(07-01-2022 09:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 08:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 08:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Seriously? It was presented as an anecdote.

No it wasn't. Not really. If you did not intend for it to have probative value, why post it?

Quote:I didn't think that reasonable people would have to attach a disclaimer of "This is simply an anecdote and I do not see this as the final word on this discussion nor as a complete proof of my argument".

I think you probably need to.

I think 93 is having the proverbial 'bang your shoe on the table' event with this.

You'll note that he will in no way, shape, or form answer your first question. But his umbrage over the post being pointed out as emotive fluff is getting him irate.

Bro... you are well-known to be the irate poster on the Quad.

Quote:Pardon me, its 'an anecdote'. All the difference. <banging shoe sound in the distance>

Edited to add: yep he went to a straight snippy deflection instead of answering your first question. <shoe bang, shoe bang, shoe bang>

Answering the question? Ugh.. you want me to type out the definition of "anecdotal evidence"? And how nobody thinks "anecdotal evidence" proves a theory but it can be somewhat illustrative of a point?

Seriously... if you guys lose your minds over posting anecdotes then I have some very bad news for you about 50% of the links that your side posts on the Quad.

I see being called out for nothing but emotive fluff is your new chew toy. Fun fun fun. I'll let you bang your shoe by yourself for awhile. Have a great weekend 93. Got more productive things to do than listen to you defend yourself steadfastly tell how how fing important your emotive fluff is. Toodles.

Yep how dare one call out 93 on that. The sheer injustice, the horror. Lolz.