Originally posted by AThousandYoungshow me the "because" in that post.
Show me the words "cannot" and "must" in that post.
its not stated, or implied.
you misread. i'm the author, i would know the meaning, whereas you would stay misguided from a failure of not thinking from the proper aligned position.
Originally posted by NowakowskiThen why did you say it was "directly stated" if it wasn't stated?
show me the "because" in that post.
its not stated, or implied.
you misread. i'm the author, i would know the meaning, whereas you would stay misguided from a failure of not thinking from the proper aligned position.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungit was stated, those words are in quotations to help you see their implied values, as you obviously missed their intended use in the first statement, and now with the statement reformed, it is directly stated.
Then why did you say it was "directly stated" if it wasn't stated?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungauthors often make deeper implications in their writing, with the idea of having like minded readers understand. The surface statement is for basic understanding. However, in your case, their was no understanding, only a fumbling misque of the said process.
I don't think you understand how language works. If I write that "elephants have large testicles" it would be ridiculous if I claimed that there was absolutely no reference to animals or reproductive organs. The author does not define the words; the author uses already defined words to get his ideas across to a reader, who has been trained in the standard form of the language.
🙄
You simply tried to abuse the statement, and manipulate it to try to make a point you simply cannot defend.
Now that you no longer defend that illegal immigrants are hurting wages, and deflating the American economy, you've turned to try and destroy the general statement's grammar, which is of no use to this argument.
Furthermore, the statement was appended for your understanding, and instead of dissolving your rebuttle against its grammatical purpose, you continue to try to attack it, as you know your argument against the principle of the argument has absolutely no base.
10 pts for me.
Originally posted by Nowakowskiauthors often make deeper implications in their writing, with the idea of having like minded readers understand.
authors often make deeper implications in their writing, with the idea of having like minded readers understand. The surface statement is for basic understanding. However, in your case, their was no understanding, only a fumbling misque of the said process.
You simply tried to abuse the statement, and manipulate it to try to make a point you simply c your argument against the principle of the argument has absolutely no base.
10 pts for me.
Some of us like to communicate with people who aren't like minded.
Now that you no longer defend that illegal immigrants are hurting wages
What? When did I "defend that illegal immigrants are hurting wages?" What does that even mean? Sorry, I'm not one of your like-minded folks who will agree with you in everything and not read critically. Does it mean that I said they're hurting wages? Does it mean that I defend their right to do so? What does that sentence mean? I don't have your "like minded" sekrit decoder ring, sorry!
Umm, ok, you win. Hope you're happy. I'm satisfied that any third party of any intelligence will understand where I'm coming from and see your foolishness.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungReally?
[b]authors often make deeper implications in their writing, with the idea of having like minded readers understand.
Some of us like to communicate with people who aren't like minded.
Now that you no longer defend that illegal immigrants are hurting wages
What? When did I "defend that illegal immigrants are hurting wages?"
Umm, ...[text shortened]... party of any intelligence will understand where I'm coming from and see your foolishness.[/b]
seems like most third parties will agree with me, as you've actually been continually trying to defend this formentioned idea.
With statements defending that their wages are indeed livable, and trying to indirectly state that others would be able to survive if we didn't live so luxuriously.
Well folks in our Olympic analysis team here, meet Katie Crossy, Mike Norgood and Billy Lambost, what do you think of this thread? There is not much time left in the Olympics so what do you think?
Katie: Well it started out with opening statements by Duecer and he led for a while but the insurgents took over, namely Nowakowski and Widget, both of whom got off track with the wine comment. Over to you Mike:
Yes, Mike Norgood here. I see that there were singlets coming in, Sonhouse, Roostry, Very Rusty, User Chevy at one or two apiece, no threat to the main force here. What do you think Billy?
Hi, Billy Lambost here, well After the Nowakoski/Widget bruhaha Athousand young got them back on track but is he a contender for gold? Maybe bronze at this point, here are the totals so far, not much time left , so far Nowakoski is in front with 53 posts here, with Widget at the silver with 32, but Athousand young, the admitted dark horse is coming on strong in the last round with 23! All right Young, don't lose your breath now, keep deep breathing!
That said, Mr Hand is in there but a probably 5th place with 19.
Back to you at Sports Central. We are all watching, millions of fans are breathless over this, you can see the crowds on the sides, discussing strategy but the contestants of course can use none of it even if the overhear, the judges will see to that.
Originally posted by sonhouseTesticles.
Well folks in our Olympic analysis team here, meet Katie Crossy, Mike Norgood and Billy Lambost, what do you think of this thread? There is not much time left in the Olympics so what do you think?
Katie: Well it started out with opening statements by Duecer and he led for a while but the insurgents took over, namely Nowakowski and Widget, both of whom go ...[text shortened]... the contestants of course can use none of it even if the overhear, the judges will see to that.