Stock Market

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

~snip~ the example is now distorted and ambiguous. Your assumption is that by using two people we all know, then it is somehow insulting or demeaning. ~snip~ And then we cannot even imply anyone as example since we must so worry about the emotions of adult children. Then we have zero idea what the example demonstrates.

Let us take this one at a time. #1 you don't know me at all so your references to me are invalid. Using faulty logic again is not a way to express a cogent argument when none exists. If your initial assumption is wrong, as it obviously is in this case, then the rest of your argument has zero validity.

#2 Repeating it as you have done still does not make it valid no matter how many times you do so. Stop it, this makes your posts overtly long winded and a waste of time for the reader.

Originally Posted by tw

... Worry about emotions of children at the expense of clarity?

The emotions aren't the issue here - the issue is that your premise is completely unfounded and incorrect from the beginning and therefore invalidated.

Originally Posted by tw

Change your bias. If all who only see the little picture and all who see the bigger picture are equal, then where is this insult? The insult only exists when we apply your bias to that paragraph. That is DanaC’s bias; not tw’s.

Every reader and writer has innate biases from all that which has brought them to the point of writing or reading. It is impossible to separate them - impossible. Dana's rewrite deftly explains what you were meaning to say and the only reason you find it ambiguous is because of your biases.

Originally Posted by tw

Sergeant is an expert on making tactics work - application of weapons - trivial details. He can only see the little details. He does what yesman065 did.

You just stated that a sergeant is in charge of trivial details - obviously something that is trivial is not as important as something which is reasonably considered vital.

Definition of TRIVIAL:
fiddling: (informal) small and of little importance; a little (or small) matter"; ; "limited to petty enterprises"

Antonyms for TRIVIAL:
: vital, critical, central, decisive, key, essential, fundamental, important, necessary, imperative

How much clearer and example of what we are all trying to explain to you do you need? You just compared yesman to a sergeant - trivial, and tw to a general - vital. That is disparaging, rude disrespectful and again - INCORRECT. If you cannot see that then you are denser than originally thought.

Originally Posted by tw

Is yesman065also only a caveman because he did not immediately see the bigger picture? Only your assumptions are the source of insult.

You assumed - incorrectly, that I did not see the bigger picture and further assumed that you were superior to me because you assumed you did. I stated that I recognized the "bigger picture" as you put it AND I took action upon that realization. You, it can be assumed by your ignorance of the question put to you, did nothing to rectify or take any action whatsoever to protect the children in your area - I not only saw the "bigger picture", but also took action and did my part to ensure the safety of the children in my area. Do not make assumptions that the "bigger picture" was not seen simply because a post containing an article was made. Another faulty assumption of tw based upon tw's biases.
How many times must I make that point before you appreciate what I am saying?

Originally Posted by tw

Well at least you are willing to put your opinions up for scrutiny. Yesman065 will not. He would entertain his emotions rather than explain why that paragraph is demeaning (the "it is because it just is" logic).

BS - I have made my point repeatedly and if what I think, feel and have ALREADY done are not clear to everyone who has read the previous posts I will gladly repeat myself. I won't here because it would be redundant to do so.

The fact that I embrace my emotions and am passionate about what I think and about my opinions, does not devalue them in any way. In fact, I think it elevates my opinions over yours for, if no other, that very reason. Posting devoid of emotions does not lend any more credibility to your posts - it actually makes them robotic in nature and difficult to ascertain what the hell it is you are trying to say. Leaving the reader to guess at what you are saying is creating more problems, not solving them. Your dehumanizing posts are tiresome to read because there is no emotion - there is no feeling there is nothing but raw opinion based on, at times, incorrect information or assumptions. That which you claim to bother you most about others is that which you are most guilty of here.

Originally Posted by tw

I am not playing a game with you. I truly don't have your personal biases ~snip~

BS again - if you need me to expound upon them also, I will.


I will ask you one question tw - something I think everyone would like to know. Are you passionate about anything, and if so what?