Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
4896 messages in 209 discussions
Latest 6/19/20 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Latest Mar-16 by MelanGEE
Latest Mar-11 by PTG (anotherPTG)
5892 messages in 176 discussions
Latest Mar-14 by NISSY (NISSY2)
754 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Mar-13 by ElDotardo
17297 messages in 766 discussions
Latest Mar-1 by OSarge (AKA Finkle) (mahjong54)
I will not debate a non-existent argument. I will not be led astray from the initial point. This is a common tactic used by those who know they are losing an argument, but cannot accept that they may be wrong.
"I wonder why he will not answer the one question I asked."
That is debatable whether it is a question or not. For it is an observation of my state of mind, rather than a simple "Will you answer the question, please?"
The way I read it, the past tense completely turns the original question (or statement) into an observation. I am not asking anyone why they speak French at the Olympics, I am announcing that I was wondering about it.
Do you agree with that grammatical analysis, or do you disagree? If you disagree, please explain.
But - to be clear - the ONLY sentence I want explained is this one:
This is the conversation I have been trying to have with you.
You refuse to even acknowledge it, then insult me for ignoring your attempts to change the subject.
Please understand that a reply of G=G+1 will be considered an immediate admittance of defeat.
I accept your concession of defeat.
I started penning a similar reply but decided it wasn't worth the aggro.
Actually, you accept the concept of a defeat, based on your personal definition of such. This is circular logic, because there is no outside referent to back up your opinión -- sort of an example of mental masturbation on your part. Since you already know the answer to what my "G" represents, and refuse to justify your posts so labeled, by your terms your non respons is an example of your defeat.
Today is rather cold, and I had a slight mishap on my trip to Turkey. as you probably know when going through security, you are supposed to use a separate tray for your lap top. However, as there is a lot of down time at airports, I keep my mouse and working pen drive in the same pocket. When I travel, I edit my clips and photos on to the pen drive, thus saving me time when I return home. So when clearing security in Turkey, my pen drive, representing hours of work, slipped out, and I did not notice until it was too late. Fortunately my original material, unedited, was basked up on my lap top. So now I am doing catch up. This is boring and time consuming, also prone to errors. So I limit myself to one hour sessions, then do something else. As a result, instead of my usual "G" response to trolls such as Zarknorph, Squaddy, U2, Medley, et all. I have been adding a substantive remeinder of where I am comming from, and their "sins" that I find offensive and a waste of time.
when clearing security in Turkey, my pen drive, representing hours of work, slipped out, and I did not notice until it was too late. Fortunately my original material, unedited, was basked up on my lap top. So now I am doing catch up.
Sorry to hear, what a bummer. If its any consolation, it never takes anywhere near as much time to repeat it.
I told you what would happen.
This is just proof that you don't read others' posts if they are contrary to your opinion.
A long-winded opinion that goes nowhere.
Someone else debating the exact same thing...
A VERY short debate on the topic.
I wonder if you will look at any of the links.
No question mark needed at the end of that last statement.
Your problem in this post is one of logic. When a response becomes a snow job of supposed evidence, this suggests, that you are insecure in your point and have to pad it, hoping that some where there is evidence to prove your point. The problema is by not being satisfied with your best strongest arguement, you make all your arguements equal. This gives me the right, to sellect the most ilogical arguement, which when it fails, causes all the others to fail by association. I selected the English one on the issue of whether the use of "wonder" makes it a question. You say it does not, but your example which parallels mine says it does.