if you want to match wits i'll run you out of here
Were we matching wits and I lost? Bummer.
it sucks, but i have faith that your delicate sensibilities can overcome
very much looking forward to your next myopic post
OK. Not sure why you feel the need to personally attack people. TTMF
you wanna quote me like a tool and act like you're the foremost authority on this subject? you're most definitely gonna get attacked
are you absorbing now?
Which subject am I acting like an authority on? My opinion? I'm really sorry that you're offended.
no one is offended, i assure you. i was here long before you arrived, and i'll be here long after you (thankfully) depart
but here's the most salient point: i know this is going to probably going to greatly upset your delicate, woke-injected sensibilities, but you're not the smartest guy in the room as you portray yourself to be
since you seem to get off to acronyms, here's one for you: GFS
have a good evening sweet cheeks
I have never said anything about my intelligence or how I feel about my intelligence relative to anyone else here. I don't think you understand my opinion on this matter but I'm fine leaving it as such.
So let's get this over with...
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
Cool.
just basic?
I wouldn't know where to start to measure proficiency, so I would attest only to basic. I also don't engage very frequently with inconsiderate thinkers in the real world at this level, so it takes me some time to spot the poorly formed logical whips.
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
Cool.
just basic?
I wouldn't know where to start to measure proficiency, so I would attest only to basic. I also don't engage very frequently with inconsiderate thinkers in the real world at this level, so it takes me some time to spot the poorly formed logical whips.
We all have our pressure points. You just need to find mine.
we'll try to do better, charlatan
Again, I'm not purporting to be some great thinker -- That was you.
I like the attempt at ego. That's a solid tactic, but I've accomplished enough to satisfy my ego, and I enjoy learning from other people way too much to think that highly of myself.
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
Cool.
just basic?
I wouldn't know where to start to measure proficiency, so I would attest only to basic. I also don't engage very frequently with inconsiderate thinkers in the real world at this level, so it takes me some time to spot the poorly formed logical whips.
very frequently? that means you've done it before
how'd that turn out for you?
Sometimes, in the work I do, you have to tell people what they don't want to hear. When you do, they tend to tell you what they're feeling rather than what they're thinking. I work to avoid these emotionally-charged discussions under normal circumstances, but here, where the sophistry runs like a mighty river, I imbibe.
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
Cool.
just basic?
I wouldn't know where to start to measure proficiency, so I would attest only to basic. I also don't engage very frequently with inconsiderate thinkers in the real world at this level, so it takes me some time to spot the poorly formed logical whips.
very frequently? that means you've done it before
how'd that turn out for you?
Sometimes, in the work I do, you have to tell people what they don't want to hear. When you do, they tend to tell you what they're feeling rather than what they're thinking. I work to avoid these emotionally-charged discussions under normal circumstances, but here, where the sophistry runs like a mighty river, I imbibe.
I'm human
tell you what you don't want to hear?
you mean, kinda like I did? you know, that spurred you on to create a post with bullet points consisting of exact things I literally just said like you need to be enrolled in a remedial reading comprehension class?
is that the type of productivity you convey "in the work you do"?
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
if i quoted every idiotic post you've made and countered, my fingers would fall off. but i haven't done that. that's not my style. but you made the conscious decision to turn around and do that to me when i'm simply voicing my opinion? and tried to be cute in the process? bro i'll be a martyr before i'll allow you to do that.
the only people who side with you have less than 500 posts combined. i'm sure rivera and mistlin are alts just as you are.
dallas is probably the most intelligent, level-headed contributor this forum has ever seen, and in no way, shape or form does he agree with a single word you are saying. seriously, read his posts. i'm smarter than you are, he's smarter than i am. transitive properties, if you know what that is. best advice i could ever give you.
and if you quote me again when i voice my opinion, we'll rumble until one or both of us is out of here
understood Mr. Acronym boy? GFY
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
Cool.
just basic?
I wouldn't know where to start to measure proficiency, so I would attest only to basic. I also don't engage very frequently with inconsiderate thinkers in the real world at this level, so it takes me some time to spot the poorly formed logical whips.
very frequently? that means you've done it before
how'd that turn out for you?
Sometimes, in the work I do, you have to tell people what they don't want to hear. When you do, they tend to tell you what they're feeling rather than what they're thinking. I work to avoid these emotionally-charged discussions under normal circumstances, but here, where the sophistry runs like a mighty river, I imbibe.
I'm human
tell you what you don't want to hear?
you mean, kinda like I did? you know, that spurred you on to create a post with bullet points consisting of exact things I literally just said like you need to be enrolled in a remedial reading comprehension class?
is that the type of productivity you convey in the work you do?
I just thought that if I partitioned the comments and ordered them that it would make some sense. Maybe there was a hidden code. I couldn't find anything that resembled rational, coherent, thought in the original writing, but when I disassembled it, I could see more clearly what you were saying. I just found it to be somewhat disgusting to state that there is zero merit for the inclusion and that it's just because of propaganda. If you really believe all that, then you know... that's also why I love America, but I don't agree with it, and I wish there could be some actual discussion around doing something about the problem that this has created with regard to the quality of the record of Baseball. For this to get all twisted up into something else is just not what I came here for. Now, go ahead and twist this into whatever you want. Defend your rhetoric by calling me a "woke" "wokist" or whatever the You be You crowd is all about these days.
As for "productivity you convey...", I'm not sure I understand what this means. It's not necessarily a heuristic I would propose generically; to disassemble a paragraph and consider the formation and content of the primary elements, but it worked for my needs. I guess I would seek to show that I'm nimble when I can't be quick.
again, I'm sorry that you're having absorption issues. wish I could help. but seeing as what I laid out was completely coherent to a respected board member who posted right before you, I don't feel the need to elucidate my thoughts to an alt who is plastered off woke kool-aid.
enjoy your stance that Negro league stats should be included with those of the MLB. must be quite the party taking place on that remote island of yours. but the good news is that if you get hungry and run out of food, you can always eat rivera. I'm sure he's delectable.
@PaulMaul said:
Found my notes from the last time I taught propositional logic. I got it right that time!
Then you know how old this logical branch is and the philosophers behind it I’m sure. I’m no expert in propositional logic but I find it interesting in other areas of interest I have.
I used to teach a class called Discrete Structures that covered logic, set theory, and basic combinatorics/probability. I have also seen logic taught more from a philosophy perspective though.
again, I'm sorry that your having absorption issues. wish I could help. but seeing as what I laid out was completely coherent to a respected board member who posted right before you, I don't feel the need to elucidate my thoughts to an alt who is plastered off woke kool-aid.
enjoy your stance that Negro league stats should be included with those of the MLB. must be quite the party taking place on that remote island of yours. but the good news is that if you get hungry and run out of food, you can always eat rivera. I'm sure he's delectable.
It wasn’t very coherent to me, but I understand why it resonated with others who are diametrically opposed to what has just occurred… in 2020.
That’s not precisely my stance. I have stated what I think about it. I don’t think all of the Negro Leagues are equal. I think that the process for collection of the stats doesn’t seem to meet what I would consider to be “proper criteria”. Some of them are unbelievable. Further. I believe that certifying these 60 game seasons is a problem. I think MLB messed this up when they certified the 60 game 2020 season. So what I might do is separate out all those seasons under 100 games and treat them differently. I would let the career stats stand but check them again for correctness and improve the certification process. Something like that.
Eat Rivera? You’re going to need to get out the crayons and draw me a picture.
By 1952 for example sake, most if not all of the Negro Leagues were closed, out of business, from what I've read. So that was 5 years after Jackie Robinson entered the league. Which was more than ample time for the Negro League players to assimilate into the major leagues, if they were good enough.
The fact that by 1952, MLB was still less than 3% black players, tells me that the statement, "But in 2020 MLB decided that there was enough evidence to support the thesis that the NN2 and MLB were close in skill given the performance of former NN2 players in MLB", is pure and simple revisionist history.
The Negro Leagues based on the facts, were probably equivalent to MLB minor league teams if that, which had a few major league caliber players on the teams.
(was also posted in the Ted Williams thread)
So this is the second time Steve posted that 5 years was ample time for negro league players to assimilate into mlb if they were good enough.
Now no matter what side of this discussion you’re on, no one has a problem with that statement?
What I find really odd in this thread is Dallas is supposed to be the baseball statistical expert on this board, and there are all kinds of variables that determine a players overall value such as ballpark factors, defensive range, speed, power, etc.
But then when it comes to former negro league players who played mlb after 1947, no extenuating circumstances were involved. It’s all cut and dried, no variables.
As if after 1947 it was all of a sudden a level playing field between blacks and whites as far as playing mlb. 😂
I used to teach a class called Discrete Structures that covered logic, set theory, and basic combinatorics/probability. I have also seen logic taught more from a philosophy perspective though.
That’s cool. I took a discrete maths course as a csci elective before I later decided to pursue a dual. I still have the text in my library.
It’s the best according to the best. I have a fondness for finite space. Outside of that I know the thoery great but I’m a dog with a pencil. Had to go a different direction into the quantasphere.
So Tabe let us know 2 teams didn’t have a black player on their team until 1958 and 1959 respectively.
Man I bet they were searching far and wide for those 11-12 years after integration and just couldn’t come up with any black players that would be good enough to beat out a .220 hitting slow white guy which were numerous in mlb at the time 😂😂
It’s the best according to the best. I have a fondness for finite space. Outside of that I know the thoery great but I’m a dog with a pencil. Had to go a different direction into the quantasphere.
That’s a joke by the way if anyone’s counting. I’m sure it’s just a popular textbook.
I keep track of how many cards I have from each series of the 1973 Baseball set. The other day I noticed the numbers for all five series are congruent to 1 (mod 12)! What are the odds? 😂😂
I keep track of how many cards I have from each series of the 1973 Baseball set. The other day I noticed the numbers for all five series are congruent to 1 (mod 12)! What are the odds? 😂😂
50%. But there is a number theory thing about an asymptote
What I find really odd in this thread is Dallas is supposed to be the baseball statistical expert on this board, and there are all kinds of variables that determine a players overall value such as ballpark factors, defensive range, speed, power, etc.
But then when it comes to former negro league players who played mlb after 1947, no extenuating circumstances were involved. It’s all cut and dried, no variables.
As if after 1947 it was all of a sudden a level playing field between blacks and whites as far as playing mlb. 😂
It has stopped amazing me that in every single post of this form (Dallas says ......), and I do mean literally every single post going back two decades, when I am not actually quoted the poster states what I said incorrectly. Not always as wildly incorrectly as you just did, but incorrectly nonetheless. Quote what I said that you disagree with and argue against that statement. Setting up strawmen (the king of logical fallacies) and then knocking them down isn't arguing a point, it's a waste of my time.
And just so this is clear to everyone, all the statistics you cite are indeed invaluable in evaluating baseball players. But they can't be used in the Negro Leagues because the statistics that do exist are useless. Teams played teams who were available to play, and in the city where the ballpark was available. In the major leagues, every team played the same teams the same number of times, they played them in equal number at home and on the road, and the stats from each at bat were recorded faithfully and (with the still-existing exception of errors vs. hits) consistently. And, importantly, in the major leagues there were enough games played in each ballpark to provide statistically meaningful results. What's the ballpark factor for the 1926 Baltimore Black Sox? Baseball-reference shows one now, but they had to throw out the statistical standards they use for every other league. The actual answer to the question is "nobody knows". The records for the 1926 International and Pacific Coast Leagues, on the other hand, are solid and meaningful, but then those leagues were much more organized and took record-keeping much more seriously than the ragtag Negro Leagues.
Absolutely, what scant reliable evidence that does exist points to the presence of several truly great players in the Negro Leagues over the course of their history. But their stats are not in any way comparable to those in the real major leagues. MLB knows that, obviously, and until very recently would never have considered calling any of the Negro Leagues "major" leagues. But, as we all know but only some of us will admit, the standard for being classified as a "major" league was changed, dramatically, to allow the Negro Leagues to qualify. Why? Again, we all know the answer.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
So Tabe let us know 2 teams didn’t have a black player on their team until 1958 and 1959 respectively.
Man I bet they were searching far and wide for those 11-12 years after integration and just couldn’t come up with any black players that would be good enough to beat out a .220 hitting slow white guy which were numerous in mlb at the time 😂😂
Listen, it's hard to find quality players to replace the 68 games of .159 Boston got out of Billy Klaus in 1958. Or the 46 games of .125 that they got from Billy Consolo in 1958. Or the 50 games of .199 from Ted Lepcio. Or, heck, even the 134 games of .219 from Gene Stevens. But I'm sure Boston was trying.
Dallas I found what I was referring to. Where you say a very low percentage of negro league players were good enough to play mlb. I’m directly contradicting that and saying there were a lot more that were good enough but didn’t get a chance because of racism after 1947. Are you agreeing with Steve and saying by 1952 negro league players had plenty of time to assimilate into mlb if they were good enough?
I’ll make it a simple question so you can’t divert.
After 1947 were black and white players on an equal playing field as far as being able to sign with a mlb team assuming their skill set was almost identical?
Comments
I have never said anything about my intelligence or how I feel about my intelligence relative to anyone else here. I don't think you understand my opinion on this matter but I'm fine leaving it as such.
So let's get this over with...
I'm stupid, You're smart.
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're the best. I'm the worst.
You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
With this multi-faceted victory for you can we veer back to a normal discussion?
the most accurate post you've made thus far. i'm proud of you.
and if you truly want to veer back, how about you stop quoting people who voice their opinions like you're some omniscient being?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
let me know how that works out for you
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Omniscient?
I quoted your statements in an orderly fashion, and said "I think we could be a little more considerate than this because this is a little off the wall for me.".
And this reads to you as omniscient. Something only an all-knowing being could do. You are a jewel to be studied.
Got it. So there's a pecking order and you're smarter than me and dallas actuary is smarter than you and that's that. Understood. I like your ego!
Maybe I'm just used to better bullies.
fanning the flames by quoting someone when they simply are voicing a dissenting opinion, and doing so in a condescending fashion, is grounds for being "bullied."
I'm seen you pull that bush league move with other valued contributors who have been around longer than your 5 incarnations combined, but again, I'm not the one. i'll proceed until one or both of us vanishes.
it's your choice, Mr. Cute Little Acronym boy
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Oh, he does. It’s yet another example of hypothetical syllogism 👌
This is actually my first account here. I want you to proceed as harshly as you can muster. I want.... All. You. Got!
do you know what hypothetical syllogism means, mr. 5th alt?
😅
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I think that I have a basic understanding and I have the formal academic credentials. Again - this is my first account here. Does this mean that 4 other accounts have used this term and it's so foreign here to use logic in discussions that it can only mean it's the same person?
Cool.
We all have our pressure points. You just need to find mine.
just basic?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
we'll try to do better, charlatan
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I wouldn't know where to start to measure proficiency, so I would attest only to basic. I also don't engage very frequently with inconsiderate thinkers in the real world at this level, so it takes me some time to spot the poorly formed logical whips.
very frequently? that means you've done it before
how'd that turn out for you?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Again, I'm not purporting to be some great thinker -- That was you.
I like the attempt at ego. That's a solid tactic, but I've accomplished enough to satisfy my ego, and I enjoy learning from other people way too much to think that highly of myself.
Sometimes, in the work I do, you have to tell people what they don't want to hear. When you do, they tend to tell you what they're feeling rather than what they're thinking. I work to avoid these emotionally-charged discussions under normal circumstances, but here, where the sophistry runs like a mighty river, I imbibe.
I'm human.
tell you what you don't want to hear?
you mean, kinda like I did? you know, that spurred you on to create a post with bullet points consisting of exact things I literally just said like you need to be enrolled in a remedial reading comprehension class?
is that the type of productivity you convey "in the work you do"?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I just thought that if I partitioned the comments and ordered them that it would make some sense. Maybe there was a hidden code. I couldn't find anything that resembled rational, coherent, thought in the original writing, but when I disassembled it, I could see more clearly what you were saying. I just found it to be somewhat disgusting to state that there is zero merit for the inclusion and that it's just because of propaganda. If you really believe all that, then you know... that's also why I love America, but I don't agree with it, and I wish there could be some actual discussion around doing something about the problem that this has created with regard to the quality of the record of Baseball. For this to get all twisted up into something else is just not what I came here for. Now, go ahead and twist this into whatever you want. Defend your rhetoric by calling me a "woke" "wokist" or whatever the You be You crowd is all about these days.
As for "productivity you convey...", I'm not sure I understand what this means. It's not necessarily a heuristic I would propose generically; to disassemble a paragraph and consider the formation and content of the primary elements, but it worked for my needs. I guess I would seek to show that I'm nimble when I can't be quick.
Found my notes from the last time I taught propositional logic. I got it right that time!
@bgr
again, I'm sorry that you're having absorption issues. wish I could help. but seeing as what I laid out was completely coherent to a respected board member who posted right before you, I don't feel the need to elucidate my thoughts to an alt who is plastered off woke kool-aid.
enjoy your stance that Negro league stats should be included with those of the MLB. must be quite the party taking place on that remote island of yours. but the good news is that if you get hungry and run out of food, you can always eat rivera. I'm sure he's delectable.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Then you know how old this logical branch is and the philosophers behind it I’m sure. I’m no expert in propositional logic but I find it interesting in other areas of interest I have.
What classes did you teach?
@bgr
I used to teach a class called Discrete Structures that covered logic, set theory, and basic combinatorics/probability. I have also seen logic taught more from a philosophy perspective though.
It wasn’t very coherent to me, but I understand why it resonated with others who are diametrically opposed to what has just occurred… in 2020.
That’s not precisely my stance. I have stated what I think about it. I don’t think all of the Negro Leagues are equal. I think that the process for collection of the stats doesn’t seem to meet what I would consider to be “proper criteria”. Some of them are unbelievable. Further. I believe that certifying these 60 game seasons is a problem. I think MLB messed this up when they certified the 60 game 2020 season. So what I might do is separate out all those seasons under 100 games and treat them differently. I would let the career stats stand but check them again for correctness and improve the certification process. Something like that.
Eat Rivera? You’re going to need to get out the crayons and draw me a picture.
So this is the second time Steve posted that 5 years was ample time for negro league players to assimilate into mlb if they were good enough.
Now no matter what side of this discussion you’re on, no one has a problem with that statement?
What I find really odd in this thread is Dallas is supposed to be the baseball statistical expert on this board, and there are all kinds of variables that determine a players overall value such as ballpark factors, defensive range, speed, power, etc.
But then when it comes to former negro league players who played mlb after 1947, no extenuating circumstances were involved. It’s all cut and dried, no variables.
As if after 1947 it was all of a sudden a level playing field between blacks and whites as far as playing mlb. 😂
That’s cool. I took a discrete maths course as a csci elective before I later decided to pursue a dual. I still have the text in my library.
That’s the exact text I used!
It’s the best according to the best. I have a fondness for finite space. Outside of that I know the thoery great but I’m a dog with a pencil. Had to go a different direction into the quantasphere.
So Tabe let us know 2 teams didn’t have a black player on their team until 1958 and 1959 respectively.
Man I bet they were searching far and wide for those 11-12 years after integration and just couldn’t come up with any black players that would be good enough to beat out a .220 hitting slow white guy which were numerous in mlb at the time 😂😂
That’s a joke by the way if anyone’s counting. I’m sure it’s just a popular textbook.
@bgr
I keep track of how many cards I have from each series of the 1973 Baseball set. The other day I noticed the numbers for all five series are congruent to 1 (mod 12)! What are the odds? 😂😂
50%. But there is a number theory thing about an asymptote
It has stopped amazing me that in every single post of this form (Dallas says ......), and I do mean literally every single post going back two decades, when I am not actually quoted the poster states what I said incorrectly. Not always as wildly incorrectly as you just did, but incorrectly nonetheless. Quote what I said that you disagree with and argue against that statement. Setting up strawmen (the king of logical fallacies) and then knocking them down isn't arguing a point, it's a waste of my time.
And just so this is clear to everyone, all the statistics you cite are indeed invaluable in evaluating baseball players. But they can't be used in the Negro Leagues because the statistics that do exist are useless. Teams played teams who were available to play, and in the city where the ballpark was available. In the major leagues, every team played the same teams the same number of times, they played them in equal number at home and on the road, and the stats from each at bat were recorded faithfully and (with the still-existing exception of errors vs. hits) consistently. And, importantly, in the major leagues there were enough games played in each ballpark to provide statistically meaningful results. What's the ballpark factor for the 1926 Baltimore Black Sox? Baseball-reference shows one now, but they had to throw out the statistical standards they use for every other league. The actual answer to the question is "nobody knows". The records for the 1926 International and Pacific Coast Leagues, on the other hand, are solid and meaningful, but then those leagues were much more organized and took record-keeping much more seriously than the ragtag Negro Leagues.
Absolutely, what scant reliable evidence that does exist points to the presence of several truly great players in the Negro Leagues over the course of their history. But their stats are not in any way comparable to those in the real major leagues. MLB knows that, obviously, and until very recently would never have considered calling any of the Negro Leagues "major" leagues. But, as we all know but only some of us will admit, the standard for being classified as a "major" league was changed, dramatically, to allow the Negro Leagues to qualify. Why? Again, we all know the answer.
Listen, it's hard to find quality players to replace the 68 games of .159 Boston got out of Billy Klaus in 1958. Or the 46 games of .125 that they got from Billy Consolo in 1958. Or the 50 games of .199 from Ted Lepcio. Or, heck, even the 134 games of .219 from Gene Stevens. But I'm sure Boston was trying.
Dallas I found what I was referring to. Where you say a very low percentage of negro league players were good enough to play mlb. I’m directly contradicting that and saying there were a lot more that were good enough but didn’t get a chance because of racism after 1947. Are you agreeing with Steve and saying by 1952 negro league players had plenty of time to assimilate into mlb if they were good enough?
I’ll make it a simple question so you can’t divert.
After 1947 were black and white players on an equal playing field as far as being able to sign with a mlb team assuming their skill set was almost identical?