Oh my. An edit:
Originally posted by psmith81992
So in conclusion, we BOTH know I wasn't making a universal statement so semantics or nitpicking (which you have done on hundreds of occasions over the years), you're still wrong. [/B]
So, in conclusion, I did understand the simple concept, but just decided to deliberately misunderstand your statement in order to hold you up to ridicule? I'm glad, you finally got the point...
Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't need to argue semantics with you but you made the claim that I applied a universal title to something, and I simply showed you I didn't. The fact that you can't admit defeat or that you were simply wrong isn't surprising, you never have.
You "showed" me, that you didn't mean it which is rather different from "not doing it", because the statement you made could be interpreted in that fashion (see dictionary entry). So what you did was calling me out for your own failure. You could have used an unambiguous term to express what you wanted to say: that the mentioned opinion is one "widely shared", "held by a majority" etc. Your inability to do so is hardly my fault, is it?
I think you misunderstood yet again, seeing as how English isn't your first language. Our specific debate, what you responded to a few days ago, is what I need a few days on.
Which is, what I was refering to...
THIS particular thing is a different matter. But I'm sure you know that and are playing dumb. I especially like when you fall back on "english isn't my first language' when something goes wrong, and then "but I still know it better than you". Bravo 😂
Simply astonishing. Apparently, you deliberately misunderstood me, than called me out for that (your failure) again. I see a pattern there. Then you follow up with a misrepresentation of my argument. I can just conclude that the "😂" at the end means, that you're now laughing at yourself, in a desperate attempt to cozy up to your audience. Go on! You can do it!
To be fair Nai, the context that the word's used in would be a better measure of how applicable a certain definition is, and the manner in which psmith used the word better fits the example given in the second definition than it does the first, from the dictionary you're quoting, not to mention that is typically how the term is used in everyday language, in I'd imagine, the experiences of the vast majority of people.
gen·er·al [jen-er-uhl]adjective
1.
of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.
2.
of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual: the general mood of the people.
So, in conclusion, I did understand the simple concept, but just decided to deliberately misunderstand your statement in order to hold you up to ridicule? I'm glad, you finally got the point...
You "showed" me, that you didn't mean it which is rather different from "not doing it", because the statement you made could be interpreted in that fashion (see dictionary entry). So what you did was calling me out for your own failure. You could have used an unambiguous term to express what you wanted to say: that the mentioned opinion is one "widely shared", "held by a majority" etc. Your inability to do so is hardly my fault, is it?
Or you COULD tone down your presumptuous attitude and ask for clarification? Hmmm
Simply astonishing. Apparently, you deliberately misunderstood me, than called me out for that (your failure) again. I see a pattern there. Then you follow up with a misrepresentation of my argument. I can just conclude that the "laughing out loud" at the end means, that you're now laughing at yourself, in a desperate attempt to cozy up to your audience. Go on! You can do it!
AH yes, still trying to save face because of your many failures. Some people never change 😂
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
To be fair Nai, the context that the word's used in would be a better measure of how applicable a certain definition is, and the manner in which psmith used the word better fits the example given in the second definition than it does the first, from the dictionary you're quoting, not to mention that is typically how the term is used in everyday language, in I'd imagine, the experiences of the vast majority of people.
Nai's too insecure to admit when he's wrong so he'll keep up the good fight until people forget what's going on. It's worked well for him in the past. The conversation would have ended had he shown the self awareness to admit being wrong and moved on.
Originally posted by Eminence
That depends on how rousing his apparent victory over Nai Fohl turns out to be.Curiouser and curiouser.
It's not so much a victory as "he was wrong". I didn't own him in a debate or anything like that but it's easier to beat a video game using a trainer than getting Nai to admit he's wrong.
Nai's too insecure to admit when he's wrong so he'll keep up the good fight until people forget what's going on. It's worked well for him in the past. The conversation would have ended had he shown the self awareness to admit being wrong and moved on.
Dave the Deceiver
It's not so much a victory as "he was wrong". I didn't own him in a debate or anything like that but it's easier to beat a video game using a trainer than getting Nai to admit he's wrong.
(if you know what I mean)
And to clarify Sorgo, I didn't download ME 3, just was looking at other versions as I've already bought it, but I was getting the trainer. I DID however see how far I could take the "nuh uh" deal. Now that we're clear🙂
Were you being self-referential? That's big of you, actually.
Which I would assume in some capacity makes you "right," but perhaps I missed the nuances of the argument when I didn't read it. Now go forth and finish him, and taste of victory.
Originally posted by psmith81992I understand now. Every time you say something that sounds ignorant or oblivious, it's because you wanted it to sound that way, to throw everyone else off. No one else does this, only you.
It's always amusing when your text gets the intended reaction to the point where people are accusing you of not having self awareness.
That's clever.
I understand now. Every time you say something that sounds ignorant or oblivious, it's because you wanted it to sound that way, to throw everyone else off. No one else does this, only you.That's clever.
When I lose a debate, that's not calculated.
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
To be fair Nai, the context that the word's used in would be a better measure of how applicable a certain definition is, and the manner in which psmith used the word better fits the example given in the second definition than it does the first, from the dictionary you're quoting, not to mention that is typically how the term is used in everyday language, in I'd imagine, the experiences of the vast majority of people.
Oh my...
You want context?
"Context" is a tech term, that describes all parameters influencing a situation of communication. So let us examine the situation. The statement in question was made by DS, who is rather famous for his hasty generalization and his dislike for everything coming from the Democrats / Liberals / Communists (terms he has used interchangeably). So naturally, whenever one has to interprete a statement he made about "the Democrats" one is likely to assume, that DS is attempting to cast a slur on them. Coupled with his preference for hasty generalizations, it appeared to be reasonable to interprete the statement in the way I did.
Which leads to the second part of the "context": My general preferance to interprete everything DS says in the worst possible way - for DS, in order to spawn such entertaining "debates".
So one might consider that the communication was concluded in a sucessful fashion, even though it might not look like that at first glance. I find this rather amusing and, apparently, the same is true for the opposing side.
@DS:
Originally posted by psmith81992
Either that, or you didn't understand. But in either case, you were still proven wrong🙂 Nice try.
How can I "be wrong", when I chose to misunderstand your statement? That's senseless. And the other option is me interpreting a statement in a reasonable fashion, not meeting the intent of the author. Wrong? Yes. My fault? Hm. 😉
Or you COULD tone down your presumptuous attitude and ask for clarification? Hmmm
Since I just asked a question, about a comment you made about an apparently fabricated quote, I don't see any "presumptous attitude" here. Or, to make that clear: I had absolutely no intent of understanding you correctly. I wanted cheap entertainment. You delivered.
AH yes, still trying to save face because of your many failures. Some people never change 😂
Save face?
If I were the guy incapable of comprehending what "monogendered" means, I would soft-pedal when it came to issues like that. But hey. Nice that I've gone from "one (deliberate) reading mistake" to "many failures" in just a few postings. Applause.
So I was incapable of understanding a statement, I deliberately chose not to understand in order to call you out on it. Wow. I totally lost my face now. 🙁 If I keep that up for a decade, I will be...you.
Originally posted by Nai
Oh my...You want context?
"Context" is a tech term, that describes all parameters influencing a situation of communication. So let us examine the situation. The statement in question was made by DS, who is rather famous for his hasty generalization and his dislike for everything coming from the Democrats / Liberals / Communists (terms he has used interchangeably). So naturally, whenever one has to interprete a statement he made about "the Democrats" one is likely to assume, that DS is attempting to cast a slur on them. Coupled with his preference for hasty generalizations, it appeared to be reasonable to interprete the statement in the way I did.Which leads to the second part of the "context": My general preferance to interprete everything DS says in the worst possible way - for DS, in order to spawn such entertaining "debates".
So one might consider that the communication was concluded in a sucessful fashion, even though it might not look like that at first glance. I find this rather amusing and, apparently, the same is true for the opposing side.
[b]@DS:
How can I "be wrong", when I chose to misunderstand your statement? That's senseless. And the other option is me interpreting a statement in a reasonable fashion, not meeting the intent of the author. Wrong? Yes. My fault? Hm. 😉
Since I just asked a question, about a comment you made about an apparently fabricated quote, I don't see any "presumptous attitude" here. Or, to make that clear: I had absolutely no intent of understanding you correctly. I wanted cheap entertainment. You delivered.
Save face?
If I were the guy incapable of comprehending what "monogendered" means, I would soft-pedal when it came to issues like that. But hey. Nice that I've gone from "one (deliberate) reading mistake" to "many failures" in just a few postings. Applause.So I was incapable of understanding a statement, I deliberately chose not to understand in order to call you out on it. Wow. I totally lost my face now. 🙁 If I keep that up for a decade, I will be...you. [/B]
That lengthy post furthered confirmed it.
Just admit you're wrong Nai. Stop rationalizing. And I said just admit your mistake. I didn't say I owned you. Your response was this:
Save face?
If I were the guy incapable of comprehending what "monogendered" means, I would soft-pedal when it came to issues like that. But hey. Nice that I've gone from "one (deliberate) reading mistake" to "many failures" in just a few postings. Applause.
Originally posted by psmith81992So you orchestrate a false persona that we all perceive as stupid and arrogant, and then laugh at us for not seeing through your deception for the devious prankster you really are. And you never actually "lose" debates and arguments, you just trick your opponents in to thinking they were arguing against a different personality and then ridicule them for being so unaware as to spot the Real Dave behind the Idiot Dave. You're not really arrogant or a blowhard, you're just a hyper-aware genius.
It's not supposed to be clever but it amuses me. And not everytime, just most times. I got your dumbass off your seat didn't I? And Nemebro.When I lose a debate, that's not calculated.