Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 65117" data-attributes="member: 2205">My posts in this thread are replete with concrete examples of where I thought he was inconsistent.&nbsp; I'm certainly not going to go back and look for them again just because you want me to.&nbsp; What was that you said about laziness?&nbsp; That laziness is not going back to reread 11 pages of thread to see all the examples in every one of my posts where I quoted a section of his post and then commented on it, and then he came back and said &quot;No, that's not what I meant at all?&quot;&nbsp; Laziness is saying that unless I do that work for you, you have all the excuse you need to make snarky requests at me?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; That's not what you said?&nbsp; Oh, sorry.&nbsp; My bad. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />Not only that, your reasoning is faulty.&nbsp; Majority does not make an argument factual, that is true, but when the argument is specififically about the clarity of the posts, then majority opinion is the only type of evidence that can be used.&nbsp; If I merely said I thought they were unclear, but nobody else had a problem, I would be the outlier and everyone could justifiably claim that I was just too dense to figure out what he was saying.&nbsp; Since everyone posting on this thread seemed to have fallen initially into similar assumptions as myself, I can justifiably claim that the assumptions were clearly implied in the posts.I don't know what stakes you have in this argument, but instead of jumping in at the 11th hour and make statements like this, you ought to consider thinking them through a little bit.&nbsp; I'm not going to restate (again) what my specific points of contention are, because there are pages and pages of just that information on this thread.&nbsp; And your assertion that majority opinion is irrelevant is not applicable given the nature of the argument.Now.&nbsp; Again.&nbsp; Regardless of what else will say on this thread, I've presented what I think, I've tried to understand what others have been saying with (I think) an open mind, and now I've had to fend off ill-concieved and ignorantly posited insults.&nbsp; I think I've had enough.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 65117, member: 2205"] [i][/i] My posts in this thread are [i]replete[/i] with concrete examples of where I thought he was inconsistent. I'm certainly not going to go back and look for them again just because you want me to. What was that you said about laziness? That laziness is not going back to reread 11 pages of thread to see all the examples in every one of my posts where I quoted a section of his post and then commented on it, and then he came back and said "No, that's not what I meant at all?" Laziness is saying that unless [i]I[/i] do that work for [i]you[/i], you have all the excuse you need to make snarky requests at me? No? That's not what you said? Oh, sorry. My bad. :rolleyes: Not only that, your reasoning is faulty. Majority does not make an argument factual, that is true, but when the argument is specififically about the clarity of the posts, then majority opinion is the only type of evidence that [i]can[/i] be used. If I merely said I thought they were unclear, but nobody else had a problem, I would be the outlier and everyone could justifiably claim that I was just too dense to figure out what he was saying. Since everyone posting on this thread seemed to have fallen initially into similar assumptions as myself, I can justifiably claim that the assumptions were clearly implied in the posts. I don't know what stakes you have in this argument, but instead of jumping in at the 11th hour and make statements like this, you ought to consider thinking them through a little bit. I'm not going to restate (again) what my specific points of contention are, because there are pages and pages of just that information on this thread. And your assertion that majority opinion is irrelevant is not applicable given the nature of the argument. Now. Again. Regardless of what else will say on this thread, I've presented what I think, I've tried to understand what others have been saying with (I think) an open mind, and now I've had to fend off ill-concieved and ignorantly posited insults. I think I've had enough. [/QUOTE]

Verification