3 ms·
No you see you imply that I've given a value to the people here. Which is not at all what I said. I exactly said I can't understand the line of thinking that l
by sametmax 8y ago
No you see you imply that I've given a value to the people here. Which is not at all what I said.
I exactly said I can't understand the line of thinking that leads to the decision. That's pretty much all.
- pandaman 8y agoDid not you imply that smart people cannot possibly be in the other tribe so there has to be some reason why your tribe members are not quitting the enemy tribe cause?
- sametmax 8y agoI never used anything close to "cannot possibly". I said I could not understand. I used the words "why" and "I wonder". It's very clear. It's not ambiguous. But you seem very attached to your tribe theory, so you want my past comment to fit your present view. And it's a very conflicting view of the word too. Do you see us as enemies as well ? In which case, you win this argument. I don't want my tribe to fight yours.
- pandaman 8y agoSorry, then, if you didn't want to say that then I don't understand why you posted your message at all. It then literally amounts to "I cannot understand other people motivation" and all the references to intellect and understanding consequences and shiny toys are irrelevant. As for myself being tribal - it's very hard to observe tribalism in oneself so, while I am not seeing it, I can very well be.