How weak is your position that instead of discussing the subject you mod me down for something that I didn't do?
I'm not allowed to expect people to be accountable for their mistakes? I have been and it sucked a lot.
I'm not allowed to prefer curing a disease that attacks anyone and everyone regardless of what they do or who they are over a disease that is almost entirely preventable?
There was no troll there. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"You are right and I am wrong, and I know it. Therefore I will now resort to a profanity laced tirade reminiscent of a 12 year old. I will pretend that doing so makes me better than you, but we both know that I was wrong and my inability to form a coherent argument is the real reason I'm ranting and cursing. You are far smarter than me, so I have to find some ridiculous co out in order to prevent you from making me look any worse"
Fixed that for you.
And thanks again, it was fun watching you say such ridiculous crap, then run away when you realized I had you.
I've refuted you every time, and every time you try some new tactic. This time it was to ignore the fact that I addressed your previous objection and mooted it. In response, you post a link to a Wikipedia entry that solves nothing.
If you were I might consider it. As it stands you haven't said anything that "right" yet, unless you mean the current "connotation" of "right" which means inflammatory, preposterous, morally bankrupt and untruthful.
Is that what you meant?
As an aside, are you like this in real life, or do you just take ridiculous indefensible positions on the internet because you know that no matter how stupid what you say is, or how obviously wrong you are?
First you said I defined salesman. I refuted you. Then you claimed it was the "connotation" that you were talking about, after which I refuted you. Then you posted a link to a Wikipedia article, for what reason I have yet to discern. Did you think I'd read it and say "Fuck the 5 high quality dictionaries that give the definition as what I said it was, this completely unreliable webopedia is FAR more authoritative"? Nope. And the fact that you would think so is only a little more embarrassing for you than the different arguments you've used to prove your right.
How about you post a quote from an associate that says you're right? You haven't tried that yet.
You were wrong. You know it. I know it. Every time you post a new (as yet unused) argument you admit it. You admit that your previous argument was crap, and that I refuted it.
Eventually you'll run out of arguments. Let's see what happens then.
Connotation- "the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of "home" is "a place of warmth, comfort, and affection." Compare denotation (def. 1)."
Hmm. Guess what sparky, the defintion I gave you WAS the connotative "meaning" of "shill". Read that again until realization hits you. You relied on that as a way to avoid admitting you were wrong, but the very definition I gave you WAS the connotation.
"My name is Profane Muthafucka"
Maybe change it to "I'll say anything to be right"?
"In summary, I didn't talk about how the word was defined, idiot"
What's the point of that? I didn't attack you.
"In summary, I didn't talk about how the word was defined, idiot. I talked about what the word MEANS."
Um, sure...
"and your definition 2a (which is a definition of a salesperson)"
No, it's the definition of "shill". That definition does not appear anywhere under salesperson.
"doesn't cover the negative connotation of the word 'shill.'"
Doesn't have to. The same word can have different MEANINGS (definitions).
So apart from attacking me because I pointed out you were wrong and making up new definitions in a vain attempt to avoid admitting you got it wrong, do you have anyting else? Or should I now expect a profanity filled attack-fest in another obvious attempt to cover up your previous gaffe?
"They're most hated among the Consumerist's voters."
Ok, so there's a population (#1) that hates them, ok.
"The rest of the public hardly knows them at all,"
Ok, so the rest of the people minus population #1 doesn't know anything about them.
So what you're saying is, this lady did a GOOD job when the population as a whole either hates the company she works for or knows nothing about them, even though her job is to make her company look good.
Second, did you really just try to make the point that hiring the public face of the most hated corporation is a good idea? Did you miss that "most hated" part?
"The drug test is conducted before the event and only once."
No. Many sports test before and after the event (boxing for example) and while I'm not intimately familiar with the Tour de France, I recall hearing that tests are conducted throughout the event, sometimes testing the same person multiple times.
"They don't require the athlete to reveal the detail of their bank accounts..."
Neither does Blizzard. You choose to do that as one of the conditions to play the game.
"And since it's pretty clear to me and you're not capable of discerning the difference, we are not considering ourselves superior because of differences between our "race" (erroneous usage) and the apes "race"(erroneous usage), we are considering ourselves superior because of our Genus/Species."
Yes it is, yes you're wrong, and no, you simply misread the definitions because it's important to you to be rigth after you get slapped down.
"If you're really going to claim that the OED uses the word wrong, have fun with that on the authority of...your brain."
My copy of the OED says nothing about it. So you're lying (most likely) or your reading comprehension blows (still very likely).
And since it's pretty clear to me and you're not capable of discerning the difference, we are not considering ourselves superior because of differences between our "race" (erroneous usage) and the apes "race"(erroneous usage), we are considering ourselves superior because of our Genus/Species.
GET IT? COMPRENDE? VERSTEHEN?
You're wrong, stop digging 8 definitions deep (which doesn't say anything about what you claim it does) and give it up. You're starting to sound (even more) desperate and pathetic.
I mean god damn, how much time did you spend fabricating a response that you knew was wrong and a lie? How sad is that.
I was once on a phone call with a friend who had just landed when I heard the conversation between the pilot and the tower. My friend, on the other end, did not.
I'd say it's still not racism, it's not pedantic to object to intellectual laziness, and NEENER-NEENER!!!
In all seriousness, don't get pissy because I'm not willing to allow every type of discrimination under the sun to become racism. The word is loaded, and in this context, incorrect.
As to "human race", what's your point? That some people use the term incorrectly like you do? Ok, I'll give you that then, you're not the only one to use race/racism incorrectly.
"Uh, get back to me when you can make a statement without having to contradict yourself just a couple sentences later.
Vista isn't slower, except when it is? A three year old can spot that level of logical fallacy. How old are you?"
If that were what he said, then I'd be with you. It wasn't. In fact it wasn't even close. What he said (in my estimation) was that everything not related to a single CPU intensive task is faster. In fact
"In fact everything that isn't related to a single program doing hardcore processing is faster."
he says exactly that right there. Then he says, to paraphrase "Vista is faster, except in specific cases of..."
Fairly straightforward to me, but then I'm not the one who originally said
"Everything is slower on Vista."
so I don't have a dramatically overstated position to defend.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh, by the way, I'm not afraid of looking worse."
Of course not. That wouldn't be possible at this point.
As to the last word, why lie about that? Oh wait I forgot who I was talking to.
How sad is your life that you think posting what you did was a good idea?
"I masturbate in public and kill small animals."
I suspect that's closer to the truth than you'd like to admit.
I win. Again. That will never change.
How weak is your position that instead of discussing the subject you mod me down for something that I didn't do?
I'm not allowed to expect people to be accountable for their mistakes? I have been and it sucked a lot.
I'm not allowed to prefer curing a disease that attacks anyone and everyone regardless of what they do or who they are over a disease that is almost entirely preventable?
There was no troll there. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"I have lost two people so far to this disease in my life, and I have more than 5 friends that are HIV+ today."
How many of those people got HIV through no fault of their own? Right.
How many people have Type 1 diabetes through no fault of their own? Right.
I would much prefer to cure a disease that targets people indiscriminately. HIV is not that disease, no matter your fellings on the subject.
"You are right and I am wrong, and I know it. Therefore I will now resort to a profanity laced tirade reminiscent of a 12 year old. I will pretend that doing so makes me better than you, but we both know that I was wrong and my inability to form a coherent argument is the real reason I'm ranting and cursing. You are far smarter than me, so I have to find some ridiculous co out in order to prevent you from making me look any worse"
Fixed that for you.
And thanks again, it was fun watching you say such ridiculous crap, then run away when you realized I had you.
Thank you. I'm glad you finally admitted I'm right and you're wrong.
In the future, try to stick to one argument, or even better, just admit when you're wrong in the first place.
"Jerk."
Standard. After all this time, after being wrong over and over, all you're left with is an incoherent post and name calling.
It fells good to own you like I have. Thanks for making it so easy.
Why? Wikipedia isn't
A) reliable
b) relevant
I've refuted you every time, and every time you try some new tactic. This time it was to ignore the fact that I addressed your previous objection and mooted it. In response, you post a link to a Wikipedia entry that solves nothing.
"I'll raise you a Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill and you can admit that I'm right."
If you were I might consider it. As it stands you haven't said anything that "right" yet, unless you mean the current "connotation" of "right" which means inflammatory, preposterous, morally bankrupt and untruthful.
Is that what you meant?
As an aside, are you like this in real life, or do you just take ridiculous indefensible positions on the internet because you know that no matter how stupid what you say is, or how obviously wrong you are?
First you said I defined salesman. I refuted you. Then you claimed it was the "connotation" that you were talking about, after which I refuted you. Then you posted a link to a Wikipedia article, for what reason I have yet to discern. Did you think I'd read it and say "Fuck the 5 high quality dictionaries that give the definition as what I said it was, this completely unreliable webopedia is FAR more authoritative"? Nope. And the fact that you would think so is only a little more embarrassing for you than the different arguments you've used to prove your right.
How about you post a quote from an associate that says you're right? You haven't tried that yet.
You were wrong. You know it. I know it. Every time you post a new (as yet unused) argument you admit it. You admit that your previous argument was crap, and that I refuted it.
Eventually you'll run out of arguments. Let's see what happens then.
Connotation- "the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of "home" is "a place of warmth, comfort, and affection." Compare denotation (def. 1)."
Hmm. Guess what sparky, the defintion I gave you WAS the connotative "meaning" of "shill". Read that again until realization hits you. You relied on that as a way to avoid admitting you were wrong, but the very definition I gave you WAS the connotation.
"My name is Profane Muthafucka"
Maybe change it to "I'll say anything to be right"?
"In summary, I didn't talk about how the word was defined, idiot"
What's the point of that? I didn't attack you.
"In summary, I didn't talk about how the word was defined, idiot. I talked about what the word MEANS."
Um, sure...
"and your definition 2a (which is a definition of a salesperson)"
No, it's the definition of "shill". That definition does not appear anywhere under salesperson.
"doesn't cover the negative connotation of the word 'shill.'"
Doesn't have to. The same word can have different MEANINGS (definitions).
So apart from attacking me because I pointed out you were wrong and making up new definitions in a vain attempt to avoid admitting you got it wrong, do you have anyting else? Or should I now expect a profanity filled attack-fest in another obvious attempt to cover up your previous gaffe?
"meaning, not definition" that was classic.
Ok, I'm way confused, let me get this right.
"They're most hated among the Consumerist's voters."
Ok, so there's a population (#1) that hates them, ok.
"The rest of the public hardly knows them at all,"
Ok, so the rest of the people minus population #1 doesn't know anything about them.
So what you're saying is, this lady did a GOOD job when the population as a whole either hates the company she works for or knows nothing about them, even though her job is to make her company look good.
I must be missing something.
Dictionary.com
But Merriam-Webster online has this
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter
Encarta online dictionary has this
2. self-interested promoter: somebody who promotes somebody else or makes a sales pitch for something for reasons of self-interest
So, what's your evidence?
"Come on, you're wrong."
Yeah, um that's no going to do it.
"Look in the dictionary. Like you, I'm not going to reveal which dictionary I'm looking in."
I looked in several, they all said essentially the same thing.
I realize it sucks to be wrong, but why get your panties in a bunch? You were wrong get over it.
I suspect it means exactly what the author thinks it means, specifically
Shill-
2.a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
She was a hired PR flack. The word "shill" is exactly right in this context.
First, it's a woman.
Second, did you really just try to make the point that hiring the public face of the most hated corporation is a good idea? Did you miss that "most hated" part?
"The drug test is conducted before the event and only once."
No. Many sports test before and after the event (boxing for example) and while I'm not intimately familiar with the Tour de France, I recall hearing that tests are conducted throughout the event, sometimes testing the same person multiple times.
"They don't require the athlete to reveal the detail of their bank accounts..."
Neither does Blizzard. You choose to do that as one of the conditions to play the game.
Reread the original post.
Oops, I guess you're not bright enough to understand my original objection and neither is he.
"Give it up"
Get smarter. Your lack of ability to comprehend the argument doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
"And since it's pretty clear to me and you're not capable of discerning the difference, we are not considering ourselves superior because of differences between our "race" (erroneous usage) and the apes "race"(erroneous usage), we are considering ourselves superior because of our Genus/Species."
Sucks to be wrong and illiterate doesn't it?
Try reading, it's good for you.
Wait wait wait, you think a report issued by Greenpeace establishes Greenpeace's credibility?
So, how long have you been in Greenpeace?
"It's not intellectual laziness..."
Yes it is, yes you're wrong, and no, you simply misread the definitions because it's important to you to be rigth after you get slapped down.
"If you're really going to claim that the OED uses the word wrong, have fun with that on the authority of...your brain."
My copy of the OED says nothing about it. So you're lying (most likely) or your reading comprehension blows (still very likely).
And since it's pretty clear to me and you're not capable of discerning the difference, we are not considering ourselves superior because of differences between our "race" (erroneous usage) and the apes "race"(erroneous usage), we are considering ourselves superior because of our Genus/Species.
GET IT? COMPRENDE? VERSTEHEN?
You're wrong, stop digging 8 definitions deep (which doesn't say anything about what you claim it does) and give it up. You're starting to sound (even more) desperate and pathetic.
I mean god damn, how much time did you spend fabricating a response that you knew was wrong and a lie? How sad is that.
"Everything is slower on Vista."
He said that.
So did you miss it, or are you wrong on purpose?
In the future if you're going to be a douche, at least try to be a correct douche.
I was once on a phone call with a friend who had just landed when I heard the conversation between the pilot and the tower. My friend, on the other end, did not.
Just one anecdote, but that convinced me.
Flamebait huh? Nonsense, just nonsense.
I'd say it's still not racism, it's not pedantic to object to intellectual laziness, and NEENER-NEENER!!!
In all seriousness, don't get pissy because I'm not willing to allow every type of discrimination under the sun to become racism. The word is loaded, and in this context, incorrect.
As to "human race", what's your point? That some people use the term incorrectly like you do? Ok, I'll give you that then, you're not the only one to use race/racism incorrectly.
"Uh, get back to me when you can make a statement without having to contradict yourself just a couple sentences later.
Vista isn't slower, except when it is? A three year old can spot that level of logical fallacy. How old are you?"
If that were what he said, then I'd be with you. It wasn't. In fact it wasn't even close. What he said (in my estimation) was that everything not related to a single CPU intensive task is faster. In fact
"In fact everything that isn't related to a single program doing hardcore processing is faster."
he says exactly that right there. Then he says, to paraphrase "Vista is faster, except in specific cases of..."
Fairly straightforward to me, but then I'm not the one who originally said
"Everything is slower on Vista."
so I don't have a dramatically overstated position to defend.
meet
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, no buddy, I got it. I got all of it. You weren't being to(sic) subtle.
Why is it your kind never grasp the idea that we get what you meant to say, we just think it's not worth saying?
"Yes, but how well would humans do in an IQ test devised by a chimp?"
This cracked me up, not because it's particularly funny, but because you clearly thought you had a point here.