@no1marauder saidATY made an announcement he was going to find the conditions and limits of Keating's authority, we know he is going to announce his findings because he announced he was finding his findings, We await his announcement.
Even assuming for the sake of argument Keating had legal authority to bind the owners to not make any changes from the design Roark submitted a breach of the contract couldn't possibly include a remedy that Roark could blow it up. And Roark would surely know that.
239d
@wajoma saidI'm assuming Keating's authority for the sake of argument.
ATY made an announcement he was going to find the conditions and limits of Keating's authority, we know he is going to announce his findings because he announced he was finding his findings, We await his announcement.
239d
@no1marauder saidWell the jury decided otherwise, so: what the jury said.
I'm assuming Keating's authority for the sake of argument.
Isn't that your fall back when your ambiguous quotes are knocked down, your direct route of Biggs is shown to be quite indirect, your absence of evidence, your absence of the unlikely convoluted plan that to be moderately successful would need detail and precision, when those are knocked down one by one, you know what your fall back is right, you've tried it a couple of times, your fall back is: well the jury decided otherwise, end of story.
239d
@wajoma saidI'm pretty lazy so you might have to wait a while.
ATY made an announcement he was going to find the conditions and limits of Keating's authority, we know he is going to announce his findings because he announced he was finding his findings, We await his announcement.
239d
@wajoma saidThe "jury" was a figment of Ayn Rand's deranged mind. No real jury would have brought such a ridiculous "defense".
Well the jury decided otherwise, so: what the jury said.
Isn't that your fall back when your ambiguous quotes are knocked down, your direct route of Biggs is shown to be quite indirect, your absence of evidence, your absence of the unlikely convoluted plan that to be moderately successful would need detail and precision, when those are knocked down one by one, you know wh ...[text shortened]... you've tried it a couple of times, your fall back is: well the jury decided otherwise, end of story.
Stop the BS. Your disingenuous concentration on the minutiae doesn't change the facts, There was a plan that Biggs admitted he discussed with Tarrio, Tarrio himself said it involved "storming the Capitol", the Proud Boys gathered at a pre-designated spot, they were directed in their actions by Biggs by bullhorn, they fought through police lines and were among the first to actually breach the Capitol and then proceeded to the actual place where the Electoral College certification was being held.
Any reasonable person not blinded by their ideological predilections as you are knows that they did exactly what they conspired to do.