Submitting Copper Age Keys 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

@joecgcmaniac

Unfounded nonsense. 

That's the way to do it. Come out swingin', take no damn prisoners! 

[Imperare]

20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

He is responses...?

I don't think that's accurate. He seems more like a person to me.

@ RockMyAmadeus

Typo amended, thank you!

How dare some on here call you a bitter old man!

Edited June 29, 2018 by rpcgc

[Imperare]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's the way to do it. Come out swingin', take no damn prisoners! 

@RockMyAmadeus

Thanks! That's all it deserves 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

25 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

2 hours ago, joecgcmaniac said:

Yes, your books came back better than expected, but you're a tight grader. Somehow I doubt that the OP grades as tightly as you do. 

@joecgcmaniac

Unfounded nonsense.

This is an interesting response.

Let's unpack it a bit, see what we can come up with...

First, kimik is a known quantity on these boards. He has been a member here since 2003, longer than just about anyone, and has submitted, oh, what, well over 1,000 books? (I don't keep count, but I imagine it's at least that by this point.) He has been a regular contributor here for a decade and a half, and has been a convention dealer for a goodly amount of time, as well. He has posted quite a bit on the minutiae of grading, especially when dealing with the nosebleed grades.

You, on the other hand, have, as of this post, 16 total posts, the majority of them in this thread. You are a completely unknown quantity. No one here knows how well you grade, or even IF you can grade. You are a tabula rasa, a blank slate. No one posting here has the slightest clue how you grade, and you have no body of posts from which one may deduce or assess your skill.

But there's more. The answers to the questions you sought were, in fact, on the site where you claimed no such answers resided. That speaks to an obvious lack of attention to detail.

Now, where does attention to detail count the most when it comes to comic books...? 

Ah, yes! Grading. 

And when one displays a lack of attention to detail in one area, it follows...not always, but usually....that one possesses a lack of attention to detail in all other areas, as well.

Further, when you were informed that the information you sought was, in fact, where you were looking, instead of being humble and asking for assistance to find and/or help understanding what it was you were seeing, you unfurled your brightly colored tail plumage, expanded your thorax to twice its normal size, and loudly challenged any and all comers to a duel.

When all of the above is combined with the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who deal with comics do not know how to grade, and a good 90-99% of all first time submitters are invariably disappointed, having expected 9.8s, only to receive 8.5s and 9.0s, a picture does, in fact, present itself quite clearly.

So, examining joecgcmaniac's conclusion through the impersonal light of logic, that he somehow doubts you grade as tightly as kimik, it would seem that it is not only not nonsense, but is, in fact, a reasonable, logical, well-founded, and thoroughly consistent conclusion to which one may come, given all the facts of the matter presented thus far. 

Logically speaking, of course...

Keep in mind...FURTHER facts may change that conclusion, but based on the facts in evidence NOW, it's a solid conclusion.

That was fun! Thanks for the delightful opportunity! 

[joecgcmaniac]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 

That was fun! Thanks for the delightful opportunity! 

 

 

 

[Imperare]

25 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No one here knows how well you grade, or even IF you can grade....

 

The answers to the questions you sought were, in fact, on the site where you claimed no such answers resided...

 

That speaks to an obvious lack of attention to detail.

@RockMyAmadeus Too easy.

Yes, no one knows, thus assumptions based on only a fraction of the information are unfounded. Funny how the tables have turned and it is actually you and @joecgcmaniac who have failed to do comprehensive research before posting.

Furthermore, the answers were not on the site, as conceded by @revat.

Hence, you either did not read the entire thread, or you are exposing your own lack of attention to detail.

Edited June 29, 2018 by rpcgc

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, rpcgc said:

@RockMyAmadeus Too easy.

Yes, no one knows, thus assumptions based on only a fraction of the information is unfounded. Funny how the tables have turned and it is actually you and @joecgcmaniac who have failed to do comprehensive research before posting.

Furthermore, the answers were not on the site, as conceded by @revat.

Thus, you either did not read the entire thread, or you are exposing your own lack of attention to detail.

Your lack of attention to detail is manifesting again.

Here's how:

joecgcmaniac's comment was this:

Quote

Somehow I doubt that the OP grades as tightly as you do.

That is not an assumption, because it does not take a position. He is not making a positive claim. It is a SUPPOSITION. 

There is a distinct and important difference between the two.

As far as the supposition being unfounded, I've already explained why it is not. Merely responding with the same original claim is not a valid counterargument. And for the "tables to have turned", I would, necessarily, have had to have been involved in the discussion heretofore, which I have not.

Logic...it's a wonderful thing.

But suggesting I, of all people, haven't been comprehensive in some manner in a discussion is a rather unintentionally amusing statement to make. Stick around; you might find out why. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, rpcgc said:

@ RockMyAmadeus

Typo amended, thank you!

How dare some on here call you a bitter old man!

You know you've hit the nail right square on the head when it gets personal....without fail.

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 hours ago, rpcgc said:

I am not a newbie and I was reluctant to post on the board because over the years I have seen how people with low post counts are treated and alas it happened to me anyway on the first reply to my post.

In other words, you were offended that someone didn't give precisely the answer you expected, and lashed out. But, the fault lies in the board, somehow, and not the newbs with chips on their shoulders....?

 

[Imperare]

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is not an assumption, because it does not take a position. He is not making a positive claim. It is a SUPPOSITION.

But suggesting I, of all people, haven't been comprehensive in some manner in a discussion is a rather unintentionally amusing statement to make. Stick around; you might find out why. 



@RockMyAmadeus

First, allow me to give you the Merriam-Webster definition of suppose, the root of the word supposition that you felt needed highlighting.

Definition of Suppose: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal.

You didn't even bother to research the definition of the word you were relying on.

I stuck around and it didn't take long for you to be incomprehensive .

Next, you have yet to acknowledge that you were wrong and the answers were not on the site as conceded by @revat.

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by rpcgc

[RockMyAmadeus]

Foolish post editor...trying again.

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Imperare]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Foolish post editor...trying again.

 

Haha. Do try again, that was quite weak.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Quote

Definition of Suppose: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal.

I'm sure you will feel like you have scored an important semantic victory. Good for you! We should all feel like we have accomplished important things every day.

However...I wouldn't be so quick to put your trophy in its case if I were you.

You see, Miriam-Webster...? You know, the fine people who bring you the dictionary...? Yeah, they're people, too.

And, in this sense, they're inaccurate. 

Here's the problem...since you've decided to make the fallacy of appealing to authority, without seeking agreement on the validity of that authority, I will refer back to that authority which you acknowledge as authoritative, and agree that Miriam-Webster is almost always a good authority on the meanings of words, though not always. In this particular case, they have mis-identified supposition, which is NON-declarative, to be synonymous with assumption, which IS declarative. In other words, they make the same mistake you do.

Let's look at what M-W has to say about "assumption":

"a fact or statement (such as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted."

In other words, a declaration.

Do you see how M-W has contradicted itself...?

Now let's look at supposition (supposed) from the same source;

"a. held as an opinion : believed; 

b : considered probable or certain"

Do you see the subtle, yet distinct, difference in the meanings of those two words yet? Assumptions deal with a degree of certainty higher than suppositions...by M-W's own definitions.

I do not speak for joecgcmaniac, or anyone but myself, but it is obvious in the phrase "Somehow I doubt that the OP grades as tightly as you do" is NOT an assumption, as M-W defines the word "assumption", but is rather a supposition.

Glad to clarify for you!

Quote

1 hour ago, rpcgc said:
You didn't even bother to research the definition of the word you were relying on.

Why would I...? I already have a grasp....as I have demonstrated in exhaustive detail...of the fine meaning of the words involved, and I've also demonstrated why even the "dictionary people" don't always agree with themselves.

And, I will point out...in formulating your response, you, yourself, did not bother to research your own position. You merely looked up the word "supposition", saw that it referred to "suppose", saw the word "assumption" listed as an alternative definition/synonym, and no doubt jumped up and down with glee, and then stopped there, failing to actually look up the word "assumption" to see if M-W was internally consistent...

...right? 

Is this where I say "check. and. mate."...?

Quote

 

2 hours ago, rpcgc said:
I stuck around and it didn't take long for you to be incomprehensive .

Next, you have yet to acknowledge that you were wrong and the answers were not on the site as conceded by @revat.

 

One of my most favorite debate "tactics" is when people ignore the giant, gaping holes you've blasted through their arguments, only to cling desperately to the tiny bits remaining, all the while pretending that those tiny bits are, in fact, the "main point" of their counterargument.

The main thrust of the contention was that joecgcmaniac's supposition was "unfounded nonsense." My counterargument to that was that kimik is both a very known quantity on those boards, and you are simultaneously unknown. People here know how kimik grades; nobody here knows how you do. That alone is enough to move jcm's supposition from "unfounded nonsense" to "quite founded and reasonable."

Your lack of attention to detail....both in your inability to find the answers that are, in fact, where you sought them, as well as your misuse of the word assumption and your half-baked, sloppy research into the meanings of the words involved when challenged...is merely an adjunct of the above, additional proof, as it were.

You've also refused to acknowledge that you have been offended, and responded in offense.

But, I will throw you a bone...revat did NOT concede that the answers you sought weren't on the site. He said nothing of the sort. He merely produced an analogy that demonstrated your brusque manner in asking for help, of all things.

The fact of the matter is, the answer you seek is right there in front of you, on the website, and quoted by Hey Kids, Comics! (tafkatafkadixie):

Quote

Quote
The CCS Screening service determines whether pressing should be performed. If CCS believes that pressing would not benefit the comic, you will pay only the screening fee.

Guess what that means....? You guessed it: if the book is ALREADY a 9.8 (or "better"), the book is not going to benefit from a press. At that point, the clause "pressing would not benefit the comic" comes into play. Even though that is usually meant in the OPPOSITE direction...ie, a book so damaged that pressing won't change a thing...it ALSO means that books that are obvious 9.8s (or "better") and would not benefit from a press in any way would then not be pressed.

Simple.

Now, you should CERTAINLY clarify with them to make sure that's what happens with your specific order...but it ultimately comes down to trust. CCS could say all of your books need pressing. and all of your books could then come back 9.8, whether they would have come back 9.8 without the press or not. That COULD certainly happen. And you should talk to CCS....NOT CGC...about it.

The truth of the matter is, you want someone to hold your hand. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that...but you can't be so quick to bite that hand if it points you in a direction you THINK you may not want to go.

Finally...there's no need for all the "@" nonsense. 

This has all been a thoroughly delightful excursion into the utterly (in this case) unimportant realm of semantics, however, and hopefully as enjoyable for others as it has been for me, so I thank you for the opportunity!

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus
Corrected slight spelling errors.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

Haha. Do try again, that was quite weak.

I agree, since the editor automatically filled in a draft, which went unnoticed initially, rather than the final post you see above.

The posting editor is quite weak, indeed.

[Imperare]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You see, Miriam-Webster...? You know, the fine people who bring you the dictionary...? Yeah, they're people, too.

And, in this sense, they're inaccurate...

 

Let's look at what M-W has to say about "assumption":

"a fact or statement (such as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted."

In other words, a declaration.

Do you see how M-B has contradicted itself...?

Now let's look at supposition (supposed) from the same source;

"a. held as an opinion : believed; 

b : considered probable or certain"

Interesting that you bolded "taken for granted." in the Assumption definition, but chose not to bold "b : considered probable or certain" in the Supposition definition, which reinforces my argument.

So no, you are have definitely not outsmarted the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

 

Quote

Do you see the subtle, yet distinct, difference in the meanings of those two words yet? Assumptions deal with a degree of certainty higher than suppositions...by W-B's own definitions.

I do not speak for joecgcmaniac, or anyone but myself, but it is obvious in the phrase "Somehow I doubt that the OP grades as tightly as you do" is NOT an assumption, as W-B defines the word "assumption", but is rather a supposition.

Glad to clarify for you!

Who is or what is W-B? Are you referring to Merriam-Webster? That would be M-W, tsk tsk, there again is your lack of attention to detail.

 

Quote

The main thrust of the contention was that joecgcmaniac's supposition was "unfounded nonsense." My counterargument to that was that kimik is both a very known quantity on those boards, and you are simultaneously unknown. People here know how kimik grades; nobody here knows how you do. That alone is enough to move jcm's supposition from "unfounded nonsense" to "quite founded and reasonable."

You make no sense at all. Reaching conclusions by admitting that a substantial portion of the information is "unknown", is ridiculous. If you don't have all of the information to conclude, refrain from concluding.

 

Quote

But, I will throw you a bone...revat did NOT concede that the answers you sought weren't on the site. He said nothing of the sort. He merely produced an analogy that demonstrated your brusque manner in asking for help, of all things.

@revat's analogy stated that my question and answer were not on the "menu" — his version of "the site". Thus, according to @revat, my question was not answered on the site.

 

Are you really going to come back for more?

Edited June 30, 2018 by rpcgc

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, rpcgc said:

Interesting that you bolded "taken for granted." in the Assumption definition, but chose not to bold "b : considered probable or certain" which reinforces my argument.

So no, you are have definitely not outsmarted the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Interesting that you conveniently ignore context and the entire rest of the argument, to focus on a single word.

I anticipated this...and will reply that the phrase is "CONSIDERED...certain"...NOT "certain", which means something different. And...I will point out that, in the vernacular, whenever someone says they are "certain" about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain. "I'm certain of it!" is merely the attempt to convince themselves, in almost every case.

Outsmarted by your own argument!

2 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

Who is or what is W-B? Are you referring to Merriam-Webster? That would be M-B, tsk tsk, there again is your lack of attention to detail.

Ooo, thank you! I had "Webster" on the mind. That's what I get for taking shortcuts! Corrections made; thank you for pointing them out. See? It's not that hard to acknowledge when you've made errors. It's easy, once you swallow your pride. 

You're not going to find anyone here of any gravity who will agree with you that my problem is a "lack of attention to detail." I will point out, of course, that it is not MY "lack of attention to detail" that is in contention, here. Claiming that others have done the same thing is not a valid counterargument.

I notice, naturally, that your reply contains nothing of substance, and focuses on trivial and irrelevant (as it relates to this discussion) minutiae.

Cling! Cling desperately to whatever bits you can to hold your head above the semantic sea!

7 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

Quote

The main thrust of the contention was that joecgcmaniac's supposition was "unfounded nonsense." My counterargument to that was that kimik is both a very known quantity on those boards, and you are simultaneously unknown. People here know how kimik grades; nobody here knows how you do. That alone is enough to move jcm's supposition from "unfounded nonsense" to "quite founded and reasonable."

You make no sense at all. Reaching conclusions by admitting that a substantial portion of the information is "unknown", is ridiculous. If you don't have all of the information to conclude, refrain from concluding.

Of course, it makes perfect sense, but when one has no counterargument, and cannot address the substance, focus on the trivial. Again: joecgcmaniac made a supposition. Based on the information available at the time, and reinforced by subsequent dialogue, it was a perfectly founded, reasonable supposition to make.

I agree...if he had said something like "kimik clearly knows how to grade better than the OP", then I would agree with you: he wouldn't have enough information to make such a claim (note the word there at the end of that sentence.) But he didn't, because he's not stupid. 

*I* suspect that kimik knows how to grade better than you...in fact, I would put money on it, that's how certain I am of it...but you are quite correct in saying that that is not a reasonable conclusion to come to without further evidence...which is why no one did it. 

Do you yet grasp the shades of meaning being discussed, here...? That saying I'm "certain" of something doesn't mean it's a statement of fact, or a conclusion...?

16 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

Quote

But, I will throw you a bone...revat did NOT concede that the answers you sought weren't on the site. He said nothing of the sort. He merely produced an analogy that demonstrated your brusque manner in asking for help, of all things.

@revat's analogy stated that my question and answer was not on the "menu", his version of "the site". Thus, according to @revat, my question was not answered on the site.

 

You really going to come back for more?

Newbs. 

You HAVE to love them. 

Are we now going to get into a semantical discussion about the word "concede" and how such a thing actually looks...? You can't even be bothered to QUOTE the relevant parts from what you believe is revat's concession, to illustrate your argument! Talk about lazy! And, in typical petulant style, you make sure you "@" everything, after I said you didn't need to, just like a teen.  I at least have shown you the courtesy of addressing each of your points directly, rather than simply ignoring anything that might poke holes in my argument...which hasn't been much, if anything.

Not a single word on the substance of the argument have you posted here.  

I will take that as YOUR concession.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

In all sincerity, Mr. or Miss rpcgc, I hope you have discovered that your question was answered, to your satisfaction, and if not, at least you were pointed in the right direction.

I guarantee you...walking into a room filled with people that don't have any clue who you are, with a giant piece of maple on your shoulder, daring anyone to try and knock it off, is much less likely to get you where you need than simple humility and flexibility. But, it sure does make for some fun on a Friday afternoon. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

30 minutes ago, rpcgc said:

Who is or what is W-B? Are you referring to Merriam-Webster? That would be M-B, tsk tsk, there again is your lack of attention to detail.

Oh, and just for focus, I saved this bit for last...that would be M-W, not "M-B." Who is, or what is, "M-B"....?

[Imperare]

@RockMyAmadeus

This is becoming too easy. To demonstrate, I will concisely shut down each of your points. 

51 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Interesting that you conveniently ignore context and the entire rest of the argument, to focus on a single word.

YOU are the one who focused on a single word "probable", by bolding it.

Quote

I anticipated this...and will reply that the phrase is "CONSIDERED...certain"...NOT "certain", which means something different. And...I will point out that, in the vernacular, whenever someone says they are "certain" about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain. "I'm certain of it!" is merely the attempt to convince themselves, in almost every case.

You are definitly a glutton for punishment.

Definition of Certain: "known for sure; established beyond doubt" — use any dictionary you want, this is the accepted definition, not what you want it to be.

 

Quote

Outsmarted by your own argument!

Oh boy, now you're just regurgitating my use of the word "outsmarted". Be more original than that.

 

Quote

Ooo, thank you! I had "Webster" on the mind. That's what I get for taking shortcuts! Corrections made; thank you for pointing them out. See? It's not that hard to acknowledge when you've made errors. It's easy, once you swallow your pride. 

You're not going to find anyone here of any gravity who will agree with you that my problem is a "lack of attention to detail." I will point out, of course, that it is not MY "lack of attention to detail" that is in contention, here. Claiming that others have done the same thing is not a valid counterargument.

Can you not see the hypocrisy here?

 

Quote

I notice, naturally, that your reply contains nothing of substance, and focuses on trivial and irrelevant (as it relates to this discussion) minutiae.

Cling! Cling desperately to whatever bits you can to hold your head above the semantic sea!

You have still failed to admit that @revat's analogy conceded my position.

 

Quote

Of course, it makes perfect sense, but when one has no counterargument, and cannot address the substance, focus on the trivial. Again: joecgcmaniac made a supposition. Based on the information available at the time, and reinforced by subsequent dialogue, it was a perfectly founded, reasonable supposition to make.

I agree...if he had said something like "kimik clearly knows how to grade better than the OP", then I would agree with you: he wouldn't have enough information to make such a claim (note the word there at the end of that sentence.) But he didn't, because he's not stupid. 

*I* suspect that kimik knows how to grade better than you...in fact, I would put money on it, that's how certain I am of it...but you are quite correct in saying that that is not a reasonable conclusion to come to without further evidence...which is why no one did it. 

Do you yet grasp the shades of meaning being discussed, here...? That saying I'm "certain" of something doesn't mean it's a statement of fact, or a conclusion...?

Did you really just say "that's how certain I am of it", when immediately prior you asserted that "whenever someone says they are 'certain' about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain"

This is a KO!

At this point you've become my punching bag and that's not what I'm here for.

I'm done, I refuse to further punish someone when they're down.

Let's move on.

Edited June 30, 2018 by rpcgc

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Interesting that you conveniently ignore context and the entire rest of the argument, to focus on a single word.

YOU are the one who focused on a single word "probable", by bolding it.

That is incorrect. Here is the quote again:

Quote

 

Let's look at what M-W has to say about "assumption":

"a fact or statement (such as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted."

In other words, a declaration.

Do you see how M-W has contradicted itself...?

Now let's look at supposition (supposed) from the same source;

"a. held as an opinion : believed; 

b : considered probable or certain"

 

Do you see a "single word" bolded there...? No, of course not. You see several words bolded.

You, however, plucked a single phrase out, focused on a single word in that phrase, and then strutted about like a rooster during mating season, imagining you've just mated with every hen in the house.

Context is everything. Do not make the very common mistake of amateur debaters by imagining that context is unimportant.

Next...

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

You are definitly a glutton for punishment.

Agreed! I certainly enjoy taking the wind out of the sails of those who come in, guns a-blazing. It's terrific fun! 

Oh, and the word is spelled "definitely"...since we're being nitpicky and whatnot...does that further demonstrate your lack of attention to detail....? If you need help, there's a spell check feature that the board has...just look for the red squiggly line beneath a word. That usually means there's a spelling error.

Next...

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

Definition of Certain: "known for sure; established beyond doubt" — use any dictionary you want, this is the accepted definition, not what you want it to be.

One more time...the definition of the word "suppose" IS NOT "certain", or "known for sure", or "established beyond doubt"...the definition is, again:

 "a. held as an opinion : believed; 

b : considered probable or certain"

The phrase "considered certain" DOES NOT mean the same thing as "certain." 

And if you dispute the vernacular use of the word "certain", you don't have much of an understanding of basic communication, unfortunately.

"I'm certain of it!" = not certain.

See how that works...?

And do not make another very common mistake of amateur debaters by imagining that (your chosen) authority is unimpeachable (that means "can't be questioned.")

Next....

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

Quote

Outsmarted by your own argument!

Oh boy, now you're just regurgitating my use of the word "outsmarted". Be more original than that.

No, no, my dear rpcgc, that's a rhetorical device, wherein I turned your own rejoinder against you:

You: "So no, you are have definitely not outsmarted the Merriam-Webster dictionary."

Me: "Outsmarted by your own argument!"

It demonstrates that not only was I not even attempting to "outsmart Merriam-Webster", but rather, in the course of the argument, you WERE outsmarted...by yourself.

Would you have preferred if I had made it more obvious, by italicizing the words "your own", so it looked like this: "Outsmarted by your own argument!"...?

Next...

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

Quote

Ooo, thank you! I had "Webster" on the mind. That's what I get for taking shortcuts! Corrections made; thank you for pointing them out. See? It's not that hard to acknowledge when you've made errors. It's easy, once you swallow your pride. 

You're not going to find anyone here of any gravity who will agree with you that my problem is a "lack of attention to detail." I will point out, of course, that it is not MY "lack of attention to detail" that is in contention, here. Claiming that others have done the same thing is not a valid counterargument.

Can you not see the hypocrisy here?

The word "hypocrisy" is wildly overused these days, mainly by the younger crowd, who have no real grasp, like you, of its meaning. Hypocrisy means "do as I say, not as I do." It does NOT mean, as you are trying to use it here, "you can't point out what I'm doing, if you're doing the same thing." On the contrary. 

Let me explain it to you again: MY grading skills aren't in question in this debate. They have nothing whatsoever to do with this debate. Therefore, MY attention, or lack thereof, to detail ALSO has no bearing on this debate. The supposition was YOUR grading skills vs. kimik's. Therefore, YOUR attention to detail IS MATERIAL to the debate...MINE is not. It is not, therefore, "hypocrisy" to point out YOUR inattention to detail, when it is entirely material to the point. 

And you STILL have not addressed the FAR weightier matter of kimik being a known quantity, and you being a complete and total stranger who is easily offended?

Does any of this make any sense to you, or are you just going to continue to ignore the substance and come up with quips because you have a chip on your shoulder...?

Next....

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

Quote

I notice, naturally, that your reply contains nothing of substance, and focuses on trivial and irrelevant (as it relates to this discussion) minutiae.

Cling! Cling desperately to whatever bits you can to hold your head above the semantic sea!

You have still failed to admit that @revat's analogy conceded my position.

And you have still failed to admit that the Titanic was blown out of the water by a rocket from Jupiter. 

And the one statement is about as relevant as the other.

More to the point: you have failed to concede that the answer you were looking for...despite what you imagine revat meant, and despite your considerable huffing and puffing...was staring you right in the face, right where everyone said it was, the whole time. You merely lacked the understanding to recognize it, and the humility to ask for help to understand it.

Next....

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

Quote

Of course, it makes perfect sense, but when one has no counterargument, and cannot address the substance, focus on the trivial. Again: joecgcmaniac made a supposition. Based on the information available at the time, and reinforced by subsequent dialogue, it was a perfectly founded, reasonable supposition to make.

I agree...if he had said something like "kimik clearly knows how to grade better than the OP", then I would agree with you: he wouldn't have enough information to make such a claim (note the word there at the end of that sentence.) But he didn't, because he's not stupid. 

*I* suspect that kimik knows how to grade better than you...in fact, I would put money on it, that's how certain I am of it...but you are quite correct in saying that that is not a reasonable conclusion to come to without further evidence...which is why no one did it. 

Do you yet grasp the shades of meaning being discussed, here...? That saying I'm "certain" of something doesn't mean it's a statement of fact, or a conclusion...?

Did you really just say "that's how certain I am of it", when immediately prior you asserted that "whenever someone says they are 'certain' about anything, it always means they are, in fact, not certain"

This is a KO!

And immediately after, too!

I'm guessing you missed class the day they taught the concept of figurative speech eh....?

You don't recognize the figure of speech used here, clearly. You know, where I seem to draw a conclusion that I...in the very same breath...acknowledge isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw...? Think...think hard, now...if I say...in the very same breath, mind you...."but you are quite correct in saying that that is not a reasonable conclusion to come to without further evidence"...then how could I possibly be literally certain that kimik grades better than you...?

Think. Think hard, now.

Here, I'll say it slowly:

1. I am certain that kimik grades better than you.

2. I have no idea how well you grade.

The first cannot literally be true if the second is also true.

Which means....? RIGHT! I'm actually NOT certain of it! 

Are you getting it now....? Is it dawning on you yet....? Here's a hint: the word "certain" used here is a play on the previous inordinate amount of time we spent going back and forth about it earlier. Unfortunately, it went right over your head.

Do you think, in a discussion so heavily and clearly pedantic, that I'm not very carefully paying attention to every word I'm using, and how I am using it...? Yes, I imagine you do.  Perhaps I need to be more obvious when I'm tweaking your nose, like "(this is a figure of speech; do not take literally)", so you don't miss it.

This IS a KO, for sure.

And,based on all of this of this melodrama, I'm completely convinced that kimik grades better than you.

Uh oh. Now I've done it!

Next...

3 hours ago, rpcgc said:

At this point you've become my punching bag and that's not what I'm here for.

I'm done, I refuse to further punish someone when they're down.

Let's move on.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this far. Thank you. Laughter is good for the soul.

By all means, you should move on if you feel this is an unproductive conversation. I've made my points...agonizingly so...and the audience will have to determine just who did what to whom.

The important thing is that your question was answered, it was there the whole time, and you only needed to ask without the chip on your shoulder. Maybe, hopefully, you'll stop being a victim, and recognize that there are a lot of people willing to help you, provided you don't try to bite their heads off in the process.

All the rest of this is rhetorical masturbation. Which is my favorite kind.

Edited June 30, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus
Missed it by THAT much!