Like I said, what you’re really doing is just reading her mind and saying that when she said “unless”, she didn’t literally mean that. What she really meant was something like “in nearly all cases”. It’s entirely possible that is what she meant, but wrote something different instead. I can’t read her mind. I can only read the words.
I dont think anyone thinks she’s particularly attractive, its just quarantine making people crazy and latching onto other crazies.
It’s similar. However, you know what the difference is. One is an extremely common error, the other isn’t.
She wasn’t suggesting that whoever the other lady was had her house raided.
She is saying she doesn’t like calling people out but this person deserves an exception.
I’m sure she added the first part because she must have been recently calling out raid-related people.
I have no clue who the author lady is and only a vague idea who the raid lady is, so my impartiality bolsters my argument ldo.
3 Likes
So you’re saying her position is that the raid has absolutely nothing to do with the calling out and that’s supposed to be obvious and makes perfect sense.
I don’t think you every responded to this one, so let’s try it again:
Here’s another way you can think about it. Take her tweet (I won’t copy/paste again to offend goofy’s delicate sensibilites). Now imagine you read that at the beginning of her text and then a couple of paragraphs later she says “If it wasn’t for Emily, my house would not have been raided”.
Would your reaction have really been “Well, based on those first two sentences, I never saw that coming”?
She may have meant to say this, but it’s not what she actually wrote.
Also to be clear, no one is suggesting that she is saying that Emily had her house raided. She is trying to imply that Emily’s actions had something to do with it. I can’t even imagine what because it makes no sense.
I feel like you’re forgetting that she is a known nutjob. Chris V made a bunch of posts about this.
This is the kind of crazy shit nutjobs think. And she actually wrote it down. Imagine that!
Nope, but it’s no big deal, happens all the time and I can see why it tripped you up.
I’m not sure you’re following what is going on, but that’s OK. This derail of a derail is AIDS and I can’t fault you for not paying attention. No worries.
Bud you just misread something, please let it go.
1 Like
OK, is this weird to you?
Unless someone raids my house, I don’t enjoy calling out individuals. But Emily Oster is so bad and her actions caused my house to get raided, so I have to call her out.
I definitely didn’t misread it. You could argue that I misinterpreted it. As goofy is.
Like I said, if you’re not following along, I’m sure this is more AIDS than the huge pile of AIDS that it already is.
Silly goose.
LOL, ok.
In case it’s unclear, I’m referring to the wording not the underlying idea (which is admittedly crazy).
1 Like
Jesus
Keed you got nothing to complain about. You freed me (at least in this thread) by not replying or responding to peoples arguments, but just saying the same thing over and over. (You do this much less than you used to imo).
Many of us take the other end of this in other threads. This is essentially “my” containment thread and I’m letting my inner Lag fly.
I do have a serious point about Oster et al but the OFS debate just clogs up the main covid thread so I decided to have some fun here. Not my fault that the bait was taken to such an extreme. Never did I ever think anyone would construe that RJ was blaming her raid on Oster. Bizarre development. Glad I took a couple of hour break with the wife to come back to 55 posts that had nothing to do with RJs point about Oster nor the other articles I posted about her and OFS.
And to think the non Americans haven’t even chimed in yet.
But my whole point in this thread is that there are a group of piranahs just waiting to feed on anything RJ in an irrational manner.
It’s pretty funny that you are being the voice of reason. I bet it’s damn frustrating. Welcome to everyone else’s world over the past years.
to be fair, my general sense of your posting has improved so I feel somewhat guilty, but not that much. It’s an internet message board and we all take ourselves and each other too seriously at times. I mean this sincerely- don’t stress so much, that’s what I mean by you freed me—I had an epiphany that I can make my points and you (or any body else) can accept or reject them even if I’m certain in my own mind that I’m right. It really doesn’t matter. Sometimes i learn things. Sometimes I get other perspectives. Maybe once in a great while I share something of value. Definitely get some yucks. It’s all good
Yeah, obviously.
That was a reference to the point I made earlier. If she said those things and then followed it up by “Emily Oster was responsible for/contributed to the raid”, literally no one would say, that was a weird place for the sentence to end (except for you apparently!)*. It is the logical conclusion of “I don’t call out people UNLESS they do X”.
*in my earlier post I said paragraphs later, but the distance shouldn’t matter if your position is that those two things are clearly unrelated.
That’s not an exception. That is her stated rule.
Need an ambiguous phrasing containment thread
2 Likes
Normally we should only have containment threads for tangents that are detailing a conversation, but since this tangent is detailing this conversation, we should have a containment thread for it.
2 Likes
Emily is not the “someone”, she is the “individual”
The but certainly comes up in sentences like that. Otherwise you would have to believe that my contrived example is nonsensical.
Do you really think the ‘but’ there makes it confusing? I guess you do (that’s what you claim, any way). But I think if that were posted, there would be no argument about what she was saying. That means that the presence of the ‘but’ does not somehow make it clear that she is saying that Emily did NOT contribute to the raid in any way. Because she could have written the above (with the but) and there would have been no confusion whatsoever.