Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Rt.66
ParticipantI 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.
ParticipantI 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.
ParticipantI 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.
ParticipantI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ParticipantTemeculaGuy, Your post did not enrage me at all. It was sensible and eloquent as always.
So well written even I enjoyed reading about my issues:) I did notice the realtor got a pass though, even with the name calling. I’ve been known to drop some insulting bombs of course but his level of childish name calling I would have thought would get some attention. Not unusual for people to rush to the aid of someone who supports their side, but I expected more of an enjoyable read covering both sides from you.
I would have thought you would have looked at the data and sided with me on a significant next leg down for SD mid to upper market.
ParticipantTemeculaGuy, Your post did not enrage me at all. It was sensible and eloquent as always.
So well written even I enjoyed reading about my issues:) I did notice the realtor got a pass though, even with the name calling. I’ve been known to drop some insulting bombs of course but his level of childish name calling I would have thought would get some attention. Not unusual for people to rush to the aid of someone who supports their side, but I expected more of an enjoyable read covering both sides from you.
I would have thought you would have looked at the data and sided with me on a significant next leg down for SD mid to upper market.
ParticipantTemeculaGuy, Your post did not enrage me at all. It was sensible and eloquent as always.
So well written even I enjoyed reading about my issues:) I did notice the realtor got a pass though, even with the name calling. I’ve been known to drop some insulting bombs of course but his level of childish name calling I would have thought would get some attention. Not unusual for people to rush to the aid of someone who supports their side, but I expected more of an enjoyable read covering both sides from you.
I would have thought you would have looked at the data and sided with me on a significant next leg down for SD mid to upper market.
ParticipantTemeculaGuy, Your post did not enrage me at all. It was sensible and eloquent as always.
So well written even I enjoyed reading about my issues:) I did notice the realtor got a pass though, even with the name calling. I’ve been known to drop some insulting bombs of course but his level of childish name calling I would have thought would get some attention. Not unusual for people to rush to the aid of someone who supports their side, but I expected more of an enjoyable read covering both sides from you.
I would have thought you would have looked at the data and sided with me on a significant next leg down for SD mid to upper market.
ParticipantTemeculaGuy, Your post did not enrage me at all. It was sensible and eloquent as always.
So well written even I enjoyed reading about my issues:) I did notice the realtor got a pass though, even with the name calling. I’ve been known to drop some insulting bombs of course but his level of childish name calling I would have thought would get some attention. Not unusual for people to rush to the aid of someone who supports their side, but I expected more of an enjoyable read covering both sides from you.
I would have thought you would have looked at the data and sided with me on a significant next leg down for SD mid to upper market.
-
AuthorPosts
