ronan posted:Stormborn posted:Pedantry will not make you smart or avoid the implication that burnham seeing beyond others does not imply some genius. That is what he said. He say farther than others implying the man had some insight that gluten was dangerous hence rice flour was the better choice. You dunces need to find fault by nit picking not by actual argumentationahmmm, actually, "what he said" was "Burnham was ahead of his time in many ways" which he goes on to contextualize
you passed that through the "imply" grinder in your anus and came up with "Burnham was a genius" . . . all the better to do your Don Quixote lance and windmills thing and impress the Nehrus and Ksazmas on GNI that your hate of fatbai burns hotter than theirs
surely there are more intelligent ways to 'achieve' that kind of fame, no?
saddling up a crude LIE in tin armor in further pursuit only marks you as BOGUS and INFANTILE by even the most casual discerning
you now reduced to whining that those exposing your shame are "nitpicking" and being "pedantic" because they are not playing by your situational, low IQ 'rules' of "actual argumentation"
smfh
As I said, pedantry is your middle name. The fellow tried to impress on us the foresight of Burnham, ie his genius, by informing us of his above par perception in anticipating something lesser minds could not. His premise was mistaken and his conclusion similarly flawed. I informed him there was nothing remarkable about burnham except his penchant for power and thuggery and his choice of rice over wheat was a consequence of his failed five year plan. Story done. You can parse it however. It is what I stated that matters to me and I believe I conveyed my message succinctly. Burnham was a buffoon.
Whatever I presumptions in your mind which elasticity is measured only by its capacity for air-headed nonsense, matters little to me. My intellect serves me well to distinguish a fool from one with authentic smarts. You are more in the former category than the latter.