Dude - you're the guy who called me delusional earlier.
I have no idea what your game is now - but I'm not playing.
I have no idea what your game is now - but I'm not playing.
But sure, if I actually need to, let me spell it out.
The statement: "He is a liar" is stronger than the statement "He is a liar who sometimes tells the truth", despite the fact that the second is more detailed. Extraneous details distract from the main argument. Also - there is almost no example in the world of someone who makes only false statements. It's a ridiculous insertion.
I hope you can understand why your suggestion above is nonsensical.
OH! No need. I enjoyed explaining it to you.
> is an assertion without supporting evidence
I’m sorry, I thought the evidence was obvious. Allow me to explain it to you: someone who has a history of lying has a significantly higher chance of lying again than someone who does not.
> You also construct your own straw man
Asking a question is not putting words in someone’s mouth - and it was resolved with his simple “No”.
> The insults
Oh my. Do you really want to go there after this sequence:
> you're moving from the territory of reasonable questions to moderately desperate conspiracy theory
> Your confusion is understandable given your own (excruciatingly obvious) motives.
> find the words to make yourself feel good when pressing 'reply'
> I humbly apologise. When I said you were confused, I only meant to state a fact, not cause you harm.
> These linguistic motte-and-bailey tricks are pure debate bro.
Motte-and-bailey? I have not retracted a single thing.
> hope of actually changing the other person's mind
HA! I realized that would be impossible quite a long time ago. Now it’s just a fun game to see how bloodied you get.
As I said, pure debate bro.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
How the mighty have fallen.