Is a vaccine mandate a racist policy?

[Metaphor]

You're big on choosing your own interpretations so I will too.

Or are you admitting the left didn't start it?

It's yet another rabbit hole to head down to avoid dealing with any substantial issues he's ignoring.

If people didn't make up falsehoods about what I've written I wouldn't need to correct them.

 

[Toni]

You're big on choosing your own interpretations so I will too.

Or are you admitting the left didn't start it?

It's yet another rabbit hole to head down to avoid dealing with any substantial issues he's ignoring.

If people didn't make up falsehoods about what I've written I wouldn't need to correct them.

[Fe E/]

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim. You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.

No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.

Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.

Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.

Boo hoo.

You've said false things about me, not reading a link for example, after I said I did read the link (iirc). You said I didn't provide a reason a link was wrong when I did several times. You just didn't like the answer.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.

No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?

Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.

No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?

Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.

I shudder to think that you grade papers, given your grasp on logic, your vindictive streak, and your absolute inability to recognise any errors in your arguments.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.

Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.

Boo hoo.

You've said false things about me, not reading a link for example, after I said I did read the link (iirc). You said I didn't provide a reason a link was wrong when I did several times. You just didn't like the answer.

You don't remember correctly. No, I did not repeat the claim that you hadn't read the link after you claimed you did.

And no, you did not provide a good reason why we should distrust the Quillette article. You did not say what was wrong with it, I imagine because there was nothing wrong with it.

You also have not told me why you trust your "media bias" site but you don't trust Quillette. Which website told you you could trust the media bias site? And why do you have faith in your ability to discern good 'media bias' sites from bad ones, but you don't have faith in your ability to tell good arguments from bad ones in a particular Quillette article?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.

No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?

Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.

I shudder to think that you grade papers, given your grasp on logic, your vindictive streak, and your absolute inability to recognise any errors in your arguments.

We don’t more evidence that you are severely irony impaired.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

If a word has 2 meaning, it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately omit the meaning that contradicts one's claim.

No, it is not. How can you possibly believe this?

There are over 20 definitions for the noun version of the word 'set'. To say 'I have a toy train set' is not contradicted by another definition of 'set' as 'a clutch of eggs'. It's true I don't have a clutch of eggs. But it is not true I don't have a set.

This is primary school level stuff.

You wish to persist in your hyperbolic rhetoric in order to support your straw men claims. Pointing out straw men and false claims is not about scoring points but about maintaining an honest and fruitful discussion. It would seem you are either uninterested or incapable of that in this thread.

You are not interested in an honest discussion at all if your current response is to be believed.

It is not a false claim that Toni's house arrest policy was indefinite. It does not matter how many other definitions of 'indefinite' are produced. It is sufficient to satisfy the primary definition.

You, of course, implicitly conceded that indeed the characterisation of 'indefinite' was apt because you did not attempt to debunk it, you looked further for a different definition which you claimed it did not fit. Do you feel good about your behaviour? Apart from your inner coterie of yes-men, do you think people can't see through your sad, intellectually vapid device?

"There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly". broke every irony meter in the mulit-verse.

Sure luv. Meanwhile, will you admit you were wrong and apologise for your false claims?

Another intellectually dishonest smoke-blowing “no u r” to justify your straw men.

I will apologize for wasting any other reader’s time or patience in responding to your libelous crapola.

I shudder to think that you grade papers, given your grasp on logic, your vindictive streak, and your absolute inability to recognise any errors in your arguments.

We don’t more evidence that you are severely irony impaired.

Your perception of irony does not change your woeful understanding of how definitions work, nor your odious claim that there is something dishonest in not quoting every denotation of a word when you've already quoted the denotation you meant.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Like “triage”, right?

 

[Metaphor]

Like “triage”, right?

No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Like “triage”, right?

No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.

Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.

 

[Metaphor]

Like “triage”, right?

No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.

Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.

No. I chose the first definition, and the denotation I had in mind. I quoted the definition. There was no ambiguity.

Laughing dog chose a second definition, claimed Toni's policy could not be characterised by this second definition, and therefore her policy was not "indefinite".

As painfully nonsensical as this was, laughing dog compounded his error by accusing me of dishonesty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.

The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.

But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.

Stop being dramatic, you weren't attacked. Your mischaracterization and strawmanning were simply pointed out.

But it was not a mischaracterisation: that's the point. There is a consistent pattern on this board from certain actors who dispute (from their perspective) any definitional anomaly.

For example, laughing dog attacked me because he did not think Toni's house arrest policy was 'indefinite' according to a second denotation of 'indefinite'. laughing dog's mindset must be on attack mode all the time. Who could think that something that fully satisfies the first definition of a word cannot be described by that word if it fails to fit some other definitions? I doubt even laughing dog thinks something like that. He was desperate to get a point against me.

And it seems he succeeded, because now you are calling my description of Toni's house arrest policy as 'indefinite' a 'straw man'.

I call them like I see them. I see you doing the exact same thing to myself, and everyone else with whom you disagree in practically every thread you start. It is a bit too late for you to declare your innocence now, you should rather change your behavior in these discussions if you don't want to be perceived in this manner.

Do you think laughing dog was right to point out a second definition of 'indefinite' which he claimed did not characterise Toni's policy, in order to
i) claim it contradicted my claim of Toni's policy being indefinite
ii) call me dishonest for leaving it out?, and
iii) not apologise for doing either thing?

ZiprHead also made up false things in this thread about me (that I said 'the left started it). He didn't apologise either.

Boo hoo.

You've said false things about me, not reading a link for example, after I said I did read the link (iirc). You said I didn't provide a reason a link was wrong when I did several times. You just didn't like the answer.

You don't remember correctly. No, I did not repeat the claim that you hadn't read the link after you claimed you did.

And no, you did not provide a good reason why we should distrust the Quillette article. You did not say what was wrong with it, I imagine because there was nothing wrong with it.

You also have not told me why you trust your "media bias" site but you don't trust Quillette. Which website told you you could trust the media bias site? And why do you have faith in your ability to discern good 'media bias' sites from bad ones, but you don't have faith in your ability to tell good arguments from bad ones in a particular Quillette article?

Yes, you did.

https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/trans-derail-from-ilhan-omar-vs-colorism.25113/#post-948015 October 23rd

You accused me on not reading Trausti's link, I did.

https://iidb.org/index.php?threads/trans-derail-from-ilhan-omar-vs-colorism.25113/#post-948931 October 25th

ZiprHead dismissed a report without reading it

 

[KeepTalking]

Like “triage”, right?

No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.

Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.

No. I chose the first definition, and the denotation I had in mind. I quoted the definition. There was no ambiguity.

Laughing dog chose a second definition, claimed Toni's policy could not be characterised by this second definition, and therefore her policy was not "indefinite".

As painfully nonsensical as this was, laughing dog compounded his error by accusing me of dishonesty.

SM is talking about the word "triage", a word for which you chose the second definition without quoting it, when the first definition, which is the more common understanding, is the one that was presented in this thread.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Like “triage”, right?

No, not like that. Nobody produced a second definition of triage and said my characterisation of emergency room triage had to match both definitions.

Right. You just chose the second, less commonly used definition, which though possibly used technically correctly ended up obfuscating the conversation because everyone else was assuming the first, much more commonly used definition.

No. I chose the first definition, and the denotation I had in mind. I quoted the definition. There was no ambiguity.

Laughing dog chose a second definition, claimed Toni's policy could not be characterised by this second definition, and therefore her policy was not "indefinite".

As painfully nonsensical as this was, laughing dog compounded his error by accusing me of dishonesty.

SM is talking about the word "triage", a word for which you chose the second definition without quoting it, when the first definition, which is the more common understanding, is the one that was presented in this thread.

Yes. I was

Triage:

1. the process of sorting victims, as of a battle or disaster, to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That despicable Dred Scott SCOTUS just affirmed vaccination racism. Hopefully a few right winger heads explode.