oaksoft Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, bazil85 said: And he feels the need to tell the forum often. Almost like he has a desire to keep engaging. 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 March 4, 2021 by oaksoft Quote
antrin Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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!) Quote
oaksoft Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 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 March 4, 2021 by oaksoft Quote
antrin Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 1 minute ago, oaksoft said: Well, unlike you, he didn't call me a clown this morning so... Aye.... ye win some, ye lose many... Quote
smcc Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 On 2/28/2021 at 1:01 AM, Sue Denim said: The vaccine has gone well for Prince Phillip 😂 The fact that you are attributing his present illness to his Covid vaccine simply confirms that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Quote
bazil85 Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 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 March 4, 2021 by bazil85 Quote
bazil85 Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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. Quote
antrin Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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 Quote
bazil85 Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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. Quote
Slarti Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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] Quote
Slarti Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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. Quote
antrin Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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? 🥱 Quote
Slarti Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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. Quote
bazil85 Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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? Quote
antrin Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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? (Rhetorical, btw) Quote
oaksoft Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 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 March 4, 2021 by oaksoft Quote
Slarti Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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. Quote
Slarti Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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? (Rhetorical, btw) Watch out, he probably defines "rhetorical" as "requires an answer". [emoji1787] Quote
bazil85 Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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? (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. Quote
antrin Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 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. Quote
Bud the Baker Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 Lads, lads, I know I said I'd stay out of these threads but come on let's focus - hocus, pocus! Spoiler It's only se7en days to Obika Day! Quote
Slarti Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 Watch out, he probably defines "rhetorical" as "requires an answer". [emoji1787]Looks like I was right. [emoji16] Quote
bazil85 Posted March 4, 2021 Report Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 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 March 4, 2021 by bazil85 Quote
antrin Posted March 5, 2021 Report Posted March 5, 2021 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.” Quote
bazil85 Posted March 5, 2021 Report Posted March 5, 2021 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? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.