Bingo, you got it buddy! Now all you have to do is remember those answers exist any time you start thinking that I’ve refused to provide specific examples of different types of “booms.”

Very impressive, you did a great job figuring out that your question was already answered! If you look back through this thread you might even spot a SECOND type of explosion that I mentioned! Hint: The word “explosion” is involved.

This is pointless, you obviously have some sort of memory problems that you’re struggling with. It's the only realistic explanation for why you keep repeating the same claims and questions over and over again rather than learning from previous posts. Instead of posting your “arguments,” just reread this thread until…

TL;DR

Why would I need to do that in order to get you to abandon the argument that my statement was about preventing “booms” AT nuclear power plants rather than booms FROM DESTROYING nuclear power plants?

We can argue about the meaning of the word destroy just as soon as we get done killing off your last zombie argument. Now, is it dead or not?

You dont have to ignore context any more than you keep doing. After all, if “go boom” can cover explosions taking place AT a nuclear power plant, why can’t it cover farting AT the nuclear power plant?

“Go boom” has connotations as varied as falling down or farting, the idea that it’s unambiguous is flat out crazy. Are you merely assuming it or are you finally giving up your argument entirely based on a misunderstanding that has long since been clarified?

The Cardinals Home/Road splits are probably the fault of their fans, right? Sad!

Your continued demonstration of an ability to state bald claims and unvarnished opinions rather than actual arguments is rather useless. “Go boom” has a number of different connotations, which is why us picking different ones wasnt a big deal...until you kept ignoring the clarification.

If true, then there’s no reason for you to continue to cling to your misinterpretation. Either defend your claim against the argument attacking it, abandon it or slink off.

Does this mean that you’re finally abandoning your misinterpretation? I don’t see any point in moving forward if you don't ven understand what you’re attempting to argue against.

Reread my last post; repeating a stupid claim doesn't magically make the arguments against it go away.

I love how you just repeat claims like “as you said” without ever actually addressing arguments to the contrary. It’s adorable.

Why do you keep asking the same stupid question despite me repeatedly outlining its flaws?

You keep demanding that that despite me repeatedly pointing out that preventing an explosion from taking place and preventing an explosion from destroying a nuclear power plant are different things. I guess since you adopted a losing argument youre just trying to change the argument.

What are you saying isn’t true? Use your nouns rather than nonspecific indicators like “that.”

I get it, you misread what I wrote and now you’re sticking with your misinterpretation because you realize that what I ACTUALLY wrote makes sense because youre afraid of being wrong. Dont be afraid, people make mistakes every day. The trick is to figure out that you’ve made a mistake and learn from it rather than…

“Your thin logic seems to center around interpreting “going boom” as “explosions taking place AT the power plant” rather than “explosions DESTROYING the power plant.” Even if that misinterpretation was reasonable the first time you read that comment, the numerous times I’ve clarified that since you first read it…

Why would I bother to provide you with evidence to support a claim I never made? Jesus Christ, maybe you just need to find someone to read for you.