@TSherbs - Not trying to be snarky, but you pop in and make superficial statements. Then you proclaim how you're not interested in a discussion. Then you pop back in with more superficial statements. You do this often enough for me to make this comment on it. You seem to dismiss it as "we're just chatting, right?"
But let's not use this section as an example. Let's point out
your thread-shitting in some guy's Pelikan M800 for sale thread.
Why would you be compelled to post something like that? You took a shit in the guy's thread, and then you denied any culpability. You seem kind of bitter, to be honest.
But back on topic (somewhat). Welch went to great lengths to formulate an article that was not relevant. What premise did he show I misrepresented? It's quite clear that it was back of the envelope math. I said that. I said the numbers were arguable, but that it wasn't relevant to the salient point. How dense do you have to be to not get that? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way).
Pick the study. Pick the number. I don't care what it is. If it's one or more, then the point still stands. Utilitarian ethics. If you don't know anything about that, and aren't interesting in learning; maybe this isn't the thread for you. Just sayin'...
I'm not really interested in entertaining your drive-by, bitter, thread-shitting.
Bookmarks