4 ms·

I said "it's a valid opinion to express an extreme aversion to Friedman". that's exactly what I meant. it's an opinion. it's not a claim of any kind of univers

I said "it's a valid opinion to express an extreme aversion to Friedman". that's exactly what I meant. it's an opinion. it's not a claim of any kind of universal truth. it's a statement of taste and therefore does not require justification. I didn't anywhere say "automatically worthy of...". You said that. You're trying to put words in my mouth, which is a discredited rhetorical trick. you are really getting carried away with word games. knock it off.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> you are really getting carried away with word games. knock it off. No, what I was really doing was mentally combining you with the OP, cylinder. But you said "valid opinion"; OK, I can go there. I think (at least partially) discrediting the whole list because of Friedman is still a bit much, but I think you were actually agreeing with that, when you said "ok" in the post that is five parents up from this one. But now you're being rather careless with accusations toward me - that I'm playing word games. Maybe you should knock that off, too.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  Gonna have to agree with the other guy: AnimalMuppet, you're kinda being purposefully obstinept here