Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
It's not semantics, it's your inability to communicate in an accepted, normal manner.
Uh, the ability or inability to communicate in an accepted, normal manner (using language) IS a matter of semantics.
Don't you find it the least bit curious that this is a recurring theme, from multiple respondents, when you post your verbose manifestos?
No, because the theme not so mysteriously seems to recur whenever I'm debating someone who finds himself cornered. If the language use problem were genuine, then those affected would do what they could to find out what I meant, if they truly did not understand, and move on. Intead, folks like you and chipcom tend to keep harping on it, and avoid the underlying issues.
Reading comprehension Mr. Head, reading comprehension. I'm tiring of spoon feeding you. If one is a rational person, and they were to go back and read my posts, they would realize that your question does not reflect my posts.
You wrote: "We've succeeded in distilling your inanity to the nugget previously described. It's no big deal. It's mundane. It's like arguing about whether the Sun rises in the East." The imlication is we really have no disagreement. Pardon me if I misunderstood, but that is not an irrational interpreation of these words. Apparently, it's not what you meant. Fine. Unlike you, I won't insist on interpreting your words any way I see fit. Instead, I ask to confirm that we still have some signficant unresolved issues. If so, what do you believe they are.
She was, and continues to be a defensive driver.
By what definition?
Your assumptions about the accident, as well as your condescending judgments, notwithstanding.
How do you know what assumptions I have made about the accident? I've assumed nothing other than what you wrote.