ROLO Shards 1 vs. 2?

Replies

  • Fanatic
    415 posts Member
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Getting facts backwards doesn't make it an untruth. An erroneous statement, yes. An error, yes. Incorrect yes. But not untrue, just mistaken.

    Insisting it does is your prerogative but that doesn't make you right.

    Insisting I do something I have explained I find akin to lying is bad form and why you come across as haughty.

    Uh, I don't think you understand what truth is.

    If I say 2 + 2 = 5, I may have stated such erronously. I may have stated it mistakenly. I may have stated it to either unintionally or intentionally spread misinformation. But under no set of parameters does the statement 2+2=5 become true. Neither my errors, intentions, faulty memory, or anything else ever make the claim suddently true.
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    Fanatic wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Getting facts backwards doesn't make it an untruth. An erroneous statement, yes. An error, yes. Incorrect yes. But not untrue, just mistaken.

    Insisting it does is your prerogative but that doesn't make you right.

    Insisting I do something I have explained I find akin to lying is bad form and why you come across as haughty.

    Uh, I don't think you understand what truth is.

    If I say 2 + 2 = 5, I may have stated such erronously. I may have stated it mistakenly. I may have stated it to either unintionally or intentionally spread misinformation. But under no set of parameters does the statement 2+2=5 become true. Neither my errors, intentions, faulty memory, or anything else ever make the claim suddently true.

    True but out of order, and just plain old true are not the same thing. Leaving out the qualifying statement makes it not the same thing you are referencing.

    For instance if I said that water is an explosive when mixed with sodium, and someone says "that's not true because water doesn't explode when i throw it on a fire" means that person is not understanding what was said, not that what i said isn't true.
  • Liath
    5140 posts Member
    Woodroward wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    You quoted no post where i claimed i was right because such thing never happened. Someone can be incorrect without blatantly spreading misinformation. Those terms do not have the same meaning. Your saying so was over the top thereby making you incorrect, even though i was also incorrect.

    Here you go, I'll quote it again (and bold the relevant part again) to help.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    I stand corrected.

    It's not blatantly spread misinformation though as you claim. Everything i stated is true except that I had the complaint and the reason backwards.

    You cannot both be wrong and still claim everything was true.

    By continuing to claim your statement was true, and not editing your original post to remove the false statement, you are continuing to contribute to the spread of misinformation, which is ameliorated only by the other players here correcting you. Even if the original statement wasn't "blatant", your insistence on the statement being true means you're either doing it blatantly now, or you still don't understand.

    Getting facts backwards doesn't make it an untruth. An erroneous statement, yes. An error, yes. Incorrect yes. But not untrue, just mistaken.

    This post makes me think you don’t know what words mean.
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    You quoted no post where i claimed i was right because such thing never happened. Someone can be incorrect without blatantly spreading misinformation. Those terms do not have the same meaning. Your saying so was over the top thereby making you incorrect, even though i was also incorrect.

    Here you go, I'll quote it again (and bold the relevant part again) to help.
    Woodroward wrote: »
    I stand corrected.

    It's not blatantly spread misinformation though as you claim. Everything i stated is true except that I had the complaint and the reason backwards.

    You cannot both be wrong and still claim everything was true.

    By continuing to claim your statement was true, and not editing your original post to remove the false statement, you are continuing to contribute to the spread of misinformation, which is ameliorated only by the other players here correcting you. Even if the original statement wasn't "blatant", your insistence on the statement being true means you're either doing it blatantly now, or you still don't understand.

    Getting facts backwards doesn't make it an untruth. An erroneous statement, yes. An error, yes. Incorrect yes. But not untrue, just mistaken.

    This post makes me think you don’t know what words mean.

    I was having trouble explaining myself to this gentleman. I have found an adequate way to do so.

    The problem was mainly that I failed to recognize he was leaving the qualifying statement out.

    Basically i never claimed they were "true". I claimed they were "true but out of order".

    If by rearranging the statements in the manner i indicated they are still not true, then my statement would be incorrect... but that isn't the case.
  • Liath
    5140 posts Member
    If you draw a causal link between two facts and it’s proven there is no causal link, you don’t get to say “oh I just got them out of order, the facts are still true.” The dispute is over the causal link and the statement you made about the causal link is untrue.
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    Liath wrote: »
    If you draw a causal link between two facts and it’s proven there is no causal link, you don’t get to say “oh I just got them out of order, the facts are still true.” The dispute is over the causal link and the statement you made about the causal link is untrue.

    Which is fine. I said it was true but out of order. This is the same thing as saying it's true when in the proper order.

    This was used as evidence that it was not blatantly spreading misinformation, not as a statement that it was true.

    To leave out the qualifying statement is akin to putting words in someone's mouth. I just didn't catch that it had been being done originally.
  • jkray622
    1636 posts Member
    A statement is either true or it is not. If it is incorrect, it is not true.

    You seem to be confusing "being mistaken" with "lying." I did not accuse you of intentionally lying, but the statements you made were not true. It is possible to make an untrue statement without lying. It is impossible to lie without making an untrue statement.

    You were incorrect. By sharing your inaccurate statement on the forums, you inadvertently spread false information. End of story.
  • leef
    13458 posts Member
    jkray622 wrote: »
    ........ End of story.

    that remains to be seen, haha.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • jkray622
    1636 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    Liath wrote: »
    If you draw a causal link between two facts and it’s proven there is no causal link, you don’t get to say “oh I just got them out of order, the facts are still true.” The dispute is over the causal link and the statement you made about the causal link is untrue.

    No, the dispute is that his two statements were not facts to begin with.

    Shards were not increased because phases changed from 12-24 hrs. That is neither cause nor effect.

    There has been nothing to indicate that forum posts begging for 4 shards per TB had anything to do with the change, but since players aren't likely to beg for 4 when they had 1, so begging for 4 would have come after they were already receiving 2 - which means those posts Couldn't have influenced the decision to increase to 2 because they would have come after the change.

    Additionally, Woodward hasn't supplied a link to any of those posts to support his argument.

    So two statements - both untrue - without a casual link between them is in no way factual.
  • Liath
    5140 posts Member
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    If you draw a causal link between two facts and it’s proven there is no causal link, you don’t get to say “oh I just got them out of order, the facts are still true.” The dispute is over the causal link and the statement you made about the causal link is untrue.

    No, the dispute is that his two statements were not facts to begin with.

    Shards were not increased because phases changed from 12-24 hrs. That is neither cause nor effect.

    There has been nothing to indicate that forum posts begging for 4 shards per TB had anything to do with the change, but since players aren't likely to beg for 4 when they had 1, so begging for 4 would have come after they were already receiving 2 - which means those posts Couldn't have influenced the decision to increase to 2 because they would have come after the change.

    Additionally, Woodward hasn't supplied a link to any of those posts to support his argument.

    So two statements - both untrue - without a casual link between them is in no way factual.

    I’m not sure I know where you are coming from but possibly you are not understanding what I meant.

    Fact 1: At some point shards were increased from 1 to 2.
    —Fact 1 is true.
    Fact 2: At some point phases were increased from (planned) 12 hours to 24 hours.
    —Fact 2 is true.
    Causal Link: Shards were increased from 1 to 2 because phases increased from 12 to 24 hours.
    —Causal Link is not true.

    My post was intended to convey that where the dispute is over Causal Link, which was the statement made, responding with “but Fact 1 and Fact 2 are true” is not an ingenuous response and has no bearing on the point being made that Causal Link is untrue, which is the thing people were discussing in the first place.
  • jkray622
    1636 posts Member
    Liath wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    If you draw a causal link between two facts and it’s proven there is no causal link, you don’t get to say “oh I just got them out of order, the facts are still true.” The dispute is over the causal link and the statement you made about the causal link is untrue.

    No, the dispute is that his two statements were not facts to begin with.

    Shards were not increased because phases changed from 12-24 hrs. That is neither cause nor effect.

    There has been nothing to indicate that forum posts begging for 4 shards per TB had anything to do with the change, but since players aren't likely to beg for 4 when they had 1, so begging for 4 would have come after they were already receiving 2 - which means those posts Couldn't have influenced the decision to increase to 2 because they would have come after the change.

    Additionally, Woodward hasn't supplied a link to any of those posts to support his argument.

    So two statements - both untrue - without a casual link between them is in no way factual.

    I’m not sure I know where you are coming from but possibly you are not understanding what I meant.

    Fact 1: At some point shards were increased from 1 to 2.
    —Fact 1 is true.
    Fact 2: At some point phases were increased from (planned) 12 hours to 24 hours.
    —Fact 2 is true.
    Causal Link: Shards were increased from 1 to 2 because phases increased from 12 to 24 hours.
    —Causal Link is not true.

    My post was intended to convey that where the dispute is over Causal Link, which was the statement made, responding with “but Fact 1 and Fact 2 are true” is not an ingenuous response and has no bearing on the point being made that Causal Link is untrue, which is the thing people were discussing in the first place.

    You're right, I was considering his entire first statement as a fact, whereas you're breaking it up into two facts plus a link.

    I thought you were implying a casual link between his two statements, that forum posts begging for 4 shards caused the devs to increase the number of shards from 1-2.

    Thanks for clarifying!
  • Vice_torn
    599 posts Member
    Causal Link: Shards were increased from 1 to 2 because phases increased from 12 to 24 hours.
    —Causal Link is not true.

    My post was intended to convey that where the dispute is over Causal Link, which was the statement made, responding with “but Fact 1 and Fact 2 are true” is not an ingenuous response and has no bearing on the point being made that Causal Link is untrue, which is the thing people were discussing in the first place.

    Actually its not true, because they were increased from 1 to 2 because of the introduction of DS TB. Which cut the number of TBs in half. Which basically meant you could get the toons to 7 star in 3months instead of 6.

    I will not miss the shard shop currency personally... Unless I spend crystals on refreshing the shop I cannot spend what I have. (I find the mod and G12 salvage in shard shop such low value that I do not buy it.).
  • Liath
    5140 posts Member
    Vice_torn wrote: »
    Causal Link: Shards were increased from 1 to 2 because phases increased from 12 to 24 hours.
    —Causal Link is not true.

    My post was intended to convey that where the dispute is over Causal Link, which was the statement made, responding with “but Fact 1 and Fact 2 are true” is not an ingenuous response and has no bearing on the point being made that Causal Link is untrue, which is the thing people were discussing in the first place.

    Actually its not true, because they were increased from 1 to 2 because of the introduction of DS TB. Which cut the number of TBs in half. Which basically meant you could get the toons to 7 star in 3months instead of 6.

    I will not miss the shard shop currency personally... Unless I spend crystals on refreshing the shop I cannot spend what I have. (I find the mod and G12 salvage in shard shop such low value that I do not buy it.).

    Actually what isn’t true? The thing that I quite explicitly said isn’t true?
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    What is truth, really?
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Additionally, Woodward hasn't supplied a link to any of those posts to support his argument.

    The only thing this thread has proven is that by showing proof that you are right, you are in fact wrong. Therefore you don't show proof in order to prove that you were right.

    By extension, this thread is wrong, for proving that it was right.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Legend91
    2441 posts Member
    lnkvxqt0gn76.png
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • APX_919
    2468 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    What is truth, really?

    Whatever CG says = truth.

    From a certain point of view of course.
    "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen...mostly"
  • YaeVizsla
    3448 posts Member
    Legend91 wrote: »
    lnkvxqt0gn76.png
    "You see, when I said Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father, what I really meant is he and I had a political disagreement and I cut off three limbs and left him to burn to death in a pool of lava. Which was totally his fault. And I didn't tell you this because I thought if I did, you wouldn't finish him off for me. Which isn't dishonest in the slightest."
    Still not a he.
  • Woodroward wrote: »

    Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.

    But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!

    Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.

    To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.

    If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.

    I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.

    Someone once told me that the internet had created a generation of people who simply cannot accept that they are ever wrong, even when presented with irrefutable evidence that they are indeed wrong.

    I told them they were talking nonsense.

    This post is the irrefutable proof that I was wrong to say that, and for this I thank you.

    To rephrase: claiming that you remember someone saying something hot on the heels of having your memory exposed as being unreliable is pretty special.
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.

    But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!

    Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.

    To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.

    If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.

    I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.

    Someone once told me that the internet had created a generation of people who simply cannot accept that they are ever wrong, even when presented with irrefutable evidence that they are indeed wrong.

    I told them they were talking nonsense.

    This post is the irrefutable proof that I was wrong to say that, and for this I thank you.

    To rephrase: claiming that you remember someone saying something hot on the heels of having your memory exposed as being unreliable is pretty special.

    Everyone's memory is occasionally mistaken. Never claimed to be infallible. Less than a 1% margin of error isn't "unreliable", it's a rarity.

    And I've admitted being wrong several times in this thread so... yeah, nice way to make things up.
    jkray622 wrote: »
    A statement is either true or it is not. If it is incorrect, it is not true.

    You seem to be confusing "being mistaken" with "lying." I did not accuse you of intentionally lying, but the statements you made were not true. It is possible to make an untrue statement without lying. It is impossible to lie without making an untrue statement.

    You were incorrect. By sharing your inaccurate statement on the forums, you inadvertently spread false information. End of story.

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of order. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.
    Liath wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Liath wrote: »
    If you draw a causal link between two facts and it’s proven there is no causal link, you don’t get to say “oh I just got them out of order, the facts are still true.” The dispute is over the causal link and the statement you made about the causal link is untrue.

    No, the dispute is that his two statements were not facts to begin with.

    Shards were not increased because phases changed from 12-24 hrs. That is neither cause nor effect.

    There has been nothing to indicate that forum posts begging for 4 shards per TB had anything to do with the change, but since players aren't likely to beg for 4 when they had 1, so begging for 4 would have come after they were already receiving 2 - which means those posts Couldn't have influenced the decision to increase to 2 because they would have come after the change.

    Additionally, Woodward hasn't supplied a link to any of those posts to support his argument.

    So two statements - both untrue - without a casual link between them is in no way factual.

    I’m not sure I know where you are coming from but possibly you are not understanding what I meant.

    Fact 1: At some point shards were increased from 1 to 2.
    —Fact 1 is true.
    Fact 2: At some point phases were increased from (planned) 12 hours to 24 hours.
    —Fact 2 is true.
    Causal Link: Shards were increased from 1 to 2 because phases increased from 12 to 24 hours.
    —Causal Link is not true.

    My post was intended to convey that where the dispute is over Causal Link, which was the statement made, responding with “but Fact 1 and Fact 2 are true” is not an ingenuous response and has no bearing on the point being made that Causal Link is untrue, which is the thing people were discussing in the first place.

    Again. I never said fact 1 and fact 2 are true, you too are ignoring the qualifying statement thereby not actually talking about my statement.

    What people chose to discuss about my statement was not the purpose of the statement. As I earlier stated, the point was presenting the supporting details of how the shard amounts should have been increased further rather than decreased.
  • jkray622
    1636 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of ordernot true. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.

    I fixed it for you. Something that is not true....is not true. Yet, you keep insisting it was true. There is no qualifying statement that can make up for it. You just don’t understand that truth is a binary state. Something is either true or it is not. Even if you somehow “misordered things” (which you didn’t), that would make your resulting statement untrue. False. Fake news.

    Just replace every instance of “true but out of order” with “false” and you’ll be much more honest with everyone, including yourself.
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of ordernot true. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.

    I fixed it for you. Something that is not true....is not true. Yet, you keep insisting it was true. There is no qualifying statement that can make up for it. You just don’t understand that truth is a binary state. Something is either true or it is not. Even if you somehow “misordered things” (which you didn’t), that would make your resulting statement untrue. False. Fake news.

    Just replace every instance of “true but out of order” with “false” and you’ll be much more honest with everyone, including yourself.

    Just replace every instance of true in your arguments with true but out of order and you'll begin to be responding to me.

    See it doesn't matter what my words mean to you. It only matters what i meant by them. Arguing otherwise is you imposing your ideals on others.

    Your ideals are for you, mine are for me.
  • leef
    13458 posts Member
    • A: which toon was released first, wedge or revan?
    • B: revan was first, they released wedge later on.
    • C: you're wrong
    • B: i stand corrected. What i said was true but out of order.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    Woodroward wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of ordernot true. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.

    I fixed it for you. Something that is not true....is not true. Yet, you keep insisting it was true. There is no qualifying statement that can make up for it. You just don’t understand that truth is a binary state. Something is either true or it is not. Even if you somehow “misordered things” (which you didn’t), that would make your resulting statement untrue. False. Fake news.

    Just replace every instance of “true but out of order” with “false” and you’ll be much more honest with everyone, including yourself.

    Just replace every instance of true in your arguments with true but out of order and you'll begin to be responding to me.

    See it doesn't matter what my words mean to you. It only matters what i meant by them. Arguing otherwise is you imposing your ideals on others.

    Your ideals are for you, mine are for me.

    It only matters what words mean. You insisting they mean what they don't only makes sense to you.

    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of ordernot true. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.

    I fixed it for you. Something that is not true....is not true. Yet, you keep insisting it was true. There is no qualifying statement that can make up for it. You just don’t understand that truth is a binary state. Something is either true or it is not. Even if you somehow “misordered things” (which you didn’t), that would make your resulting statement untrue. False. Fake news.

    Just replace every instance of “true but out of order” with “false” and you’ll be much more honest with everyone, including yourself.

    Just replace every instance of true in your arguments with true but out of order and you'll begin to be responding to me.

    See it doesn't matter what my words mean to you. It only matters what i meant by them. Arguing otherwise is you imposing your ideals on others.

    Your ideals are for you, mine are for me.

    It only matters what words mean. You insisting they mean what they don't only makes sense to you.

    There are multiple denotative and connotative definitions to myriads of words. They are all valid to be used.

    Insisting only one definition is valid is simply a means to not have to try to understand people, but can instead go to "correcting", which doesn't work and then leads to no one gaining anything from the conversation.

    No the only definition that matters is the one used by the originator of the sentence it's used in.
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    leef wrote: »
    • A: which toon was released first, wedge or revan?
    • B: revan was first, they released wedge later on.
    • C: you're wrong
    • B: i stand corrected. What i said was true but out of order.

    You are correct sir. Exemplary display of understanding of the prevailing definitions of terms in this conversation.
  • leef
    13458 posts Member
    Woodroward wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of ordernot true. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.

    I fixed it for you. Something that is not true....is not true. Yet, you keep insisting it was true. There is no qualifying statement that can make up for it. You just don’t understand that truth is a binary state. Something is either true or it is not. Even if you somehow “misordered things” (which you didn’t), that would make your resulting statement untrue. False. Fake news.

    Just replace every instance of “true but out of order” with “false” and you’ll be much more honest with everyone, including yourself.

    Just replace every instance of true in your arguments with true but out of order and you'll begin to be responding to me.

    See it doesn't matter what my words mean to you. It only matters what i meant by them. Arguing otherwise is you imposing your ideals on others.

    Your ideals are for you, mine are for me.

    It only matters what words mean. You insisting they mean what they don't only makes sense to you.

    There are multiple denotative and connotative definitions to myriads of words. They are all valid to be used.

    Insisting only one definition is valid is simply a means to not have to try to understand people, but can instead go to "correcting", which doesn't work and then leads to no one gaining anything from the conversation.

    No the only definition that matters is the one used by the originator of the sentence it's used in.

    If everyone uses a different definition than the one used by the originator of the sentence, the originator of the sentence is probably wrong.
    Save water, drink champagne!
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    edited May 2019
    leef wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »
    jkray622 wrote: »
    Woodroward wrote: »

    Never claimed it to be true. Claimed it to be true but out of ordernot true. Ignoring the qualifying statement means you aren't talking about what im talking about.

    I fixed it for you. Something that is not true....is not true. Yet, you keep insisting it was true. There is no qualifying statement that can make up for it. You just don’t understand that truth is a binary state. Something is either true or it is not. Even if you somehow “misordered things” (which you didn’t), that would make your resulting statement untrue. False. Fake news.

    Just replace every instance of “true but out of order” with “false” and you’ll be much more honest with everyone, including yourself.

    Just replace every instance of true in your arguments with true but out of order and you'll begin to be responding to me.

    See it doesn't matter what my words mean to you. It only matters what i meant by them. Arguing otherwise is you imposing your ideals on others.

    Your ideals are for you, mine are for me.

    It only matters what words mean. You insisting they mean what they don't only makes sense to you.

    There are multiple denotative and connotative definitions to myriads of words. They are all valid to be used.

    Insisting only one definition is valid is simply a means to not have to try to understand people, but can instead go to "correcting", which doesn't work and then leads to no one gaining anything from the conversation.

    No the only definition that matters is the one used by the originator of the sentence it's used in.

    If everyone uses a different definition than the one used by the originator of the sentence, the originator of the sentence is probably wrong.

    No. Everyone else is. It doesn't matter what it means to the listener, only what the speaker meant matters. Any other way of doing so destroys the actual message of the statement and devolves into a pointless squabble over semantics. (Kind of like this thread, but i forgive all of you for your pig head insistence upon forcing your beliefs on me)

    Language isn't set in stone, it is constantly changing and evolving. To insist upon personally known definitions over whats being used is purely egotistical, not intelligent.

    The intelligent thing to do would be to see what can be learned not to tear it down because it doesn't match what you know.

    And, for future reference, once someone uses a term for something once, that's a firmly cemented connotative definition that is valid and will never go away.
  • TVF
    36527 posts Member
    Lol. Trees are now known as Daves.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Woodroward
    3749 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Lol. Trees are now known as Daves.

    Well I'll know what you mean when you say it. It's now a valid definition
This discussion has been closed.