> > you cited this fellow as if his word were somehow a contribution > without defending his perspective in any way.
------------------------- Coming from someone who cites KM on his signature line the above is *very funny*. See I can play the same misinferential game too.......... > > > >... But when someone uses a word representing a complex concept, it's > > >always best to try to explain what he or she means by it. If you want > > >have a reasonable discussion, this is better than leaving it deliberately > > >vague or saying "it's contestable/ed so anything goes" or whatever the > > >implication is supposed to be of the ho-hum fact that concepts are > > >subjective. If the definition is still too vague, then people can ask for > > >clarifications.<< > > > Setting a new record for inferential leaps of interpretation way beyond > > what I wrote once again..........< > > Well, if you'd explain what you meant rather than simply making the > trivial point that concepts are subjective and leaving it there, I > would not have to use phrases like "or whatever the implication is > supposed to be." Also, you should note that I did not attribute any > opinion at all to you in the paragraph above. I did not make any > inferential leaps at all. > ------------------------ The fuck you didn't. > > Yawn. > > Sorry to bore you. I didn't know that you knew everything already. ----------------------- Hey look everybody, a misinferral of my remark. It doesn't follow that because I'm bored with your lecturing technique *and I am thoroughly bored with it* that I know everything. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh
