Did this User get "owned"? (We will call him JohnDoe)?

Did JohnDoe get owned?

the following conversation between myself and an SH user named JohnDoe took place in the late evening hours and early morning hours of 7-8-2008 and 7-9-2008 in a SH poll (i had to remove the link because that user did not reply yet)

This poll is nothing derogatory against JohnDoe, it is simply a question regarding whether he was bested (owned) or not.
I harbor NO ill will, or animosity against him in any form or fashion, i am however disappointed by his refusal to step up to the plate and stand behind his stated conviction(s).

JohnDoe had given an example of something not being a WMD by referencing blackpowder to which i posed the following question.

Bill: let me ask you JohnDoe...
how many people does something have to be able to kill or destroy at one time before "you" consider it "mass"?

JohnDoe: From Times Online (UK):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1013136.ece

What makes a weapon one of mass destruction?
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
THE arguments over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have entered a new phase, after Tony Blair’s admission that none of his officials had told him whether the Government’s dossier was referring to battlefield or longer-range systems.
The apparent confusion is not just about politics. It is a question of definition, experts said yesterday: when is a weapon one of mass destruction?

Experts who have studied this subject during and after the Cold War accept that the definition has become more flexible since the days when weapons of mass destruction meant an attack by dozens of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, capable of causing millions of deaths. Today the acronym WMD appears to mean different things to different people.
Experts say that battlefield artillery shells, mortars, short-range rockets or other systems fitted with nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological
warheads can all be classed as weapons of mass destruction under the more liberal definition accepted today.
There are two common denominators that have survived the Cold War: by definition, today’s WMD systems in the hands of rogue or potentially
hostile states have to be weapons fitted with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, and the intention of the attacker, whether using short-range or long-range systems, would be to have a strategic impact. In other words, the launching of chemical artillery shells or the dropping of bombs containing biological agents would have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves.
The decision by Saddam to launch Scuds armed with chemical warheads against Iran in the 1980s killed thousands, but it also transformed that conflict between neighbours into a far more dangerous regional war and stirred the Iraqi dictator to develop even more deadly weapons.
Even conventional weapons can have a strategic impact. Saddam did not have the capability to launch medium-range missiles with chemical or biological warheads beyond his borders last year, but he did attack Kuwait with al-Samoud missiles, with conventional explosives. They caused little damage but the effect among Kuwaitis turned them into weapons of mass panic.

Bill: JohnDoe?
nice post... but you didn't answer my question....

"how many people does something have to be able to kill or destroy at one time before "you" consider it "mass"?"

JohnDoe: It's not for you or me to define. There is US Code, and there are international laws and treaties.

Bill: and both of those are totally irrelevant to the question i asked you...

unless you're saying that because there are codes and laws you have no independent opinion on the subject?
or are you simply backed into a corner with my question and don't want to answer it for fear of seeming hypocritical?

if that's the case, that's fine.. the question is one that is crafted to do just that... a person can't say that they personally feel that even one death is one too many without having to concede that there were WMDs (which sarin and mustard gas both are), nor can they say it has to be able to kill 1,000 at a time without seeming calloused and uncaring.. they are screwed no matter what their answer is when they have already claimed there were "NO" WMDs...

so you decide what, if any number your answer will be, or if you simply chose NOT to answer it because of the hypocrisy factor...

honestly, either way is fine with me...
I won't be mad at you..

JohnDoe: What is your own opinion on the answer to 2 + 2? Not the mathematical answer, but YOUR own feelings on the answer? Can you do it?

Bill: yes i can

now, are you going to answer my question or not?

JohnDoe: 2 + 2 = ?

Bill: i already have my answer, if you want to know it, then stop playing games and avoiding the question.. are you going to answer my question or not?

oh and in the future, NEVER bring a knife to a gunfight...

you'll see my answer when you answer me in one of the methods i offered you....

JohnDoe: You question leads me to believe you don't distinguish between facts and opinions. If you did, you would realize your question makes no sense. How many elephants are equal to a rainbow? Two? Ten thousand? What is your answer?

Bill: JohnDoe,
you're owned.. you obviously can't, or won't answer the question, and your only recourse in an attempt to keep yourself from looking foolish is to avoid the question...
I'm dealing strictly in opinion, YOUR opinion which i have now asked for multiple times...
you, as i stated cannot answer the question without exposing yourself to the fact that i just owned you...
but like i said... i ain't mad at you....

oh and here's your knife back along with your a$$


JohnDoe: My responses apparently went way over your head. Thanks for playing.


Bill: nice try again, but you DO lose...


Bill: JohnDoe?, with your permission, i'd like to put your theory to the test...
May I?


he did not answer me as of the time i posted this question.....