• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Muslim ban’ text scrubbed from Trump campaign website

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The hilarious part is that, even if they'd had the intelligence to delete that mention months ago, it'd still be used against them in court. Internet archiving is a beautiful thing.

Between that and Trump's on-camera pledge to the same effect, it won't be surprising if Trump has forever lost his attempt to ban Muslims. Any time his side tries to claim it wasn't intended as discrimination... critics just have to point to Trump's website and his fool mouth.
 
justoh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
justoh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Clear as any other thread you've posted in. And yes, that makes sense and it works.
 
justoh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. 🙂
 
fskimospy said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...
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.
 
dank69 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting the next explanation to include pictures, crayons and blocks to help him grasp the concept.
 
dank69 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
justoh said:
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.
Click to expand...
meanwhile back on topic
So why did the beta, cuck of a prez remove this text? Is he really walking this back, or just a coward or a little from column a and a little from column b?
 
justoh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please cite the law that says every word after the OR must be included in the proposed mix.
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
Clear as any other thread you've posted in. And yes, that makes sense and it works.
Click to expand...

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.
 
justoh said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's too bad, too. If he could just grasp the concept he could choose one of three prizes:
Just a pile of cash
OR
Just a bunch of brand new computer components
OR
Half of each
 
justoh said:
Don't you mean everybody doesn't want to? The same? I'm glad I got to tie this loose end.
Click to expand...

shut up.

giphy.gif
 
Guys I'm a republican and Trump did something embarrassing and ridiculous again.

So, how come Obama killed all those kids and why did Hillary then detach her jaw and swallow them at the bowling green massacre and why isnt the media covering it? deep state?

Hm? can you answer that libruhls?

Verified true, saw on Alex Jones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top