Right. Other meanings, like "that's just perfect," or something. Or, "just because you can find other meanings for the word doesn't mean that your definition is what was intended." It's clear what was intended. You're just wrong again. Standard exclusive or, expressed in the usual manner.No it does not. As per Google one of the applicable definitions of 'just':
If you're going to be a pedant you should at least be right about what you're being pedantic about.
Lol.
Right. Other meanings, like "that's just perfect," or something. Or, "just because you can find other meanings for the word doesn't mean that your definition is what was intended." It's clear what was intended. You're just wrong again. Standard exclusive or, expressed in the usual manner.
So in other words you have decided to take a definition of a word that you believe makes a sentence nonsensical instead of a definition of a word that makes the sentence perfectly fine based on nothing other than your tea leaf reading of the poster's intent. That's just stupid, meaning 'that is very stupid', not 'exclusively stupid' as it is many things other than stupid including childish and irrational.
Look, you tried to be a pedantic jackass and you fucked it up. Next time you want to be like that at least make sure you have your ducks in a row.
Clear as any other thread you've posted in. And yes, that makes sense and it works.Interesting. I think what's stupid is you trying to use an obviously incorrect/inapplicable meaning just to try to make it work. Are you obtuse? or just trolling? A little bit of both? See? Doesn't work. Hope this is clear now.
Interesting. I think what's stupid is you trying to use an obviously incorrect/inapplicable meaning just to try to make it work. Are you obtuse? or just trolling? A little bit of both? See? Doesn't work. Hope this is clear now.
Not to mention, even if we use his preferred definition it works anyway. Option A is stupid (only stupid is a reasonable inferrence). Option B is only horribly incompetent. Option C is a little stupid and a little incompetent.That's because 'very trolling' is a nonsensical phrase, unlike 'very horribly incompetent', which is unwieldy but makes sense. The definition is obviously correct and applicable and the fact that you just incorrectly applied it here is pretty funny considering your repeated and pathetic attempts to be a grammar Nazi.
To put it back in the original sentence:
"are they stupid or VERY horribly incompetent? maybe a little from column a and a little from column b?"
See? Just fine.
Thanks for owning yourself a second time while trying to be pedantic, this is getting funnier and funnier.![]()
I'm expecting the next explanation to include pictures, crayons and blocks to help him grasp the concept.Not to mention, even if we use his preferred definition it works anyway. Option A is stupid (only stupid is a reasonable inferrence). Option B is only horribly incompetent. Option C is a little stupid and a little incompetent.
That's probably because Justoh is a little stupid and a little very horribly incompetent.I'm expecting the next explanation to include pictures, crayons and blocks to help him grasp the concept.
Not to mention, even if we use his preferred definition it works anyway. Option A is stupid (only stupid is a reasonable inferrence). Option B is only horribly incompetent. Option C is a little stupid and a little incompetent.
meanwhile back on topicoption C has to include the exclusivity, which it can't. "a little bit only stupid and a little bit only incompetent." "a little stupid and a little bit only incompetent" doesn't work either. This is just crazy talk. You guys probably should all just be committed.
Please cite the law that says every word after the OR must be included in the proposed mix.option C has to include the exclusivity, which it can't. "a little bit only stupid and a little bit only incompetent." "a little stupid and a little bit only incompetent" doesn't work either. This is just crazy talk. You guys probably should all just be committed.
Clear as any other thread you've posted in. And yes, that makes sense and it works.
awww that's cute to pretend you don't know the Simpsons, yet you have an Archer avatar. So you're either a liar, or a moron, or maybe a little from column a and a little from column b.Just because you see something on family guy (or whatever that was) doesn't mean it's actually valid. That was just their point. It's funny, because he's insane. Only an insane person would think you could conjoin two exclusive members of a disjunction. Get real.
It's too bad, too. If he could just grasp the concept he could choose one of three prizes:awww that's cute to pretend you don't know the Simpsons, yet you have an Archer avatar. So you're either a liar, or a moron, or maybe a little from column a and a little from column b.
Justoh stop hijacking threads with your retardation. Nobody wants to scroll past this all
re: justoh's latest herp-a-derp
Guys, it's a duhversion.
Don't you mean everybody doesn't want to? The same? I'm glad I got to tie this loose end.
We're just lucky Trump doesn't have a time machine.
