3 ms·
The phrase, as with many others, is used to hand-wavy dismiss arguments. For example, you completely ignored basically >90% of my comment, which is what people
by paulnpace 5y ago
The phrase, as with many others, is used to hand-wavy dismiss arguments. For example, you completely ignored basically >90% of my comment, which is what people with really poor positions do to attempt to maintain some position of superiority in their minds.
- IncRnd 5y agoThe points you made don't apply here, because they were already answered - in an answer you completely ignored and were tone-deaf about in order to type again about the dangers of wikipedia. What you have glossed over is that I was talking not about a wikipedia article but the links in the footnote section of that wikipedia article.
- paulnpace 5y agoI specifically stated and made the case that Wikipedia will only allow what Wikipedia wants published to their site. To conclude some measure of criticism exists without competing claims against the criticism is a naive position. This applies to what you are linking to. Your points do not acknowledgement this central thesis. Wikipedia is garbage, using it as a base of aggregated links is ignorant or naive. To put it more bluntly: I don't care about the opinions you express regarding this topic, as you are demonstrating very arrogant behavior, particularly in linking to a dictionary dot com article on a common English phrase, as if I've demonstrated some lack of understanding in English require some assistance there. Then completely ignoring my points. You are terrible at discussion. We are done.