|
Yes, I'm saying that is my perception, more or less. Not so much of a direct comparison, though.
|
WELL. it is my perception that you enjoy talking shit. i also percieve that when cornered, you'd rather stick to your guns and talk more shit than to cop to the truth. your device of utilizing long run on sentences with big words and circuituous word paths as a substitution for clearly intended logic is currently being percieved as bullpoopie.
|
The funny thing is, I actually talk that way. To me, it is "clearly intended logic" because I attempt to chart out all the details in as sequential a fashion as possible. I acknowledge that this format may not be pleasant reading. However, I challenge you to state which "truth" you believe I am unwilling to address.
|
that you stated at one point that you prefer not to generalize ( as it helped your case at that time)
and then shortly after, you generalized (which i understood to be intended as humor) beestie called you on it. the issue now is that instead of copping to contradicting yourself, you attempted to argue a plainly false point of view. |
Oh, that. That's easy. The difference is between observations stated as objective facts and observations stated as admittedly subjective perceptions. The phrase "idea of" is a qualifier which indicates the subjective category. Subjective observations are fine, as long as you don't state them as fact. Hence my use of the "idea of" qualifier.
The statistical analysis was actually an afterthought which we got sidetracked on. But also equally valid. |
Incidentally, I do acknowledge the humorous appearance of a contradiction (in Beetsie's post).
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Criticizing the substance of a post - with a post of even less substance? Priceless.
|
We have mad skillz.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.