You really don't see that this whole thing started between us because you did the exact thing of which you accuse me?
Actually it started because you made a mistaken assumption. When I call for charity and you attack the notion (for whatever hidden, larger motive) I have no particular reason to assume you don't appear to mean what you say, while your idea of my limit on assistance couldn't be rationally said to spring from my position.
Why? Am I supposed to care what you think?
You should care (by which I mean consider for your own benefit) what anyone with years of experience and a wider vista of understanding has to say about you and your offerings here, even if you ultimately reject the critique. That's the learning/growing process in a nutshell.
There's an idea in there, I suppose. So that's progress.
How much of an idiot are you?
As I've noted prior, I'm trying to help you (at least a little) so that question is certainly up for grabs.
2010-1980=x is the math problem, moron. Can you solve for x?
This just keeps getting funnier. Commas and subtraction, eh? There's a commentary in there you know (optional breath mark omitted).
I'm not trying to be clever.
Then you're succeeding beyond your wildest dreams. :thumb:
A degree tells me that you took classes, and nothing more.
Then you must not possess one or undervalue it... An undergraduate degree at even a state college makes a statement that the person possessing it has been reasonably exposed to contrary opinion and a host of new ideas, evidences sufficient ability and determination to have matriculated the course, so to speak, and has earned a measure of respect in accord with a still rare enough accomplishment when measured against the history of man (cumulative and recent). An advanced degree, earned from a reputable school, is another animal. There, the best of that undergraduate class vies for a limited number of seats and the requirements for acceptance are elevated. Many a determined, bright and willing participant is refused admission.
For instance, my entrance into law school was the result of a sufficiently distinguished academic record to set me apart from other applicants and a top ten percentile score on the LSAT (designed to weed among the academically gifted applying, as you might or should surmise). And that's just the ticket for the right to then compete among a rather driven, capable pool. Half my L1 class perished on the vine. Those that survived were particularly noteworthy and thrived in the pressure cooker demands of advanced academics. Taking honors in that group was an honor within an honor.
And then, if you manage to gain entrance and then survive the process, there's the bar. A fellow from Yale law sat across from me for three days of mind numbing inquiry (we had to let the poor fellow sit somewhere
), the end of which saw a great number of those present no closer to the practice than they were before they entered the building. Many never make a second attempt.
So if all you gleaned was that I took classes, your consideration is grotesquely inadequate to the task...something of a habit with you.
Re: your nature.
Again, I'm sorry to hear it, but you're old enough to recognize poor conduct and do something about it. People are born to and with worse to work with and manage nicely enough. Get on with it for your own sake.
Do you want proof of my reading comprehension level?
Not particularly, though you've struggled with things (especially inference) that you shouldn't unless you're confusing it with memory, which is only part of the picture.
Hint: It's well above where one would expect it to be for someone of my age and education level [combined].
Do you know the average reading level for an adult American? Aspire to more, if you're capable (which you certainly appear to be). But you aren't competing or discussing with the average American here. Writers tend to be readers and both tend to be toward the top end of that comprehension pool.
Well, I never said "absence of a negation" was necessary, so, what's your point?
I'm not going to hold your hand through the error of your assertion or the logical necessity of my counter. Again, you haven't earned it. You had the more amiable, helpful me a bit earlier. Now you can work through it and counter or not as you can (or can't, depending).
I know what I was talking about. I was talking about the principles in the verses.
The verses in question were that narrowing I noted which is why I pointed you to Luke and a broader consideration, which you then were either too invested to attempt or incapable of seeing for God knows what reason.
No I didn't. Maybe you should go back to school and learn to read.
I know this is difficult for you, but I set out your quotes. A thing cannot be "more clever" absent the second leg of that construction. That's part of what I meant by reading comprehension and your pronounced need of further academic instruction. It's logic. You substitute declaration and epithet for it.
I don't see how that means what you said was actually clever.
What you don't see isn't in question. What you should is another matter altogether.
All I see is me being sarcastic.
No, this is you trying to rewrite to avoid looking foolish. Sarcasm isn't found in attempting to better a practice. That's condescension, which is in your case an air without support.
It might also explain why you haven't shut up and moved one, you can't escape...
Oh, I intend to stick around and continue to instruct you until you learn a better practice or are driven to a more impressive reach by necessity. I can't force maturity or consideration upon you, but I can exact the consequence for their absence and hope it eventually motivates you.
See? That's part of what vocabulary and memory aren't indicative of that I alluded to prior. A grasp of nuance, inference and argument not set out like a child's toy is part of the package. Oh, all right. Wrapping your conduct in the honesty gambit is an attempt to raise immaturity to virtue. It can't be done. A racist might be honest about his bigotry, but it's still reprehensible thought that leads to lamentable action for anyone not crippled by it. I think you're capable of more. Aspire to it.
I've accomplished much more on my own than many people my age. Most of them take classes to learn to do most of the stuff I learned alone.
And that's admirable, but insufficient if you understand the real point of education, which isn't the intellectual equivalent of a trade school. I have a good friend who is remarkably intelligent and who has never had a great deal of formal education. As a result he has an impressive grasp of the things that interest him and a want for much more. It hobbles him in larger argument and reflection because a great deal of what he either isn't interested in or hasn't been exposed to influences and relates to what he knows and/or thinks.
It's a serious limitation and no man of intellectual substance would wish it on another.
I changed that already. Maybe you should go look at it again. I thought of something much more insulting.
I'll go back and note your alteration....who knows, given enough time you might one day look much better here. :chuckle:
Edit: It was a funnier answer, though no more or less insulting.
