- This topic has 365 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 8, 2009 at 10:38 AM #466473October 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM #465658
Rt.66
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.
October 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM #465848Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.
October 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM #466203Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.
October 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM #466277Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.
October 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM #466488Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.
October 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM #465673ParticipantI think most who have read the statement/s I am debating know its total bunk but are too busy trying to stay in the reach-around club to say so.
And will the author admit even a hint of fallacy? Of course not. Certainly deserving of your respect people.
Having this forum agree with me is not a need, but I do like to point out BS and watch the ants bubble from the nest to protect the queen.
October 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM #465861ParticipantI think most who have read the statement/s I am debating know its total bunk but are too busy trying to stay in the reach-around club to say so.
And will the author admit even a hint of fallacy? Of course not. Certainly deserving of your respect people.
Having this forum agree with me is not a need, but I do like to point out BS and watch the ants bubble from the nest to protect the queen.
October 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM #466218ParticipantI think most who have read the statement/s I am debating know its total bunk but are too busy trying to stay in the reach-around club to say so.
And will the author admit even a hint of fallacy? Of course not. Certainly deserving of your respect people.
Having this forum agree with me is not a need, but I do like to point out BS and watch the ants bubble from the nest to protect the queen.
October 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM #466292ParticipantI think most who have read the statement/s I am debating know its total bunk but are too busy trying to stay in the reach-around club to say so.
And will the author admit even a hint of fallacy? Of course not. Certainly deserving of your respect people.
Having this forum agree with me is not a need, but I do like to point out BS and watch the ants bubble from the nest to protect the queen.
October 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM #466503ParticipantI think most who have read the statement/s I am debating know its total bunk but are too busy trying to stay in the reach-around club to say so.
And will the author admit even a hint of fallacy? Of course not. Certainly deserving of your respect people.
Having this forum agree with me is not a need, but I do like to point out BS and watch the ants bubble from the nest to protect the queen.
October 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM #465713davelj
Participant[quote=Rt.66][quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.[/quote]
As with most things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of your two positions. I’m not a real estate specuvestor, so getting in the middle of these discussions that rely heavily on semantic interpretations doesn’t really interest me. Something about, “It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong,” comes to mind.
That you feel some need to “keep some people on point” is unfortunate. Anyone who’s been here a while has given up on that quixotic notion a while back.
October 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM #465903Participant[quote=Rt.66][quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.[/quote]
As with most things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of your two positions. I’m not a real estate specuvestor, so getting in the middle of these discussions that rely heavily on semantic interpretations doesn’t really interest me. Something about, “It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong,” comes to mind.
That you feel some need to “keep some people on point” is unfortunate. Anyone who’s been here a while has given up on that quixotic notion a while back.
October 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM #466260Participant[quote=Rt.66][quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.[/quote]
As with most things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of your two positions. I’m not a real estate specuvestor, so getting in the middle of these discussions that rely heavily on semantic interpretations doesn’t really interest me. Something about, “It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong,” comes to mind.
That you feel some need to “keep some people on point” is unfortunate. Anyone who’s been here a while has given up on that quixotic notion a while back.
October 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM #466332Participant[quote=Rt.66][quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]
The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
[/quote]Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]
No shit huh?
It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.
Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.[/quote]
As with most things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of your two positions. I’m not a real estate specuvestor, so getting in the middle of these discussions that rely heavily on semantic interpretations doesn’t really interest me. Something about, “It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong,” comes to mind.
That you feel some need to “keep some people on point” is unfortunate. Anyone who’s been here a while has given up on that quixotic notion a while back.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.