Extraordinary. When asked to explain one sentence, as long as a novel, in "everyday English" it took you 12 sentences to do so. 12 sentences to explain just one. In "everyday English".
Do I have to dumb it down even more?
12 sentences to explain one is certainly as dumb as you can get. You've surpassed yourself.
2) You butted into a conversation that was finished.
3) You did not identify any errors in my post, nor correct anything I said.
4) You were confused about the topic of the brief exchange between me and "consistency".
5) You wrongly assumed my post was about Coe's quote of "doping positives", and not about two faults with the BBC Africa's quote of "serving bans".
6) You wrongly concluded that the AIU's published data of "12% serving bans are Kenyan" diminishes, or was meant to diminish, Coe's unrelated quote of "40% doping positives are Kenyan".
7) You blamed me for your confusion and lack of awareness and lack of comprehension. (See also point 1)
8) You accused me of conflating two quotes after I clearly said that they were different.
9) In fact you wrongly conflated the two quotes.
10) You wrongly accused me of diversion for talking about the BBC quote that "consistency" linked and quoted.
11) I gave two corrections regarding the BBC quote. You did not dispute these.
12) When you cannot argue with merit, you object to form, and create another diversion.
You can expect him to actually read anything as he is too busy with vile insults.
I am straining to think of a compliment you might deserve. Nope.
Perhaps you could do something brilliant like stop responding, so that none of us have to see the drivel. It appears in the thread every time you quote it, even if, like me, someone has blocked Armstronglivs; so, thanks for that.
12 sentences to explain one is certainly as dumb as you can get. You've surpassed yourself.
And you continue to fall behind.
The one sentence didn't really need any explaining in the first place -- that was just a diversion for you to avoid admitting your failures -- except perhaps to those who have comprehension problems when there are just too many words. It was an accurate summary of the even longer few pages. Unfortunately there is no short way to enumerate all the ways you are wrong, and somehow your extensive catalog of failures is my fault again.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
12 sentences to explain one is certainly as dumb as you can get. You've surpassed yourself.
And you continue to fall behind.
The one sentence didn't really need any explaining in the first place -- that was just a diversion for you to avoid admitting your failures -- except perhaps to those who have comprehension problems when there are just too many words. It was an accurate summary of the even longer few pages. Unfortunately there is no short way to enumerate all the ways you are wrong, and somehow your extensive catalog of failures is my fault again.
It didn't need explaining, you say, but your one sentence took 12 sentences to do so. You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are.
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
The one sentence didn't really need any explaining in the first place -- that was just a diversion for you to avoid admitting your failures -- except perhaps to those who have comprehension problems when there are just too many words. It was an accurate summary of the even longer few pages. Unfortunately there is no short way to enumerate all the ways you are wrong, and somehow your extensive catalog of failures is my fault again.
It didn't need explaining, you say, but your one sentence took 12 sentences to do so. You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are.
You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid.
Did "I'm rubber your glue ..." ever work as an argument?
Whether it is one sentence or 12, you don't seem to refute the content, but the form.
They effectively say you are stupid and unaware, so your predictable response is to suggest I'm the stupid unaware one.
It didn't need explaining, you say, but your one sentence took 12 sentences to do so. You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are.
You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid.
Did "I'm rubber your glue ..." ever work as an argument?
Whether it is one sentence or 12, you don't seem to refute the content, but the form.
They effectively say you are stupid and unaware, so your predictable response is to suggest I'm the stupid unaware one.
How old are you?
I said - "You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are."
You think that means - "You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid."(quote)
You're such an inept try-hard. You think your contrived semantic contortions are a clever response. Unfortunately for you, you prove my statement above to be correct.
But that you took 12 sentences to explain one, when invited to do so in "everyday English", shows the unfortunate mental handicap you labour under. Whether it is 12 sentences or one, in neither instance are you able to say anything meaningful.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid.
Did "I'm rubber your glue ..." ever work as an argument?
Whether it is one sentence or 12, you don't seem to refute the content, but the form.
They effectively say you are stupid and unaware, so your predictable response is to suggest I'm the stupid unaware one.
How old are you?
I said - "You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are."
You think that means - "You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid."(quote)
You're such an inept try-hard. You think your contrived semantic contortions are a clever response. Unfortunately for you, you prove my statement above to be correct.
But that you took 12 sentences to explain one, when invited to do so in "everyday English", shows the unfortunate mental handicap you labour under. Whether it is 12 sentences or one, in neither instance are you able to say anything meaningful.
Lucky for you it gave you another excuse to avoid the topic, and respond without responding to the content.
All 13 sentences were constructed using everyday English -- it is just you struggling to find the meaning.
I said - "You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are."
You think that means - "You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid."(quote)
You're such an inept try-hard. You think your contrived semantic contortions are a clever response. Unfortunately for you, you prove my statement above to be correct.
But that you took 12 sentences to explain one, when invited to do so in "everyday English", shows the unfortunate mental handicap you labour under. Whether it is 12 sentences or one, in neither instance are you able to say anything meaningful.
Lucky for you it gave you another excuse to avoid the topic, and respond without responding to the content.
All 13 sentences were constructed using everyday English -- it is just you struggling to find the meaning.
You really don't get it. A sentence that takes 12 to explain it is not "everyday English". It is doggerel. Your forte.
I said - "You are never aware of how unbelievably stupid your responses are."
You think that means - "You are right to say it is unbelievable to suggest my responses are stupid."(quote)
You're such an inept try-hard. You think your contrived semantic contortions are a clever response. Unfortunately for you, you prove my statement above to be correct.
But that you took 12 sentences to explain one, when invited to do so in "everyday English", shows the unfortunate mental handicap you labour under. Whether it is 12 sentences or one, in neither instance are you able to say anything meaningful.
Lucky for you it gave you another excuse to avoid the topic, and respond without responding to the content.
All 13 sentences were constructed using everyday English -- it is just you struggling to find the meaning.
Lucky for you it gave you another excuse to avoid the topic, and respond without responding to the content.
All 13 sentences were constructed using everyday English -- it is just you struggling to find the meaning.
You really don't get it. A sentence that takes 12 to explain it is not "everyday English". It is doggerel. Your forte.
I get it -- it is just wrong, and instead of admitting your obliviotness, you just want to complain about form because you cannot otherwise say I'm wrong.
You really don't get it. A sentence that takes 12 to explain it is not "everyday English". It is doggerel. Your forte.
I get it -- it is just wrong, and instead of admitting your obliviotness, you just want to complain about form because you cannot otherwise say I'm wrong.
You would have needed to have said something to be wrong. You didn't manage that part.
I get it -- it is just wrong, and instead of admitting your obliviotness, you just want to complain about form because you cannot otherwise say I'm wrong.
You would have needed to have said something to be wrong. You didn't manage that part.
All these threads end up with you pretending intellectual superiority by attacking the intelligence of others, rather than demonstrating intelligence through making intelligent contributions.
The fact is that you stumbled into a conversation about the BBC, wrongly thinking it was about Coe, and then you blamed me for your failures to comprehend.
You couldn't have written that. This is more you. A single sentence in your version of "everyday English". (I left out your 12 sentences explaining the one).
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."(quote)
"Only then did you butt in, not to point out any error or correction to anything I said, but to offer confused opinions and conclusions based on wrong assumptions on the wrong topic, and blaming me for your lack of awareness and comprehension, accusing me of conflating what I clearly separated and you subsequently conflated, accusing me of diminishing one percentage from Coe by correcting another clearly unrelated percentage by the BBC Africa, and accusing me now of diversion, for responding with corrections to a quote that "consistency" linked and quoted."
That's sheer poetry. I managed to condense three pages of your obliviocacy into one single conjucted expression. Did I leave anything out?