That’s a fascinatingly stupid claim to make considering one of my very first posts rejected your “it doesnt prevent explosions IN the reactor vessel” argument. I’m honestly pretty impressed that no matter how many times something you say gets proven wrong you still pop right back up and expect people to take your…

“Your rebuttal wasnt meaningful” isnt an actual counterargument. Youve also apparently ALREADY forgotten the second type of explosion that I mentioned despite rediscovering it just 42 minutes ago.

The answers to your question and complaint earlier, obviously. Is this some sort of a logic puzzle where you can remember answers or you can remember questions, but you can never remember both?

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?

Thats not true, I got an awesome pair of headphones for only $30 last year!

They didnt even do that, nothing in the article that you posted would prevent the bottle being opened and poured into a bowl to dip your bread AFTER it arrived at the table. I’ll also note that your sentence starting with “the fact is” is not only mostly opinion, it’s also a question! Youre basically trying to combine…

“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?

Happy to help! If you read the Telegraph article that you linked to I’m sure that you would notice that they merely required proper labelling and a sealed container, they didn’t ban it, which makes your claim that “they passed a law where you can’t have olive oil at the table in restaurants” false.

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.