RussSchultz said:
What you seem to be stuck on is that by my coming to a conclusion that I think opposite of you and stating it, that I preclude you from thinking opposite of me.
If providing examples and comparisons to how I came to my conclusion amount to demonstrating that any other interpretation CANNOT be, then that's news to me. Especially when I use words like "safe to assume", which means nothing more than "it is clear to me that..."
The substance of your reply is exactly what I already responded to by providing reasoning to address, several times. This is a pretty gross example that you are completely unwilling to address what I actually said, as your replies consist of: ignoring what I said, saying I said something else, ignoring any further evidence provided that I said what I said I did, and repeating the process in your next post.
My reply to every point still stands if you actually want to engage in a discussion of something someone
else proposes.
So, once again, looking at your quote, you seem to point to Dave H coming to a different conclusion than you and running with it to mean that he rejects that properly COULD mean something else than what he took it to.
Russ, I provided a logical chain and argument, directly quoting Dave H. What do you think you accomplish by ignoring it when I quote what he actually said along with providing that, to simply propose your replacement?
Well, eventually when he got that that's what you were after (that it COULD mean something else), then he agreed: it COULD mean something else.
Well, I do believe that's because he admitted that he'd been mistaken to make that particular statement. So...he changed it so he wasn't saying anymore that "properly" couldn't be including performance. This did not require that he change his central opinion, only recognize that it precluded Jerky unfairly as stated. He still seems to disagree with me about what Jerky was saying, but his assertion is no longer worded in a way that precludes that Jerky can be saying something valid.
What we're discussing, however, is
your support of Dave H's original statement and the problems in it that I discussed, and your insistence that there was no problem with it in the first place.
And I've never disagreed that it COULD mean something else.
"If this is as you propose, then I can say this other example that doesn't make sense, right?" "communicates" disagreement pretty clearly, Russ. So does context and stepping in to oppose what someone is saying. If I thought linking to the dictionary definition of disagreement would help, I'd do so.
Except, I guess, by asserting that it means what I think it means.
Try addressing a quote of my text, Russ, you do a lousy job of representing anything even remotely close to what I stated when you manufacture it yourself. Atleast if you use a quote, I can point out your errors clearly. Or, well, you could possibly actually begin to point out my errors, as I've asked you to attempt.
So, who exactly is the one saying that somebody elses conclusion CANNOT be? Oh...you?
Eh? Try the dictionary, and the English language. How is it you so easily forget that detail? My assertions about your statement not making sense are based on those "minor" details.
Who is the one who cannot be wrong in spite of how the world works? oh...you?
This doesn't even make sense to me...what "how the world works" are you proposing you just related to disproving me? When "throwing words back at me", please give a bit more thought to the attempt.
So, have we finally gotten past this point?
You mean did your simple repetition of assertions, without any attempt at coherence or actual rebuttal to mine, convince me of anything?
Didn't I give you the answer to this already? "Just repeating yourself doesn't convince me". Will that cover as an answer to all future attempts to repeat yourself and ignore my reasons for disagreeing?
Why exactly are you incapable of replying to the PS 2.0 discussion? Do you have a reason? If so, could you share it? Have you considered merely stopping talk on this topic and picking up that one, instead of the reverse?
Your insistence on getting me to stop saying you were wrong without demonstrating that I was wrong to do so isn't merely a device to avoid that discussion, is it? I've asked several times to continued the PS 2.0 discussion, and you simply omit recognizing the request, seemingly due to focusing on continuing this one.
If I let you have the last word in this branch of discussion, and don't reply, will you pick the PS 2.0 discussion up and address the specifics I provided that are sitting idle from earlier in the thread, or not?
If the answer is yes, say so, have your reply, and continue the PS 2.0 discussion by replying to that part of
my post...though I hope you understand that if this is what you require to continue the specific discussion of PS 2.0 performance, posing questions in that "last word" might be a bit futile.
