You are either such an asshole or such an idiot. Or both.
It was self evident from her post that she was saying “well, unless you link the specific item on the site, I won’t look at the site.”
Even you, who were apparently dropped on your head repeatedly as a child should be able to understand what she wrote.
But since you claim you’re dumber than we thought, I’ll rephrase it in even simpler terms “Unless you link to the specific sentence on a site that supports your argument, I won’t click on the link”.
Is English a language you have any familiarity with?
How is it self-evident? And why is my attempt to clarify things so awful? Should I be like everyone else and just respond to what I think the other person is saying, and not concern myself with what they are saying? Is having the courtesy to make sure that someone is actually saying X before challenging their saying X a bad thing?
Most of all, what good do you think will come of this post? Do you think that having people wary of showing any doubt about what the other person is saying is a good thing?
Hey, The Ryan, would you clarify something for me? By saying “good thing,” do you actually mean something positive or negative here? If neither, then what exactly is it that you mean? Thanks ever so much.
'cause it (by which I mean your so-called attempts to clarify things that EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING, EVEN THOSE WHO DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH(which is an hyperbole, or exaggeration for comic effect) CAN UNDERSTAND) are self-evident attempts to avoid an a valid point.
I have plea for all Dopers lurking in this thread. Lookit Wring’s post one page back. The one that caused every circuit in TheRyan’s gerbil-sized brain to fuse. DID ANYONE else find it confusing? Please answer so TheRyan can see that this bullshit tactic doesn’t work.
**
So…you’re saying that NO OTHER DOPER (“everyone else”) has ever communicated, except for you? Bwah-ha-ha-ha!
**
**
How 'bout answering Wring’s fucking question rather than tapdancing?
**
It makes me feel better to call you on your bullshit. Are you saying you were so fucking stupid that you couldn’t figure out what Wring meant? or was it just yet another assholic patented TheRyan technique for avoiding a point that might undermine his argument.
Cool! I’d heard all about The Ryan, but I’d never gotten to see him in action before! It’s sort of like the first time I saw an opossum in the wild.
Collounsbury, I appreciate your posts. They’re often stuffed with information like those tasty almond-stuffed figs the owner of The Silk Road used to give to me when I was younger, and the invective just adds spice to the posts, kinda like the cloves and cinnamon with which the tasty figs are seasoned.
Besides failing to have verb-noun agreement, your statement is flat out wrong. I was not avoiding a valid point; I was trying to figure what the point was so I can respond to it. If anyone’s avoiding discussion, it’s wring. As soon as she tells me which one she meant, I will respond.
What is this supposed to prove? The vast majority of people here are biased against me, which means that anyone who did have trouble will probably keep silent or lie. And even if everyone else honestly didn’t have any trouble, what does that prove?
I suppose if I ask “what question?” I’ll be accused of bullshitting.
:rolleyes:
You really enjoy being wrong? Because you are wrong about this being bullshit. I honestly wasn’t sure which she meant. And obviously I am more qualified than you to know what I know.
I don’t see what’s stupid about it. Both interpretations make grammatical sense. What makes your interpretation the “obvious” one? (And if your answer involes something along the lines of “it’s the only one that makes sense”, keep in mind that quote of yours at the beginning of this post that doesn’t make sense, and yet you said it.)
wring
As long as you’re bring that up again, I’m going to repeat my request for a cite for the claim:
No, to anyone in the real world. When I was in school, “Here’s the book that supports my position. No, I’m not going to tell you where in the book I read it or what it is that supports my position. If you want to know what it is, read it yourself” would not have been considered a cite.
I don’t understand. What, am I completely invisible now? The Ryan, you completely skipped over my question, and I want to know why. All I was asking for you to do was to clarify what you meant. Why won’t you do so? Here. I’ve taken the liberty of repeating my request for clarification from you.
I agree. You people live in the “real world”, while I actually live in the real world. A perfect example is the post that follows yours, in which celestina asks whether “good thing” is meant to be positive. Apparently, she considers this to be somehow equivalent to asking which of two possible antecedents is the actual one. In the actual real world, as opposed to the “real world”, that’s a ridiculous position.
The Ryan, I don’t understand your meaning. Are you calling my perfectly valid request for YOU to clarify what you meant by “good thing” within the context of what you posted to be ridculous? If you are, then I want to know what you mean by it being ridiculous. I don’t appreciate having my genuine attempts at trying to communicate with folks be dismissed. Quit weaseling around and answer my questions, please, or shut your trap!
The Ryan, listen you stupid lying asshole. There is no comparison to be made so take your whinging little dumbfuck self elsewhere. The answer is sufficient as posted, and someone of an ordinary ability in reading comprehension, which you emphatically do not possess despite your peevish attempts to exercise some feeble and impoverished semantic parsing at every turn, would see the contrast between this thread’s original subject matter and the sad little game you continually, in sad moronic manner, try to cover up. Pure, pitiful masturbatory trollery by someone so impoverished in his mental facilities and so lacking in the faintest hint of
Now as to this idiotic attempt of yours to engage in some pale shadow of bankrupt sophistry regarding your drooling little sub-literate game with ‘cites’ and ‘sites’ :
In the real world, and not the little troll world of The Ryan trying to annoy his betters – perhaps his only real skill as his attempts at linguistics, at semantics and indeed logical analysis merit not the word – a citation is to a supporting piece of evidence. One does not find roadmaps to specific paragraphs or other little hand-holding maneuvers. In the real world, you carry your own motherfucking water.
Being trained in economics and history I can attest that while historians prefer specific page cites, there are plenty of citations as “See Hunwick, et. al. p.55-75” to support a general point. Further, of course, in social sciences, the simple cite to a large work without specific reference to pages – the author presuming that the reader who is following up cites has more than a few neurons to rub together. I refer you, for example, to the variety of citations one might find in Shiller’s works on behavioral economics. You can pick up, for example, his popular work Irrational Exuberance – but I am afraid I am not going to waste my time holding your quavering little hand as you attempt to feebly figure out where his citations are. I suppose indeed you’ll have a hard time parsing the cover page, but being a dumb fuck of a troll, it matters not.
Your attempt to redefine a citation to fit your argument – so very typical of your idiotic trollery which fools no one at all, no one except perhaps lucwarm, but what can we say, some folks are dimmer than others – is not only pitiful for its drooling stupidity, but also for the very fact that anyone moderately acquainted with actual citation practice in a variety of disciplines
Of course, it could be that in the special education for the clinically moronic that you received that you were trained, in addition to not shitting yourself, to have your quavering little hand held as you laboriously worked your way through a text.
But I put it down that you’re a pitiful lying fuck.
Further:
Again it appears in your real world, that of some special idiot’s ward, mockery is unrecognized and the clear bankruptcy of your attempts to pretend to have substance to your “parsing” of sentences – which is to say engaging in your cackling little moronic trollery – goes utterly unnoticed.
In the actual real world, it does not.
Drooling idiots.
BTW: lucwarm should you care to point out where I have dismissed valid points out of hand please do point them out, leaving aside those in which the poster’s impoverished expression or analysis may have so clouded the text as to make it impossible to separate the pearl from the pigshit. Otherwise don’t be a whiny little bitch, your damned OP in the GQ was part and parcel of ignorant idiocy.
It is standard practice to cite a whole journal article, without indicating page numbers (except to the extent that the page numbers cover the entire piece of work).
It is also not unusual to cite an entire book, when the reader can be expected to find the item in question using the index.
flowbark: I’d think it’s standard practice to cite the work without the page number in the “works cited” page of the treatise in question; however, in the body of the treatise, one is expected to indicate from where in the cited work the information was fetched.
The Ryan, I don’t understand your meaning. Are you calling my perfectly valid request for YOU to clarify what you meant by “good thing” within the context of what you posted to be ridculous? If you are, then I want to know what you mean by it being ridiculous. I don’t appreciate having my genuine attempts at trying to communicate with folks be dismissed. Quit weaseling around and answer my questions, please, or shut your trap!