Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, bazil85 said:

And he feels the need to tell the forum often. Almost like he has a desire to keep engaging. :whistle

I would also say it was pedantic, I think the evidence shows it is more transmissible than earlier strains in this country based on it being transmitted more. Telling Slarti has to go on the defensive regarding this, well known it's a go to for him... 

You are confusing relative increases in transmission (tranmissibility) with absolute numbers in the community (prevalence).

No idea what the truth is about this but picking you up on the difference between those two things is absolutely not pedantry. They are completely different things.

 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are confusing relative increases in transmission (tranmissibility) with absolute numbers in the community (prevalence).

No idea what the truth is about this but picking you up on the difference between those two things is absolutely not pedantry. They are completely different things.

Just out of interest, Oxter...

 

Why are you trying to treat him as a rational human being, who is capable of reasoned discussion?

He'll come back with a cutnpaste non-sequitur.

(I'll get one, too!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

Just out of interest, Oxter...

 

Why are you trying to treat him as a rational human being, who is capable of reasoned discussion?

He'll come back with a cutnpaste non-sequitur.

(I'll get one, too!)

Well, unlike you, he didn't call me a clown this morning so...

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are confusing relative increases in transmission (tranmissibility) with absolute numbers in the community (prevalence).

No idea what the truth is about this but picking you up on the difference between those two things is absolutely not pedantry. They are completely different things.

 

I disagree, I think it's a pretty reasonable jump.

Remember this is a person that argued until he took the huff into his ignore button (didn't stop him continuing to get upset about it)that you couldn't prove with absolute certainty lockdown had saved any lives at all (my point here is why even bother?), he has previous.  

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, antrin said:

Just out of interest, Oxter...

 

Why are you trying to treat him as a rational human being, who is capable of reasoned discussion?

He'll come back with a cutnpaste non-sequitur.

(I'll get one, too!)

Sure will, ^^^ utter antagonistic tripe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

I disagree, I think it's a pretty reasonable jump.

Remember this is a person that argued until he took the huff into his ignore button (didn't stop him continuing to get upset about it)that you couldn't prove with absolute certainty lockdown had saved any lives at all, he has previous.  

Edited just now by bazil85

 

 

Sure will, ^^^ utter antagonistic tripe. 

FIFY  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, antrin said:

FIFY  :)

You can't definitely prove with complete certainty that anyone definitely sent those messages or that the world is round or that I've actually took the time to respond to you. He pretty much took the "can't disprove god" argument religious people use to start an argument, wasn't for the first time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing relative increases in transmission (tranmissibility) with absolute numbers in the community (prevalence).
No idea what the truth is about this but picking you up on the difference between those two things is absolutely not pedantry. They are completely different things.
 
The point really is that something that is "more transmissible" does not necessarily get transmitted more. You could have someone with the most transmissible virus ever but if they, and hence it, are isolated/contained perfectly, then there is no transmission.

No doubt he'll argue the point rather than admit his error but, unless quoted, I won't see it. That seems to really piss him off. [emoji1787]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIFY  [emoji4]
FFS, I should have finished reading the thread before posting my last post. Just proves my point though. He can't even get right what he was arguing about previously. Should I tell him? Nah, it's funnier this way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You can't definitely prove with complete certainty .... that the world is round or that I've actually took the time to respond to you. He pretty much took the "can't disprove god" argument religious people use to start an argument, wasn't for the first time. 

Uhm...

I believe that no sensible person would want to prove that the world is round, as it isn't.

It's an oblate spheroid, not round. A circle is round not the earth. 

The highest part of Ecuador is closer to the sun then any other bit of earth.

That wouldn't be the case on a perfectly round earth.

What on earth were you thinking to post that?

 

Try to fashion a fresher, more devastating non-sequitur. next time - if there ever IS a next time?  🥱 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm...
I believe that no sensible person would want to prove that the world is round, as it isn't.
It's an oblate spheroid, not round. A circle is round not the earth. 
The highest part of Ecuador is closer to the sun then any other bit of earth.
That wouldn't be the case on a perfectly round earth.
What on earth were you thinking to post that?
 
Try to fashion a fresher, more devastating non-sequitur. next time - if there ever IS a next time?  🥱 
Aye, but but, but, ... common sense an' aw that. [emoji1787]

As for his bible analogy, that's a strawman (yes, Oaky, this is really what a strawman is) as it doesn't represent my point back then at all. If he thinks it does then he was really "arguing" with himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, antrin said:

Uhm...

I believe that no sensible person would want to prove that the world is round, as it isn't.

It's an oblate spheroid, not round. A circle is round not the earth. 

The highest part of Ecuador is closer to the sun then any other bit of earth.

That wouldn't be the case on a perfectly round earth.

What on earth were you thinking to post that?

 

Try to fashion a fresher, more devastating non-sequitur. next time - if there ever IS a next time?  🥱 

Has Slarti hacked your account? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Has Slarti hacked your account? 

I've been on some very high bits of the world, yet I've been aware (after initial surprise) that one of those high bits/closer to the sun had actually been when I was up a hill in Ecuador.

 

Does this help?  :unsure:

(Rhetorical, btw)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I disagree, I think it's a pretty reasonable jump.

 

Well of COURSE you do because you are not a reasonable or normal person by any definition.

I wasn't seeking your opinion on the matter. I was divulging factual information.

 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of COURSE you do because you are not a reasonable or normal person by any definition.
I wasn't seeking your opinion on the matter. I was divulging factual information.
 
You have to remember that he uses his own definitions for words, so what he says may be accurate once you substitute the correct words (you know, the ones everyone else accepts to be the words that fit his definitions, not the ones he thinks fit).

Either that or he is just wrong, I'll let others decide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I've been on some very high bits of the world, yet I've been aware (after initial surprise) that one of those high bits/closer to the sun had actually been when I was up a hill in Ecuador.
 
Does this help?  :unsure:
(Rhetorical, btw)
 


Watch out, he probably defines "rhetorical" as "requires an answer". [emoji1787]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, antrin said:

I've been on some very high bits of the world, yet I've been aware (after initial surprise) that one of those high bits/closer to the sun had actually been when I was up a hill in Ecuador.

Does this help?  :unsure:

(Rhetorical, btw)

 

It does to an extent, it's either a yes or you're doing your best impression of him... Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that. 

23 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Well of COURSE you do because you are not a reasonable or normal person by any definition.

I wasn't seeking your opinion on the matter. I was divulging factual information.

You took the opportunity to latch onto the pedantic to be purposely argumentative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It does to an extent, it's either a yes or you're doing your best impression of him... Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that. 

You took the opportunity to latch onto the pedantic to be purposely argumentative. 

So you neither know the meaning of "rhetorical" nor of "argumentative".

a. as you responded to my post that specifically gave you leave not to do so.

b. You responded unecessarily to my rhetorical post and also to oaksoft's, solely so that YOU could continue to be argumentative, but you'll deny that THAT is the reason you responded.  (Which would ironically confirm your argumentative penchant... )

 

c. AND I would bet the house that you'll respond to this post due to that same argumentative impulse.

 

d. To repeat - if you DO respond to this - you'll be confirming your argumentative weakness.

e.  If you don't respond, you'll be a better, more balanced person than you've demonstrated, thus far...

f.  At heart, I sense you can be a good guy.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, antrin said:

So you neither know the meaning of "rhetorical" nor of "argumentative".

a. as you responded to my post that specifically gave you leave not to do so.

b. You responded unecessarily to my rhetorical post and also to oaksoft's, solely so that YOU could continue to be argumentative, but you'll deny that THAT is the reason you responded.  (Which would ironically confirm your argumentative penchant... )

c. AND I would bet the house that you'll respond to this post due to that same argumentative impulse.

d. To repeat - if you DO respond to this - you'll be confirming your argumentative weakness.

e.  If you don't respond, you'll be a better, more balanced person than you've demonstrated, thus far...

f.  At heart, I sense you can be a good guy.  :)

This seemed to start of like a new attempt to stop me responding but it quickly descended into reverse psychology which as I have said many times, wont work... There is one sure fire way to achieve the goal of not getting me to respond. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

This seemed to start of like a new attempt to stop me responding but it quickly descended into reverse psychology which as I have said many times, wont work... There is one sure fire way to achieve the goal of not getting me to respond. 

Please accept my scorn...

“c. AND I would bet the house that you'll respond to this post due to that same argumentative impulse.

d. To repeat - if you DO respond to this - you'll be confirming your argumentative weakness.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, antrin said:

Please accept my scorn...

“c. AND I would bet the house that you'll respond to this post due to that same argumentative impulse.

d. To repeat - if you DO respond to this - you'll be confirming your argumentative weakness.”

C - correct, it isn’t a revelation based on my time on here, it never is when people post similar. 

D - incorrect, an attempt at reverse psychology which I told you would fail as it will anytime you attempt it. 

There’s is a sure fire way to get me to stop responding ‘I would bet my house’ that you won’t try it... See what I did there? :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...