Originally posted by Josh_AlexanderYou said featless because you don't know what feat less means. Now you're changing it to not enough feats. This is why you fail in every argument you ever make. You don't know what words mean.
Little feats to be more specific.Not enough feats to make him worthy of going against the Emperor.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You said featless because you don't know what feat less means. Now you're changing it to not enough feats. This is why you fail in every argument you ever make. You don't know what words mean.
Is just that you are not smart enough to understand that i wasnt being literal. So i have to rephrase myself.
Oh I understand perfectly, i wonder if you analyze things well.
Originally posted by Josh_AlexanderBe concrete and try to not fumble pver your words then. You do this often. I expect any debater to be able to articulate or be concise enough to be taken at their word. Don't say featless over and over again if you don't really mean it.
Is just that you are not smart enough to understand that i wasnt being literal. So i have to rephrase myself.Oh I understand perfectly, i wonder if you analyze things well.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Be concrete and try to not fumble pver your words then. You do this often. I expect any debater to be able to articulate or be concise enough to be taken at their word. Don't say featless over and over again if you don't really mean it.
I expect a debater to be smart enough to understand literary elements.