(07-07-2023 12:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-07-2023 11:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:Lad hasn't done that. Has Lad asked in earnest for support for a statement? Yes? Has he asked for it simply to be snarky? Not that I can recall.

Boy... BOTH of you guys' willingness to move the bar and reframe conversations is truly impressive.

Boy, your willingness to not make sure that you understand what we are trying to say before you respond is truly impressive.

What did I not understand about you intentionally moving the bar twice in that short paragraph.
1) The statement that lad is seeking support for is a statement that Lad created... not a statement that Numbers made. Numbers or really ANYONE is not responsible to support statements that they did not make.
2) Nobody suggested that he asked for 'snarky' responses. Lines like this serve no purpose other than to argue in the absurd... which is a means of deflecting from/derailing conversation, not engaging in it.

Quote:

Quote:Who ever said he asked for snarky responses?

I didn't say that he asked for snarky responses. I said that he hasn't asked for evidence simply so that he (Lad) could take the opportunity be snarky.

Punctuation matters. Now that I understand what you were trying to say,

Finally.

Quote:I'd argue that yes... he intentionally rephrased what Numbers said in order to argue with that, relatively easily defeated premise... which was NOT what was said?

I mean, why else would someone knowingly and repeatedly mischaracterize what someone said, even over their specific objections?? Maybe it wasn't to be snarky... maybe it was to be a prick? Maybe it was to fulfill some sort of 'hole' left when his dog ran away. I have no idea, but there is nothing remotely honest or forthright about clear, intentional misrepresentations of the words of others... especially when they are right here, and you've even quoted them.

Quote:*Sigh* I'm not likening OO's snark to GoodOwl's posts. That's not what I'm doing.

OO is complaining that we sometimes ask for evidence when somebody posts something. I referenced GoodOwl's posts as an example when asking for evidence makes sense. See his "tHiS STudY ProVEs ThAt HoMEscHOol KIdS aRE SmaRTEr!" post below.

Wow... You're even typing it correctly, but not understanding it so,

I assume that you think Lad asking for evidence here makes sense... and you should now know that OO's question was in snarky response to that.... and you used good owl's post as an example when asking for evidence makes sense... but you don't see that you're likening the requests?

*sigh*

You said that I likened OO's snark to GoodOwl's posts. I did not liken OO's snark to GoodOwl's posts (FWIW most here would agree that likening anything to GoodOwl's posts would be an insult).

OO gave us a hard time about asking for evidence when somebody posts questionable stuff on this forum. I used the example of GoodOwl's posts to point out why asking for evidence sometimes makes perfect sense. That is not the same as likening OO's post to GoodOwl's posts.

Quote:Okay chief... I certainly can't know what you think... but it sure appears that way to me... hence my responses.

OK, champ.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I don't put GoodOwls habit of posting deep conspiracy theories in the same category of using the scientific method to invent something. I guess that's just me, though.

You moving the bar again. I compared GoodOwl to the National Enquirer... and then you came in with the idea that out of 500 'crazy' ideas, 35 of them might work... which as compared to Edison, sounds like a damn good batting average.

A good batting average? Talk about apples to oranges.

Wow... Metaphors aren't your thing, are they.

[/quote]

I could list a few concepts that don't seem to be "your thing" but I'll abstain from travelling down that path.