I'll send you a PM, though should probably avoid getting so defensive. Yikes!
I await your response. BTW, defensive? Not too sure where you got that, perhaps you should probably avoid reading too much into other people's posts. Yikes!
...Aaaand...
Having read the furnished link (which came with the disclaimer made by Nabreeki that the article wasn't "peer reviewed") I'm still not convinced. The article goes on a tangent based on a statement that has been retracted. Nothing to see here, move along.
Next time you want to claim something's been documented, remember that an important part of the definition is "especially of a factual or informative nature" and documentation should be "furnish[ed] with references, citations, etc., in support of statements made." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/documented
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
By the way, if Nabreeki is truly trying to parallel the "Make it Great Again" Candidate*... I'll stop there.
*Who shall remain unnamed, not only in reference to the evil character in Harry Potter, but the more often his name pops up on the internet, the more publicity he has. Bleagh.
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
By the way, if Nabreeki is truly trying to parallel the "Make it Great Again" Candidate*... I'll stop there.
*Who shall remain unnamed, not only in reference to the evil character in Harry Potter, but the more often his name pops up on the internet, the more publicity he has. Bleagh.
I'll send you a PM, though should probably avoid getting so defensive. Yikes!
I await your response. BTW, defensive? Not too sure where you got that, perhaps you should probably avoid reading too much into other people's posts. Yikes!
...Aaaand...
Having read the furnished link (which came with the disclaimer made by Nabreeki that the article wasn't "peer reviewed") I'm still not convinced. The article goes on a tangent based on a statement that has been retracted. Nothing to see here, move along.
Next time you want to claim something's been documented, remember that an important part of the definition is "especially of a factual or informative nature" and documentation should be "furnish[ed] with references, citations, etc., in support of statements made." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/documented
This is a moving goalpost; ask for proof... then when it is offered, the parameters of what constitutes proof are changed.
This is a moving goalpost; ask for proof... then when it is offered, the parameters of what constitutes proof are changed.
It isn't a moving goalpost, it's me holding Nabreeki to expectation that "documentation" he claimed to have actually be true, which it proved to not be. A reasonable expectation, I might add.
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
This is a moving goalpost; ask for proof... then when it is offered, the parameters of what constitutes proof are changed.
It isn't a moving goalpost, it's me holding Nabreeki to expectation that "documentation" he claimed to have actually be true, which it proved to not be. A reasonable expectation, I might add.
Having an ambiguous definition of "documentation" is a moving goal post. Meeting your unrealistic expectation of proof would result in the goalpost moving again.
The logical fallacy I see you applying, in this case, is referred to as "special pleading".
This is a moving goalpost; ask for proof... then when it is offered, the parameters of what constitutes proof are changed.
It isn't a moving goalpost, it's me holding Nabreeki to expectation that "documentation" he claimed to have actually be true, which it proved to not be. A reasonable expectation, I might add.
Having an ambiguous definition of "documentation" is a moving goal post. Meeting your unrealistic expectation of proof would result in the goalpost moving again.
The logical fallacy I see you applying, in this case, is referred to as "special pleading".
It's the dictionary's definition of documentation. If you don't like it, that isn't my fault.
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
The name of this topic "WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT" sums up nicely the train of my thoughts, when I was reading through this topic...
/Closed
[10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh." "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness."~Day[9] "Your fun isn't wrong."~LaughingTrendy
Comments
Having read the furnished link (which came with the disclaimer made by Nabreeki that the article wasn't "peer reviewed") I'm still not convinced. The article goes on a tangent based on a statement that has been retracted. Nothing to see here, move along.
Next time you want to claim something's been documented, remember that an important part of the definition is "especially of a factual or informative nature" and documentation should be "furnish[ed] with references, citations, etc., in support of statements made." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/documented
Art died with art deco.
This is what Nbreeki is refering to.
The Problem is that each of these statements is a seperate link.
Regardless. That Statue is terrible.
I loves me some Art Nouveau/Deco...
By the way, if Nabreeki is truly trying to parallel the "Make it Great Again" Candidate*... I'll stop there.
*Who shall remain unnamed, not only in reference to the evil character in Harry Potter, but the more often his name pops up on the internet, the more publicity he has. Bleagh.
I made that sig.
This is a moving goalpost; ask for proof... then when it is offered, the parameters of what constitutes proof are changed.
Hab SoSlI' Quch!
It isn't a moving goalpost, it's me holding Nabreeki to expectation that "documentation" he claimed to have actually be true, which it proved to not be. A reasonable expectation, I might add.
Having an ambiguous definition of "documentation" is a moving goal post. Meeting your unrealistic expectation of proof would result in the goalpost moving again.
The logical fallacy I see you applying, in this case, is referred to as "special pleading".
Hab SoSlI' Quch!
My character Tsin'xing
Johnson Tsang is the creator of the design.
Hab SoSlI' Quch!
My character Tsin'xing
/Closed
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
"bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
"Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9]
"Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy
Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider