Probably will have lost to 4 of the 6 AFC playoff teams

[upstater1]

Pao:

Right I'll make it easy. Many times in your posts you do one, or more, of the following...You respond out of context. You misrepresent what people say. You are disingenuous. You are abusive.

I'm abusive because I say your posts are indecipherable? Because you come to conclusions like, "No answer?" What am I to think when someone posts on a messageboard, asks a question, then immediately responds with "No answer?" That's just bizarre. Sorry if that offends you, but I can't fathom what's going on in your brain for you to write something like that. Just bizarre. How can you expect someone to answer in the middle of your post? So I characterize what you did as schizophrenic, and then you say I'm being abusive.

How else should I understand your post? Explain to me.

 

[pao]

Pao:
You wrote: No answer. What am I to think? Explain that to me. Unless you expect me to answer in real-time, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that I couldn't answer your question. Just a bizarre conclusion on your part, but I've come to expect it from your posts. Please explain to me why you wrote: no answer. Why did you do it? How else am I to interpret it?

Hmm, I thought you were being disingenuous but maybe you don't understand the concept of a rhetorical question. I didn't expect an answer, rhetorical questions by definition are not posed to elicit an answer. Get it now? You claimed I had disowned a comment. I asked you "what comment did I disown?". You can't answer that question because I haven't disowned any comments I made.

Sure you did. The post is up here for all to see. I already quoted the post twice.

No, what I said was that your logic and reasoning may be convoluted and/or irrelevent. I guess we'll have to go through this the hard way. My original post was that your response was "Entirely predictable" in your response to another poster. Here is your answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by upstater1
Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason.
My response (btw, I got a pretty good chuckle about that quote.)...
However convoluted and irrelevent.

Your additional quote...
8-8 isn't as good as 11-5 except in some fantasyland.
My response...
I didn't say differently, so I guess it's you in fantasyland. Time to get over all that anyway, I have. See, at the very beginning I explained I didn't say differently. I have ALWAYS agreed that 11-5 is better than 8-8. I NEVER said anything different. You say I did, but can't post anything proving it (because I never said it).
In response, you wrote this...
Convoluted?
As a product of the San Diego school system, you seem to believe that the statement "11 wins is better than 8" is somehow complex and difficult. It's not. It's quite simple, even mathematical. 11 > 8.Get it? Or did you skip math entirely?
A total misrepresentation of what I posted. In fact, as you can see, I had said in the original post I didn't say differently. A classic example of how you misrepresent things.

Otherwise, if you were calling me convoluted for something I posted earlier, I asked you to please tell me what was so convoluted. You never did.

Please, show me a where you asked me if it was about something earlier. Cut and paste the text in your response, I'll be looking for it. If you are talking about this quote..."What was so convoluted about what I wrote? Why did you say my post about the Patriots being more deserving of the Chargers is convoluted? How is it convoluted?" Don't bother. I never said your post "about the Patriots being more deserving of the Chargers is convoluted". Come on now, anything else?

I really have no idea what you're talking aqbout 90% of the time since your posts are, well, convoluted

Still flattering, imitation. Funny though, how you claim to not understand.

When I wrote 11 wins are better than 8, and you wrote that my post was convoluted, what else am I to conclude.

Another classic example of your MO. You cherrypick a statement, change the context, and then demand an explanation. I can't explain something I never said, right? Look at the post, dude. I don't say that 11 wins are better than 8 is convoluted. I say your assertion that the "logic and reason" you claim you use in your posts may be "convoluted and irrelevent". It has NOTHING to do with your 11>8 premise. And I explained that multiple times.

Maybe you should learn to write more clearly since you're now disowning the previous statements and claiming you meant something else.

MO from upstater bible, "I shall misrepresent what other posters have posted so that I may so confuse the issue that they will not see that I am wrong". Show me one statement I have disowned. One. Show me one statement I made that I am now trying to claim means something else. One. You can't do it, it hasn't happened.

If that's so, then tell me what's so convoluted about my posts in this thread. PatsinPittsburgh understood very well what I was saying. He was capable of comprehending. Why can't you?

Er, what did Pat understand that I don't? Hmm? Please, tell me. That 11-5 is better than 8-8? I have not argued against that, ever. MO again. Misrepresent what I said.

I really feel sorry for you.

Thanks for the empathy, however misguided it may be.

 

[pao]

Pao:


I'm abusive because I say your posts are indecipherable? Because you come to conclusions like, "No answer?" What am I to think when someone posts on a messageboard, asks a question, then immediately responds with "No answer?" That's just bizarre. Sorry if that offends you, but I can't fathom what's going on in your brain for you to write something like that. Just bizarre. How can you expect someone to answer in the middle of your post? So I characterize what you did as schizophrenic, and then you say I'm being abusive.

There you go again. You cherrypicked that I said you were abusive in some of your posts, you claim I wrote it because you say I'm schizophrienic, and then you are aghast that I don't understand. I didn't say you are abusive because you called me schizophrenic. In fact I posted it 2 or 3 posts BEFORE you called me schizophrenic. Too much.

How else should I understand your post? Explain to me.

Two words... rhetorical question. Good night now.

 

[upstater1]

Pao:

Hmm, I thought you were being disingenuous but maybe you don't understand the concept of a rhetorical question.

It appears you're the one that doesn't understand the concept of a rhetorical question.

Here, I'll help you. From the dictionary:

rhetorical question–noun
a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as “What is so rare as a day in June?”

Ex. Is the sky blue?

I didn't expect an answer, rhetorical questions by definition are not posed to elicit an answer. Get it now? You claimed I had disowned a comment. I asked you "what comment did I disown?". You can't answer that question because I haven't disowned any comments I made.

You have no conception of what a rhetorical question is. A rhetorical question is one in which the answer is already obvious or already implied. I did give you an answer to your question. I wrote a post [the one that said, "Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason. Indeed, 11 wins is better than 8"], and you replied, that I was convoluted. My post was very short. What was so convoluted about it? I assumed you were talking about the 11-8 comment (and that's why I said you disowned your comment when you acknowledged the obvious 11>8). If that's not correct, what in the world was convoluted about my reasoning? Go ahead explain, can you? (Ya see, that's not a rhetorical question. I can insert the words ["you can't explain"] but that would be silly and presumptuous of me when obviously this isn't a rhetorical question). Before making claims that other people don't understand rhetorical questions, you might want to brush up on your writing skills a little bit.

Please, show me a where you asked me if it was about something earlier. Cut and paste the text in your response, I'll be looking for it. If you are talking about this quote..."What was so convoluted about what I wrote? Why did you say my post about the Patriots being more deserving of the Chargers is convoluted? How is it convoluted?" Don't bother. I never said your post "about the Patriots being more deserving of the Chargers is convoluted". Come on now, anything else?

So now you disown yet another comment of yours? You say something is convoluted, and now you say you NEVER SAID my post about the Patriots being more deserving than the Chargers is convoluted? Wha? Then what the heck is so convoluted? What is so difficult for you to understand? Are you OK?

Still flattering, imitation. Funny though, how you claim to not understand.
Another classic example of your MO. You cherrypick a statement, change the context, and then demand an explanation.

I'm trying to find the statement that you are so apparently incapable of understanding. I "cherrypicked" by selecting the most obvious statements first. But so far you've said that your convoluted statement doesn't apply to either of my posts. I was offering up possible examples of the statements that you found convoluted. It's obvious at this point that you are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid telling me what is so convoluted. Next time, if you have NOTHING to back up your assertions, you're better off not posting in the first place.

I say your assertion that the "logic and reason" you claim you use in your posts may be "convoluted and irrelevent".

All I'm asking is to show me how the logic and reason in my posts is convoluted. That's the only thing I asked.

It has NOTHING to do with your 11>8 premise. And I explained that multiple times. MO from upstater bible, "I shall misrepresent what other posters have posted so that I may so confuse the issue that they will not see that I am wrong". Show me one statement I have disowned. One. Show me one statement I made that I am now trying to claim means something else. One. You can't do it, it hasn't happened.
Er, what did Pat understand that I don't? Hmm? Please, tell me. That 11-5 is better than 8-8? I have not argued against that, ever. MO again. Misrepresent what I said.
Thanks for the empathy, however misguided it may be.

You seem to have a victim complex. I wasn't misrepresenting anything you wrote. I was trying to find out what in the world you are talking about. Obviously, since there is no substance to your posts, it seems you are avoiding answering the most basic question. You said my post was convoluted. I asked, what is convoluted? You didn't answer the question, so I gave examples of what I had written and asked if you found them convoluted. That wasn't misrepresentation. I was simply trying to see if you were having trouble with my basic statements, or you were just making stuff up with absolutely nothing to back up your assertions. Since you haven't backed up our claim that my post was convoluted, we can both say, it's the latter.

 

[upstater1]

There you go again. You cherrypicked that I said you were abusive in some of your posts, you claim I wrote it because you say I'm schizophrienic, and then you are aghast that I don't understand. I didn't say you are abusive because you called me schizophrenic. In fact I posted it 2 or 3 posts BEFORE you called me schizophrenic. Too much.

Two words... rhetorical question. Good night now.

Gawd, you do have a victim complex. You make claims you can't back up, and then when someone asks you to explain yourself, you cower in the corner like a frightened little boy claiming the other poster is abusing you. Pathetic.

 

[pao]

You are really flattering me. Thanks for the compliment. You imitate everything I write.

Pao:

It appears you're the one that doesn't understand the concept of a rhetorical question.

Here, I'll help you. From the dictionary:

Ex. Is the sky blue?



You have no conception of what a rhetorical question is. A rhetorical question is one in which the answer is already obvious or already implied.

LOL. You are really too much! I asked a rhetorical question and here was your response..."What do you mean, no answer? Do you expect me to answer your post in real-time? Do you even know how a message board works? You seem to be a little brain-damaged if you expect me to answer your post in real-time, although given the quality (lack) of your posts, your latest doesn't surprise me at all. Now you are saying I don't understand rhetorical questions???

I did give you an answer to your question.

First, I didn't expect an answer. That's the point of a rhetorical question. Again, you claim I don't understand rhetorical questions but you continually show that you obviously don't.

I wrote a post [the one that said, "Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason. Indeed, 11 wins is better than 8"], and you replied, that I was convoluted. My post was very short. What was so convoluted about it?

Did you even read my post? I already answered that. Here's the explanation again...
No, what I said was that your logic and reasoning may be convoluted and/or irrelevent. I guess we'll have to go through this the hard way. My original post was that your response was "Entirely predictable" in your response to another poster. Here is your answer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by upstater1
Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason.
My response (btw, I got a pretty good chuckle about that quote.)...
However convoluted and irrelevent.

Your additional quote...
8-8 isn't as good as 11-5 except in some fantasyland.
My response...
I didn't say differently, so I guess it's you in fantasyland. Time to get over all that anyway, I have. See, at the very beginning I explained I didn't say differently. I have ALWAYS agreed that 11-5 is better than 8-8. I NEVER said anything different. You say I did, but can't post anything proving it (because I never said it).
In response, you wrote this...
Convoluted?
As a product of the San Diego school system, you seem to believe that the statement "11 wins is better than 8" is somehow complex and difficult. It's not. It's quite simple, even mathematical. 11 > 8.Get it? Or did you skip math entirely? A total misrepresentation of what I posted. In fact, as you can see, I had said in the original post I didn't say differently. A classic example of how you misrepresent things.

I assumed you were talking about the 11-8 comment (and that's why I said you disowned your comment when you acknowledged the obvious 11>8).

Why would you assume that? In the post I clearly addressed the two seperately! I even said I agreed that 11-5 is better than 8-8 IN THAT POST! Again, how can I disown something I said, when I never said it? Again, show me one time I said that 11-5 is better than 8-8. If you can't show us where I said it, then stop misrepresenting what I said.

If that's not correct, what in the world was convoluted about my reasoning? Go ahead explain, can you?

Come on, how many times do we have to go over this? You said... Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason." I said... "However convoluted and irrelevent". It was seperated from your other comment! And unless you meant that you only pride yourself on using logic and reason ON THAT POST then you must understand that I was speaking to the entirety of your body of work on this message board. I see how you roll though, cherrypick a point, misrepresent it, continually pound it despite logical explanation, belittle the poster, rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

(Ya see, that's not a rhetorical question. I can insert the words ["you can't explain"] but that would be silly and presumptuous of me when obviously this isn't a rhetorical question).Before making claims that other people don't understand rhetorical questions, you might want to brush up on your writing skills a little bit.

Funny, you are the one that needs to brush up a bit. Let me explain something to you. If you expect an answer it isn't a rhetorical question. However, if you wrote it to make a point, not expecting an answer, it WOULD be a rhetorical question (which is what I did). See the difference?

So now you disown yet another comment of yours? You say something is convoluted, and now you say you NEVER SAID my post about the Patriots being more deserving than the Chargers is convoluted? Wha? Then what the heck is so convoluted? What is so difficult for you to understand? Are you OK?

On and on. Again, already explained...ad nauseum. Cherrypicking, misrepresentation, disingenuous, irrelevant, mixing premises, all staples of the upstater bible for debate.

I'm trying to find the statement that you are so apparently incapable of understanding.

You won't find it, it doesn't exist.

I "cherrypicked" by selecting the most obvious statements first.

No, you cherrypicked the 11-5 > 8-8 part of your post and said it was what I said was convoluted even though it was clearly seperated from my "convoluted" comment. You were obviously wrong, as I have shown again and again.

But so far you've said that your convoluted statement doesn't apply to either of my posts.

What are you talking about here? Can you clarify?

I was offering up possible examples of the statements that you found convoluted. It's obvious at this point that you are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid telling me what is so convoluted.

Absurd. You claimed that I said this post...Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason. 8-8 isn't as good as 11-5 except in some fantasyland. was convoluted. I never did. And unless you meant that you use "logic and reason" on that post alone, then you meant all your posts. So my response..."However convoluted or irrelevent", which was clearly separated from the second part of this post, was meant to be applied to your body of work NOT that single post. Additionally, as I have explained, you took my "convoluted or irrelevent" and applied it to the second part of that post which was clearly separated from that comment. Don't try to deny it, it is exactly what you did. You continually questioned, and still are, how was that convoluted.

Next time, if you have NOTHING to back up your assertions, you're better off not posting in the first place.

You best take your own advice.

All I'm asking is to show me how the logic and reason in my posts is convoluted. That's the only thing I asked.

No, the thing you asked was how that 11-5> 8-8 was convoluted. I never said that. Now you are misrepresenting what YOU posted. But I still stand by my statement, often your logic and reasoning ARE convoluted and irrelevant.

You seem to have a victim complex.

Classic. Attack the poster, not the content, an upstater staple.

I wasn't misrepresenting anything you wrote. I was trying to find out what in the world you are talking about. Obviously, since there is no substance to your posts, it seems you are avoiding answering the most basic question. You said my post was convoluted. I asked, what is convoluted? You didn't answer the question, so I gave examples of what I had written and asked if you found them convoluted. That wasn't misrepresentation. I was simply trying to see if you were having trouble with my basic statements, or you were just making stuff up with absolutely nothing to back up your assertions. Since you haven't backed up our claim that my post was convoluted, we can both say, it's the latter.

Absolute rubbish. Revisionist writing at it's worst. The simplest response to this is that you misrepresented that I had said your original post was convoluted. I never did. The rest of this is simply revision and cya. I have backed up my assertions ad nauseum and you continue to claim ignorance and non understanding. I don’t get why you are trying so hard to push this. Give it up, you are wrong.

 

[pao]

Gawd, you do have a victim complex. You make claims you can't back up, and then when someone asks you to explain yourself, you cower in the corner like a frightened little boy claiming the other poster is abusing you. Pathetic.

Ooh, got me with that one. I'm really cowering now. Funny thing though, I called you out. How you get that I am cowering from that, I'll never know (and frankly could care less), but from the history of your posts I'm not surprised. Happy New Year!

 

[upstater1]

Pao:

You are really flattering me. Thanks for the compliment. You imitate everything I write.

I haven't flattered you once. I've questioned your ability to use logic. If I ever resembled you in any way, I would just hang myself right now.

LOL. You are really too much! I asked a rhetorical question and here was your response

No, you never asked a rhetorical question. You don't even know what a rhetorical question is.

Now you are saying I don't understand rhetorical questions???

I am saying this: you don't know what a rhetorical question is. How do I know this? Because you claimed you asked one. Clearly, you did not.

First, I didn't expect an answer. That's the point of a rhetorical question.

No, you're confused. A rhetorical question has nothing to do with whether the questioner expects an answer or not. It has everything to do with whether the answer is already implied or obvious. This is why I'm saying you don't know what a rhetorical question is. When you ask someone, "Can you show me which comments I disowned?" that's an opened ended question that the responder can choose to answer, and I did. Again, you are confused. You don't know what a rhetorical question is.

No, what I said was that your logic and reasoning may be convoluted and/or irrelevent.

And I said, what is so convoluted about my reasoning? But you're a phony and you won't answer that question.

Why would you assume that? In the post I clearly addressed the two seperately! I even said I agreed that 11-5 is better than 8-8 IN THAT POST!

No, you didn't. You only wrote that it was convoluted and irrelevant. That's all you wrote. Nothing there about 11 or 8 wins. Stop lying. The facts: you have yet to show what's convoluted about my reasoning. I have no idea what you find convoluted. Until you man up and admit there is NOTHING convoluted in that original post, you'll just be lying, misdirecting and misrepresenting which is your forte, Mr. Pot-and-Kettle.

Again, how can I disown something I said, when I never said it? Again, show me one time I said that 11-5 is better than 8-8. If you can't show us where I said it, then stop misrepresenting what I said.

I already replied to all this in my last post. Go reread it. It states plainly that I made a simple statement, you said it was convoluted. I assumed you were talking about the logic behind my 11>8 post. if that's not what you were referring to, then what logic is convoluted in my post? Can't answer that can you? HA!

You're a fraud.

Funny, you are the one that needs to brush up a bit. Let me explain something to you. If you expect an answer it isn't a rhetorical question. However, if you wrote it to make a point, not expecting an answer, it WOULD be a rhetorical question (which is what I did).

And again you don't understand the basics of a rhetorical question. When someone asks an open-ended question that can easily be answered (as I did) that's not a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are those in which the answer is already evident, implied or given. You're in perpetual ignorance on this issue. An open-ended question can be answered in a variety of ways. A rhetorical question has an implied answer (i.e. is the sky blue?)

You won't find it, it doesn't exist.

Hilarious!!! So when you said my logic is convoluted you were lying? You understood what I was saying perfectly, but you chose to characterize it as such just because, well, you're schizophrenic? LOL!!

What are you talking about here? Can you clarify?

Do you have trouble understanding simple sentences? What requires clarity here? I made a post, you said my reasoning was convoluted, I said what about my two statements (i.e. I use logic and 11>8 is convoluted?)

You can't even understand that question? No wonder you're having so much trouble.

And unless you meant that you use "logic and reason" on that post alone, then you meant all your posts. So my response..."However convoluted or irrelevent", which was clearly separated from the second part of this post, was meant to be applied to your body of work NOT that single post. Additionally, as I have explained, you took my "convoluted or irrelevent" and applied it to the second part of that post which was clearly separated from that comment. Don't try to deny it, it is exactly what you did. You continually questioned, and still are, how was that convoluted.

Let me get this straight finally, because this is really a howl. You were replying in an ad hominem fashion? You weren't actually addressing the thread topic? You were just offering your trollish attacking input, because you are a sincere good little poster? Is that what you're saying? How sad and pathetic.

You best take your own advice.

Name one single assertion I made that isn't backed up. You, on the other hand, claim my posts are convoluted. But you have no evidence. Clearly, if you're going to characterize something as convoluted, you have to show it, otherwise you're a fraud.

No, the thing you asked was how that 11-5> 8-8 was convoluted. I never said that. Now you are misrepresenting what YOU posted. But I still stand by my statement, often your logic and reasoning ARE convoluted and irrelevant.

Well, since my post was really short, I assumed you had trouble with that statement since that's the one you took offense at, or possibly my earlier statement in this thread where I said the Patriots were better than the Chargers. Like any reasonable person reading this thread, I thought you were referring to my actual posts, not making ad hominem attacks. How was I to know your intent was to troll around and act like an immature brat?

Classic. Attack the poster, not the content, an upstater staple.

ROFL! Man, look in the mirror. That's what started all this, your pathetic childish ad hominem attack. Which you now admit in your latest post!! Jeez. You are one twisted sucker.

 

[Lansdowne]

Of the possible first round opponents:

#3 New England vs. #6 Baltimore

I think the Ravens would win this matchup. Five weeks ago the Pats played a similar team in the Steelers, and got trounced. I don't think the Patriots would lay down for them, but the differences in defenses would be the deciding factor.

#3 New England vs. #6 New York Jets

The Patriots would have won this game in a laugher, reminiscent of 2006 season's playoffs.

#3 Miami vs. #6 New England

Went into Miami last time and put a whooping on them. I would've really liked the Pats' chances here.

Of the possible second round opponents:

#2 Pittsburgh vs. #3 New England

This would be the end of the road for the Pats, IMO, if they played at Heinz Field.

#1 Tennessee vs. #6 New England

Are the Titans better than the Steelers? Perhaps. They do have a better record, and did pound the Steelers. But I think the Pats matchup better here, and could get to the AFC CG from there.

In this scenario, the Pats would face either the Steelers, Colts, or Chargers in the AFC CG. Those are all teams this team lost to during the regular season. They could take down SD. Even though they would be hosting, I wouldn't see this defense stopping Peyton Manning from picking them apart. And the Steelers are simply better.

 

[pao]

Pao:
I haven't flattered you once. I've questioned your ability to use logic. If I ever resembled you in any way, I would just hang myself right now.

It is flattering when someone imitates you. You have imitated me on several occasions. It's a nice compliment.

No, you never asked a rhetorical question. You don't even know what a rhetorical question is. I am saying this: you don't know what a rhetorical question is. How do I know this? Because you claimed you asked one. Clearly, you did not.

Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain this? Here is my rhetorical question (enlarged and bolded for clarity)...Again, you misrepresent. Please tell us, what comment did I disown? No answer? Of course not. My rhetorical question was "No answer?". It was rhetorical in that I didn't expect you to answer. Then you went on a rant. This is what you wrote...."You wrote: No answer. What am I to think? Explain that to me. Unless you expect me to answer in real-time, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that I couldn't answer your question. Just a bizarre conclusion on your part, but I've come to expect it from your posts. Please explain to me why you wrote: no answer. Why did you do it? How else am I to interpret it?I explained that it was a rhetorical question, something you obviously missed at the time!

No, you're confused. A rhetorical question has nothing to do with whether the questioner expects an answer or not. It has everything to do with whether the answer is already implied or obvious. This is why I'm saying you don't know what a rhetorical question is.

What? Obviously you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Here are the 5 definitions for a rhetorical question from this site... rhetorical question definition | Dictionary.com
1. a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply.
2. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.
3. a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.
4. A question asked without expecting an answer but for the sake of emphasis or effect.
5. A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point.
You wrote..."A rhetorical question has nothing to do with whether the questioner expects an answer or not." Obviously you are wrong.

When you ask someone, "Can you show me which comments I disowned?" that's an opened ended question that the responder can choose to answer, and I did. Again, you are confused. You don't know what a rhetorical question is.

You are wrong! A rhetorical question is NOT defined by whether it is open ended or not, it is not defined by if the person asked the question chooses to answer it, it is not defined by if it's an open ended question. It is defined by what the writer INTENDED. My intent was not to elicit an answer from you, but to make a point. Obviously you misunderstood because you went on to rant about not being able to answer the question, one I DIDN'T expect an answer to.

And I said, what is so convoluted about my reasoning? But you're a phony and you won't answer that question.

Asked and answered, ad nauseum.

No, you didn't. You only wrote that it was convoluted and irrelevant. That's all you wrote. Nothing there about 11 or 8 wins. Stop lying.

Well here it is...AGAIN.
Originally Posted by upstater1
Thanks, I pride myself on using logic and reason.
My response...
However convoluted and irrelevent.

Your additional quote...
8-8 isn't as good as 11-5 except in some fantasyland.
My response...
I didn't say differently, so I guess it's you in fantasyland. Time to get over all that anyway, I have. So I DID comment on your 8-8 isn't as good as 11-5. You owe me an apology for saying I was lying.

The facts: you have yet to show what's convoluted about my reasoning. I have no idea what you find convoluted. Until you man up and admit there is NOTHING convoluted in that original post, you'll just be lying, misdirecting and misrepresenting which is your forte, Mr. Pot-and-Kettle.

I never said there was anything convoluted in your ORIGINAL post. As I have explained SEVERAL times, when I say that your "pride in using logic and reasoning" is "despite it being convoluted and irrelevent" I am speaking to the entirety of your posts. I did NOT say the ORIGINAL post was "convoluted", or that ALL of your posts are "convoluted". But you prove the point I have made before. You fixate on one thing, often the wrong thing, misrepresent it, then berate the poster for something he never said or meant. Do yourself a favor though, drop the lying accusations.

I already replied to all this in my last post. Go reread it. It states plainly that I made a simple statement, you said it was convoluted. I assumed you were talking about the logic behind my 11>8 post. if that's not what you were referring to, then what logic is convoluted in my post? Can't answer that can you? HA! You're a fraud.

Explained, ad nauseum. Again, in using convoluted I was speakiing to the entirety of your posts. Not ALL posts, not the ORIGINAL post, but representative posts in your entire body of posts. This is the only way you can take it UNLESS, UNLESS, you meant ONLY THE ORIGINAL POST when you wrote "I pride myself on using logic and reason." Is that what you meant when you wrote that? That you only take pride in using "logic and reason" for THAT post alone? If that is what you meant let me know.

And again you don't understand the basics of a rhetorical question. When someone asks an open-ended question that can easily be answered (as I did) that's not a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are those in which the answer is already evident, implied or given. You're in perpetual ignorance on this issue. An open-ended question can be answered in a variety of ways. A rhetorical question has an implied answer (i.e. is the sky blue?)

Read the definitions above, before you try to educate me on what a rhetorical question is. You seem to think that if a question is "open ended", or "can be answered in a variety of ways"', it can't be a rhetorical question. That is plain wrong. I could ask you "Who is better, the Patriots or the Chargers?" and it could be a rhetorical question.

Hilarious!!! So when you said my logic is convoluted you were lying? You understood what I was saying perfectly, but you chose to characterize it as such just because, well, you're schizophrenic? LOL!!

Again, you misrepresent. You said, "I'm trying to find the statement that you are so apparently incapable of understanding." I said, "You won't find it, it doesn't exist". I understand perfectly what you try to do with your posts, it doesn't mean they aren't convoluted. Two different things.

Do you have trouble understanding simple sentences? What requires clarity here? I made a post, you said my reasoning was convoluted, I said what about my two statements (i.e. I use logic and 11>8 is convoluted?)

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I think I've answered that enough. Again, I was speaking to the entirety of your posts, not that single post.

You can't even understand that question? No wonder you're having so much trouble.

Another death throe of a losing argument.

continued next post....

 

[pao]

...continued from previous post.

Let me get this straight finally, because this is really a howl. You were replying in an ad hominem fashion? You weren't actually addressing the thread topic? You were just offering your trollish attacking input, because you are a sincere good little poster? Is that what you're saying? How sad and pathetic.

Your argument was you used "logic and reason". My response to that was that often your "logic and reason" are "convoluted and irrelevent". That isn't ad homenism. Now if you want some examples of ad homenism you need look no further than your own posts...
"How sad and pathetic.", "You're a phoney...", "You're a fraud.", "well, you're schizophrenic", "...to troll around and act like an immature brat?", "You are one twisted sucker.", "Gawd, you do have a victim complex.", "cower in the corner like a frightened little boy...", "Before making claims that other people don't understand rhetorical questions, you might want to brush up on your writing skills a little bit.", "Are you OK?", "You seem to have a victim complex.", " That's just bizarre. Sorry if that offends you, but I can't fathom what's going on in your brain for you to write something like that. Just bizarre." And those are just from this page and the obvious ones. LOL.

Name one single assertion I made that isn't backed up. You, on the other hand, claim my posts are convoluted. But you have no evidence. Clearly, if you're going to characterize something as convoluted, you have to show it, otherwise you're a fraud.

See, again, misrepresentation. In the post you responded to with this demand for a "single assertion I (you) made that isn't backed up.", I had said you "best take your own advice." after you accussed me of using "ad homenims" and "trolling attacking input". What does that have to do with a single assertion you made that hasn't been backed up? If you want an example of convoluted look no further than your post asking this question. It had nothing really to do with what I wrote, which was take your own advice. Even if you had used it in response to the line before it would be convoluted because I didn't say anything about you backing up what you say in your body of posts (at least directly). I understand what you are trying to say but it is also irrelevent, something can be convoluted and still be backed up, right?

Well, since my post was really short, I assumed you had trouble with that statement since that's the one you took offense at, or possibly my earlier statement in this thread where I said the Patriots were better than the Chargers. Like any reasonable person reading this thread, I thought you were referring to my actual posts, not making ad hominem attacks. How was I to know your intent was to troll around and act like an immature brat?

Ah, so you DO get it now. Good.

ROFL! Man, look in the mirror. That's what started all this, your pathetic childish ad hominem attack. Which you now admit in your latest post!! Jeez. You are one twisted sucker.

I admit no such thing. Another classic misrepresentation.

Ok, let’s simplify this. I believe that some (if not many) of your posts are convoluted. I believe that some (if not many) of your posts use irrelevent points. I believe that some (if not many) of your posts are abusive, or in your words use ad homenims. I believe that sometimes (if not many times) you cherrypick points and argue to those out of context (i.e. misrepresent). That’s the simplified version. Happy New Year to all.

 

[upstater1]

Pao:

It is flattering when someone imitates you. You have imitated me on several occasions. It's a nice compliment.

Nope, not once. I'd rather stick my head in an over than flatter the mediocrity that is you.

Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain this? Here is my rhetorical question.

You have to explain it just once. When you make a claim, you have to back it up. You said I was convoluted, show me a convoluted remark that I made. Pretty simple, can you do it? You haven't yet. That would make you a troll and a fraud.

What? Obviously you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Here are the 5 definitions for a rhetorical question from this site... rhetorical question definition | Dictionary.com
1. a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply.
2. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.
3. a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.
4. A question asked without expecting an answer but for the sake of emphasis or effect.
5. A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point.
You wrote..."A rhetorical question has nothing to do with whether the questioner expects an answer or not." Obviously you are wrong.
You are wrong! A rhetorical question is NOT defined by whether it is open ended or not, it is not defined by if the person asked the question chooses to answer it, it is not defined by if it's an open ended question. It is defined by what the writer INTENDED. My intent was not to elicit an answer from you, but to make a point. Obviously you misunderstood because you went on to rant about not being able to answer the question, one I DIDN'T expect an answer to.

I teach English for a living. You're wrong. When you ask an open ended question that can be answered in a variety of ways, it's not rhetorical. You did badly in English no doubt, if you actually believe that.

Here's something laughable that you wrote: "It is defined by what the writer INTENDED."

If I walked up to someone and said, "What time is it?" and then walked away because I didn't ask the question with the intention of getting an answer, does that make the question rhetorical or just stupid? You see, this scenario fulfills your idiotic criteria. And that's precisely why you don't know the definition of a rhetorical question.

You asked, "You can't show me what statement I disowned, can you?" and then I did show it. That's not a rhetorical question. The fact that you persist in believing that it is only shows how muleheaded you are.

Asked and answered, ad nauseum.

Toy haven't answered this once. Please show me one statement that I made which was convoluted. Go ahead. You haven't once shown that ANY of my statements EVER have been convoluted. Go ahead, just one.

You seem to think that if a question is "open ended", or "can be answered in a variety of ways"', it can't be a rhetorical question.

Precisely. This is the textbook definition of a rhetorical question.

That is plain wrong. I could ask you "Who is better, the Patriots or the Chargers?" and it could be a rhetorical question.

No, that is not a rhetorical question. You're very confused and addled on this issue. Anyone can see that that is NOT a rhetorical question. You don't even know what a rhetorical question is, obviously, if you think that is a rhetorical question. Your question is ripe for debate, unlike any rhetorical questions. You can go on in your life in ignorance now.

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I think I've answered that enough. Again, I was speaking to the entirety of your posts, not that single post.

When you say someone is convoluted, the onus is on you to provide evidence for that assessment. You've got nothing.

 

[upstater1]

Pao:

Ok, let’s simplify this. I believe that some (if not many) of your posts are convoluted. I believe that some (if not many) of your posts use irrelevent points. I believe that some (if not many) of your posts are abusive, or in your words use ad homenims. I believe that sometimes (if not many times) you cherrypick points and argue to those out of context (i.e. misrepresent). That’s the simplified version. Happy New Year to all.

And I believe you are a rhinoceros abandoned by his mother in the Sahara. Is there evidence to support my assertion. As much as you have to support yours.

 

[godef]

Not really a bad loss this year, to the extent there's such a thing as a "not bad" loss. The Jets game sticks in the craw. If there were any play of the year I could have the patriots get a mulligan on, it would be the 3d and 15 in overtime where the Jets converted. That or the coin toss.

I guess you can make the argument that you shouldn't make the playoffs without having beaten a playoff team, although the Patriots did beat the fins once. (Obviously, I'm not giving Denver much of a chance tonight.)

Although the fins would not have been a play-off team if they lost to the Jets and the Pats won the division.

 

[pao]

You have to explain it just once. When you make a claim, you have to back it up. You said I was convoluted, show me a convoluted remark that I made. Pretty simple, can you do it? You haven't yet. That would make you a troll and a fraud.

Er, this is the quote you responded to..."Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain this? Here is my rhetorical question." We were talking about which question I was using that was rhetorical, this particular quote had nothing to do with your posts being convoluted at times. If you are going to call me a troll and a fraud at least get pissed about the right thing.

I teach English for a living. You're wrong. When you ask an open ended question that can be answered in a variety of ways, it's not rhetorical. You did badly in English no doubt, if you actually believe that.

I find it odd that an English teacher would still be arguing this. Here are the definitions again... rhetorical question definition | Dictionary.com
1. a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply.
2. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.
3. a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.
4. A question asked without expecting an answer but for the sake of emphasis or effect.
5. A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point.
These are the definitions from some of the most prestigious dictionarys in the world. Nowhere do you see a qualification that says if it is open ended, or can be answered in a variety of ways, it can't be rhetorical. Nor do any of the definitions say that a rhetorical question must be closed ended or must have a single answer. Cite one source that backs you up or drop it.

Here's something laughable that you wrote: "It is defined by what the writer INTENDED."

Laughable only if you do not understand what a rhetorical question is.

If I walked up to someone and said, "What time is it?" and then walked away because I didn't ask the question with the intention of getting an answer, does that make the question rhetorical or just stupid? You see, this scenario fulfills your idiotic criteria. And that's precisely why you don't know the definition of a rhetorical question.

Your example is NOT analaguous to my criteria. It does not identify the intent of the asker. You say he has no intention of getting an answer but you don't say what his intent was in asking the question. To define whether a question is rhetorical you must know the intent of the asker. "What time is it?" would be rhetorical in certain situations based on the intent of the asker. I.E. if my child's watch was broken and I had told the child to change the battery but he/she hadn't. If I asked him/her "What time is it", I would not intend to get an answer but I would intend to make a point. That is that your watch is still not working, get it fixed. I could come up with more if I had to, but what's the point? (Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question too).

You asked, "You can't show me what statement I disowned, can you?" and then I did show it. That's not a rhetorical question. The fact that you persist in believing that it is only shows how muleheaded you are.

And I told you, that wasn't the rhetorical question. Here's my explanation again...Here is my rhetorical question (enlarged and bolded for clarity)... Please tell us, what comment did I disown? No answer? My rhetorical question was "No answer?". It was rhetorical in that I didn't expect you to answer.

Toy haven't answered this once. Please show me one statement that I made which was convoluted. Go ahead. You haven't once shown that ANY of my statements EVER have been convoluted. Go ahead, just one.

Well I didn't say that any one statement was convoluted, I said your posts can be convoluted. So let's keep that straight. But here's a statement that, to me, is convoluted from this post..."If I walked up to someone and said, "What time is it?" and then walked away because I didn't ask the question with the intention of getting an answer, does that make the question rhetorical or just stupid?" It is convoluted because it isn't analoguos to my example or my definition. Additionally, it is convoluted because it assumes that I said that the definition for rhetorical question is that there ONLY must be no intention of receiving an answer to the question for it to be rhetorical. That is not what I said, that is not what the definitions above say. Read them again.

Precisely. This is the textbook definition of a rhetorical question.

So this is your definition of rhetorical question? A rhetorical question is a question that can't be "open ended" or "can't be answered in a variety of ways". Here is my exact quote that you say is the textbook definition of a rhetorical question..." You seem to think that if a question is "open ended", or "can be answered in a variety of ways"', it can't be a rhetorical question. You believe this is the "textbook definition of a rhetorical question" despite the definitions above, btw, supplied by dictionary.com, derived from the most prestigious dictionarys in the world? Where nowhere in those definitions do those qualifications exist? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

No, that is not a rhetorical question. You're very confused and addled on this issue. Anyone can see that that is NOT a rhetorical question. You don't even know what a rhetorical question is, obviously, if you think that is a rhetorical question. Your question is ripe for debate, unlike any rhetorical questions.

I can give at least 2 examples where most English experts would agree that "Who is better, the Patriots or the Chargers" can be used as a rhetorical question.

You can go on in your life in ignorance now.

Indeed. LOL.

When you say someone is convoluted, the onus is on you to provide evidence for that assessment. You've got nothing.

I did above. Here's another one, you wrote..."You don't even know what a rhetorical question is, obviously, if you think that is a rhetorical question. Your question is ripe for debate, unlike any rhetorical questions." First this is convoluted because it is twists your belief into my example. I say "Who is better, the Patriots or the Chargers", can be a rhetorical question. You say it can't be rhetorical because it can be debated. But I would never use it as a rhetorical question if I wanted it open for debate, I would only use it when the answer was so obvious there would be no need to answer,you've twisted it into making it look like the only way it can be used is if it is open to debate. Second it misrepresents what I said. I didn't say it can ONLY be used as a rhetorical question, I said it could be used as a rhetorical question. This is a small example, there's loads more. Good night now.

 

[Joker]

I believe it's ad hominem....if anyone should know it's me

 

[pao]

I believe it's ad hominem....if anyone should know it's me

Wow, you actually read all this crap? LOL. I thought it was just me and upstater wasting our time. Thanks. I do believe you are right , ad hominem

 

[upstater1]

Pao:

Er, this is the quote you responded to..."Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain this? Here is my rhetorical question." We were talking about which question I was using that was rhetorical, this particular quote had nothing to do with your posts being convoluted at times. If you are going to call me a troll and a fraud at least get pissed about the right thing.
I find it odd that an English teacher would still be arguing this. Here are the definitions again...

Read my previous post on rhetorical questions. I schooled you there. If I taught according to that dictionary definition, I'd deserve to be fired. The fact that you followed one of the dictionary definitions to give an example of a rhetorical question, which wasn't a rhetorical question at all, tells me all I need to know about how confused you are about this issue. Read a real dictionary such as the OED and you'll find the proper definition:

OED: Questions that do not require an answer; statements put in the form of a question in order to produce a greater effect,..are called rhetorical questions.

Nothing there about the authors' expectations of an answer. If you understand the statement in the question, then it's rhetorical. If, however, the question requires an answer, as your original question did (i.e. "Can you show me which statement I disowned? No answer?") then it's NOT a rhetorical question.

The second example you gave of a rhetorical question proved that you don't know what a rhetorical question is.

These are the definitions from some of the most prestigious dictionarys in the world.

Prestigious eh? More than the OED? Laughable. Maybe you can offer Pioli some advice about signing free agents? You seem to have some expertise.

"What time is it?" would be rhetorical in certain situations based on the intent of the asker. I.E. if my child's watch was broken and I had told the child to change the battery but he/she hadn't. If I asked him/her "What time is it", I would not intend to get an answer but I would intend to make a point.
That is that your watch is still not working, get it fixed.

LOL, that is still not a rhetorical question since the answer is not implied in the question. It doesn't have the effect of a statement. If reversed into a statement, "The time is..." it makes no sense until it has an object. That's just an example where the parent is trying to prove that his child is not that smart. Not a rhetorical question.

My rhetorical question was "No answer?". It was rhetorical in that I didn't expect you to answer.

How am I supposed to answer in real time? If you ask an open-ended question and your respondent later replies with an answer that wasn't in any way given by the question, then your question wasn't rhetorical in the first place. This is pretty basic stuff, I'm sorry you're not getting it.

But here's a statement that, to me, is convoluted from this post..."If I walked up to someone and said, "What time is it?" and then walked away because I didn't ask the question with the intention of getting an answer, does that make the question rhetorical or just stupid?" It is convoluted because it isn't analoguos to my example or my definition.

So many many problems with your logic here. First, this post of mine that you're calling convoluted was not even in existence when you said in this thread that my logic is convoluted. I was asking you to provide an example. You still haven't.

Second, to say something is not analogous does not at all mean it's convoluted. I was just going on your statement that rhetorical questions are about intent. Using your criteria, I came up with a situation, and showed that the criteria are flawed. The statement I made couldn't be simpler. Not convoluted at all. Anyone can understand it.

You believe this is the "textbook definition of a rhetorical question" despite the definitions above, btw, supplied by dictionary.com, derived from the most prestigious dictionarys in the world? Where nowhere in those definitions do those qualifications exist? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

Oh God, please stop it with this prestigious thing when they don't even use the primary source for all English dictionaries in the world, the OED. Regardless, argument by ad hoc dictionary citation never gets anyone far, especially when the definitions are cherrypicked (as dictionary.com does) from a variety of sources without showing the full definitions (they are prohibited by copyright from doing so). If you want a proper definition, consult a grammar primer.

Or check out this link: rhetorical questions. The professor does a good job of explaining it.

He tells why your question, "Who is better, Patriots or Chargers?" is not a rhetorical question. See if you can figure it out.

 

[pao]

Pao:

Read my previous post on rhetorical questions. I schooled you there.

Oh yeah, schooled me, right

If I taught according to that dictionary definition, I'd deserve to be fired.

Convolute alert #1, please explain why you would "deserve to be fired" for teaching a definition of a word or phrase as defined in a Dictionary.

The fact that you followed one of the dictionary definitions to give an example of a rhetorical question, which wasn't a rhetorical question at all, tells me all I need to know about how confused you are about this issue.

Convolute alert #3, you say it's wrong to follow a dictionary definition to give an example of a rhetorical question, and then say it wasn't a rhetorical question at all? How can that be? If it follows the definition of a rhetorical question it must be a rhetorical question. How you twist that into being wrong is beyond comprehension. Convolute alert #4, you leave out that the example fit ALL 5 of the definitions at dictionary.com not just one of the definitions.

Read a real dictionary such as the OED and you'll find the proper definition:
OED: Questions that do not require an answer; statements put in the form of a question in order to produce a greater effect,..are called rhetorical questions.
Nothing there about the authors' expectations of an answer. If you understand the statement in the question, then it's rhetorical.

Convolute alert #5, on top of all the others you lay this one. That somehow the OED is the ONLY reference good enough to be used to find a definition for rhetorical question. Bull. Convolute alert #6, then you turn around and say that there is "nothing there about the author's expectations of an answer", when clearly it says "Questions that do not require an answer" in the first line of the definition. If the author wrote it, he obviously wouldn't expect anyone to answer it, right? If he required, or expected, an answer, it wouldn't be rhetorical. Convolute alert #7, then you twist it into reader dependent, saying if the reader (or asked) understands the statement in the question THEN it's rhetorical. Although it would be NICE if the reader understands the statement (or point) implied in a rhetorical question, it is NOT required.

If, however, the question requires an answer, as your original question did (i.e. "Can you show me which statement I disowned? No answer?") then it's NOT a rhetorical question.

Convolute alert #8, saying my questions required an answer, when, clearly, I did not EXPECT nor REQUIRE an answer, THAT'S the point of the questions AND a rhetorical question. Convolute alert #9, you have tied two questions into this conversation when originally we were arguing about one, the one you ranted about... "No Answer?". It's a rhetorical question by any definition supplied by me OR you.

Prestigious eh? More than the OED? Laughable. Maybe you can offer Pioli some advice about signing free agents? You seem to have some expertise.

Convolute alert #10, you imply that I said that my sources were more prestigious than the OED. I never said anything of the sort. Convolute alert #11, you're trying to get away from the fact that even if the the OED is more prestigious, it doesn't mean the definitions I provided were any less correct or that the OED definition is different. Convolute alert #12, you coil into this mess something about signing free agents. What kind of nonsense is that? Convolute alert #13, you claim I have some expertise related to whatever Pioli does. What's that have to do with anything? Additionally you paraphrase the definition. I’ll post the full definition as soon as I find my library card, the OED is available online through our library. It’ll be interesting to see how you’ve edited it.

LOL, that is still not a rhetorical question since the answer is not implied in the question.

Convolute alert #14, you say the answer is not implied in the question, but it is implied within the context of the scenario. If you judge the question alone, without considering the circumstances, then, of course, it’s not a rhetorical question. But if you look at it in the context of the scenario both the father and the child know the watch doesn’t work, so the implied answer is “I don’t know”.

It doesn't have the effect of a statement. If reversed into a statement, "The time is..." it makes no sense until it has an object. That's just an example where the parent is trying to prove that his child is not that smart. Not a rhetorical question.

Convolute #15, you say it doesn’t have the effect of a statement, it does, as I explained. Convolute alert #16, you throw in there that “if reversed into a statement”. Nowhere in any definition of rhetorical question does it say that you must be able to take the words of the question and be able to “reverse” it into a statement. Convolute alert #17, you claim that my example is “just example where the parent is trying to prove that his child is not that smart.” As though what the eventual goal of the rhetorical question has anything to do with the validity of the question as a rhetorical question, it doesn’t (not to mention the convoluted logic that the parent's intent was to "prove his child is not smart", that's pretty harsh). Convoluted logic.

How am I supposed to answer in real time?

Convolute alert #18, Again, you weren’t supposed to answer at all, let alone in real time. That’s the point and should have been the tip off that I did not expect an answer because it was a RHETORICAL QUESTION. It’s a statement, I’m making a point, my belief that you don’t have an answer to that question. It doesn’t matter that YOU think you have an answer, my intent was to make a point about MY belief.

If you ask an open-ended question and your respondent later replies with an answer that wasn't in any way given by the question, then your question wasn't rhetorical in the first place.

Convolute alert #19, again you twist the definition of rhetorical question. In no definition does it say that a rhetorical question must be close-ended or it can’t be open ended. Convolute alert #20, you imply that what your “respondent” does is important to defining whether a question is rhetorical or not, it isn’t. I can answer any rhetorical question, if I want, doesn’t make sense if I do, but I can nonetheless. It doesn't change the fact that it's a rhetorical question. I’ll use your own example. Someone asks “Is the sky blue?” intending it as a rhetorical question. If I answer, “Well sometimes, sometimes it’s gray.”, it doesn’t change it from a rhetorical question.

So many many problems with your logic here. First, this post of mine that you're calling convoluted was not even in existence when you said in this thread that my logic is convoluted. I was asking you to provide an example. You still haven't.

Convolute alert #21, I gave you an example of how your logic is convoluted and you say that it isn’t an example because it wasn’t in existence when I said your logic is convoluted. Well that’s just convoluted. What does it matter WHEN the example is, it’s an example. I’m not going to go through your old posts to find what I think are convoluted passages when I have them right in front of me.

Second, to say something is not analogous does not at all mean it's convoluted.

Convolute alert #22, er, what? Of course it does mean it’s convoluted. If you give an example that isn’t analogous it clouds the issue making it hard to understand. If it’s not analogous, what’s it doing there except to be devious, or plain misunderstanding, both meet the criteria of something that is convoluted.

I was just going on your statement that rhetorical questions are about intent. Using your criteria, I came up with a situation, and showed that the criteria are flawed. The statement I made couldn't be simpler. Not convoluted at all. Anyone can understand it.

Convoluted alert #23, you claim to use my criteria to come up with an example of a rhetorical question. Obviously you didn’t. What was the intent of the asker of your example question, to be crazy? The intent must be to make a point or something must be implied. What was the point he was trying to make by asking that question? It convolutes the issue when your example is not analogous.

continued next...

 

[pao]

Continued from previous...

Oh God, please stop it with this prestigious thing when they don't even use the primary source for all English dictionaries in the world, the OED.

Convolute alert#24, you imply that because dictionary.com does not cite the OED their sources are not prestigious and therefore are somehow less right than the OED. This is convoluted logic. I’m sure that even the editors of OED would agree that Princeton University and the American Heritage Dictionary are pretty prestigious and, in fact, you’ll find the definitions very similar, if not exactly the same. Convolute alert #25, you imply that I should have used the OED as the only acceptable source for the definition of rhetorical question so my definition is wrong. That is absurd. How many people have an OED laying around? How many have easy access? My sources are clearly acceptable for this discussion, if you don’t like it, that’s your problem.

Regardless, argument by ad hoc dictionary citation never gets anyone far, especially when the definitions are cherrypicked (as dictionary.com does) from a variety of sources without showing the full definitions (they are prohibited by copyright from doing so). If you want a proper definition, consult a grammar primer.

Convolute alert #26, this is about the most twisted thing you can say about this subject, “argument by ad hoc dictionary citation never gets anyone far,…” You mean showing you definitions that define the thing as I explained it, that agrees with my definition, doesn’t get me very far? What? Convolute alert #27, you say “especially when the definitions are cherrypicked (as dictionary.com does) from a variety of sources without showing the full definitions (they are prohibited by copyright from doing so).” Are you trying to say these definitions are wrong? And you say they are “cherrypicked”? In what way were they “cherrypicked” to the negative effect of our discussion? And who needs full definitions? The ones supplied were clear enough. Btw, you didn’t supply one with your OED definition, in fact YOU edited it. You didn’t even give the full sentence of the one definition that you posted. Now you are calling for “full definitions”?

Or check out this link: rhetorical questions. The professor does a good job of explaining it.He tells why your question, "Who is better, Patriots or Chargers?" is not a rhetorical question. See if you can figure it out.

I don’t agree that he explains why my question isn’t rhetorical.

By the way, please don't ask for any more examples of convoluted logic. Have a great weekend, I've got some football to watch!