Quote:
Originally posted by Deek2
But this is not the case. You're referring to a situation that does not exist. What has happend is what matters. And in that case, falsely accusing someone of their post simply because you cannot interpret what that person is trying to say would not be deemed 'intelligent' nor would arguing about something as rediculous as that. I reread the post, and I try to think of how you're interpreting his message, and I can see where you're comming from, but all I get from doing so is the belief of false accusation. Let's take a second look at the post:
What is not clear in this message? He's declaring that he has a profanity system. He's declaring that if he didn't already have one, then he would use the other one. Where you're getting the assumption that he's saying that his profanity system is superior to the other one is beyond me, but I see no false interpratation that could come from solely this post other than from past conflicts.
|
Fine, I'll hold your hand as we take a trek through the wonderful world of logic.
Statement made: "It's too bad I already have a profanity system, or I'd use this one."
Logic: If you have the choice between using two things which perform the same function, and things such as cost, etc, are not a factor, which do you choose? The better one, correct? (unless, of course, the two are equal, at which point it becomes arbitrary.)
From this comes the inference. Thus, my first point's validity is proven.
Now, had he been more clear in why he did not use it (perhaps he thought they were equal, perhaps he wanted to utilize something already made, whatever), then this whole situation would not have arisen. Thus, my second point's validity is proven.
