Mustard wrote: tiompan wrote: Mustard wrote: tiompan wrote: Mustard wrote: tiompan wrote: Mustard wrote: tiompan wrote: Mustard wrote:
Does the below invalidate the above ?
Yes.
Of course it doesn't . Two entirely different categories .One is an experiment the other a form of behaviour .
You would think that. That's the "passive" part of "passive aggressive".
You would think that and be right . A form of behaviour particularly one that has no relation to the experiment cannot refute or invalidate the results of an experiment .
And the results on the experiment can not be demonstrated to be valid to the discussion, just by your having posted a link. Far more likely, in fact, that it's simply passive-aggressive behaviour, designed to disparage the views of others without bothering with actual discussion or engagement. It's not big or clever - it's just rude, and a little bit sad.
That's an entirely different point and not what you originally claimed .
If you had responded with the latest comment to the original comment it would have made more sense .
Similarly posting of second link was a fine example of it's content .
I think it's exactly the same point, actually.
Your second point is ridiculous, because the implication of that point would be that it's impossible to draw attention to passive-aggressive behaviour without being passive-aggressive in turn. Which is, of course, classic projection and displacement - witnessed often in the school yard as "Oh no I'm not. You are".
How about actually contributing something useful to the discussion rather than just posting a link insinuating offence? As far as I can see, that link has been your sole contribution to this massive thread thus far.
It was my sole contribution . It actually made a point , some may have seen it as valid others even a bit of light relief . The majority ignored it .I had no intention of adding anything else .
You made a category mistake by suggesting that a form of behaviour invalidates experimental results when what you should have suggested was that the original post was a form of that behaviour ,which would have been arguable but at least not wrong .
I had to point out that category mistake .
Instead of accepting that you continue to divert the thread .
|