rekrunner wrote:
I did not come questioning your subjectivity. I asked you for objectivity.
You claim I misunderstand, but you are the king of misunderstanding creation LOL!!!
Since you are so pedantic (semantical and stingy) in your arguments as to so severely control, limit and narrow the interpretation of facts, why aren't you displaying the same level of commitment in your replies to me in making me understand off the bat with no misunderstanding that you did not come questioning my subjectivity but only to ask for my objectivity???
How did you uncharacteristically err for that one moment in space-time to not clarify your responses with such narrow and limited parameters unless it was designed by you hence fully intended as to be intentional!!!! The question then begs why did you reserve such intention only for me unless you have ulterior malevolent agenda against me inasmuch as to deceive me!!!!
I'm even more pedantic (semantical and stingy) than you, dear rekrunner, if I desired to be so. My lens/filters to reality are even more nanoscopic than yours, relatively speaking, and if I wanted to apply myself this way due to my RF background!
I also don't shy away from emotional reasoning hence try to hide my emotions on LRC precisely because emotion is one of the pillars of reasoning, not just 'objective' reasoning. And I don't hide behind the veneer of civil believability (aka fakery) like you as a means to launch a pro-doping agenda for all intents and purposes!