I am going to keep bringing it up until it stops these Refs suck

[DogFace]

I understand sarcasm. I don't understand jibberish.



Ilogical Internet Debate Tactic #26
Prove to me a fairy who dispenses money to children who lose teeth doesn't exist. What? You have no proof? Then one DOES exist because you can't prove that it doesn't. LOL!

But at least you can recognize a genius when one graces your presence whether by conversation or proximity.
See, I do understand sarcasm.

Internet stupid debate tactic #1 : don't answer the question. Instead simply avoid as to not look like a moron.

Exactly, proving the refs are biased is not practically possible. The same as proving you aren't biased like many humans are In regard to judging anything.
Although, you are a little league umpire!
That really gives you a higher understanding us civilians couldn't understand about sports and referees. You seemingly have the stupidest arguments on this site. Seemingly:to give the impression of having a certain quality.
You seem to have a certain quality.

Your original stupid premise that the op could not call the refs biased without proof was dumb. Really dumb. I'm not sure what you thought you were thinking but you were incorrect.

 

[tyke1doe]

Internet stupid debate tactic #1 : don't answer the question. Instead simply avoid as to not look like a moron.

Stealing my constructs now. LOL!
I don't even know what question you're asking. You sound like a parrot.

Exactly, proving the refs are biased is not practically possible. The same as proving you aren't biased like many humans are In regard to judging anything.
Although, you are a little league umpire!

Huh?
Do you know you just agreed with me? LOL!
If you can't prove the refs are bias, you have no basis for your claim that they are. See, this is what happens when you have no idea what you're talking about and try to match wits with someone who does. You end up agreeing with him (in this case, me).

That really gives you a higher understanding us civilians couldn't understand about sports and referees. You seemingly have the stupidest arguments on this site.

Coming from you, this is a major compliment.
Almost anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that a person who has experience in a given field ALWAYS has greater insight than a person who doesn't have experience in a given field.
Only in the land of the Internet would one dare to offer differently.
And the fact you interpret this common observation "the stupidest (sic) argument on this site," says a whole lot about your inability to grasp basic concepts. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Seemingly:to give the impression of having a certain quality.
You seem to have a certain quality.

I don't even know what this jibberish means.

Your original stupid premise that the op could not call the refs biased without proof was dumb. Really dumb. I'm not sure what you thought you were thinking but you were incorrect.

Yes, in the land of opinion where opinion alone trumps common sense, logic and facts, it was really dumb.
Fortunately, the world doesn't work that way. But I'll remember your comments and illogic next time you side with a non-athlete vs. an athlete with inside knowledge and experience on the subject of football, in particular when it relates to the Cowboys.
By this logic, Marshall Faulk knows more about the inner workings of the Cowboys than Tony Romo. LOLOLOL!!!

 

[DogFace]

Stealing my constructs now. LOL!
I don't even know what question you're asking. You sound like a parrot.



Huh?
Do you know you just agreed with me? LOL!
If you can't prove the refs are bias, you have no basis for your claim that they are. See, this is what happens when you have no idea what you're talking about and try to match wits with someone who does. You end up agreeing with him (in this case, me).



Coming from you, this is a major compliment.
Almost anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that a person who has experience in a given field ALWAYS has greater insight than a person who doesn't have experience in a given field.
Only in the land of the Internet would one dare to offer differently.
And the fact you interpret this common observation "the stupidest (sic) argument on this site," says a whole lot about your inability to grasp basic concepts. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



I don't even know what this jibberish means.



Yes, in the land of opinion where opinion alone trumps common sense, logic and facts, it was really dumb.
Fortunately, the world doesn't work that way. But I'll remember your comments and illogic next time you side with a non-athlete vs. an athlete with inside knowledge and experience on the subject of football, in particular when it relates to the Cowboys.
By this logic, Marshall Faulk knows more about the inner workings of the Cowboys than Tony Romo. LOLOLOL!!!

You do understand mocking. I'm sure you've experienced it many times.

Your original stupid premise was that the op could not accuse the refs of bias. That's dumb.
I then ask you to prove there was no bias as a way for you to understand there was no way to prove either. You have no basis for saying the refs aren't biased.
Do you understand that?
You don't understand the word seemingly?ok I defined it for you.

You somehow equate your little league umpire status as experience in the field.
That's sad. Keep trying little guy.

You have a lot to learn and I'm here to help.

 

[DogFace]

Stealing my constructs now. LOL!
I don't even know what question you're asking. You sound like a parrot.



Huh?
Do you know you just agreed with me? LOL!
If you can't prove the refs are bias, you have no basis for your claim that they are. See, this is what happens when you have no idea what you're talking about and try to match wits with someone who does. You end up agreeing with him (in this case, me).



Coming from you, this is a major compliment.
Almost anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that a person who has experience in a given field ALWAYS has greater insight than a person who doesn't have experience in a given field.
Only in the land of the Internet would one dare to offer differently.
And the fact you interpret this common observation "the stupidest (sic) argument on this site," says a whole lot about your inability to grasp basic concepts. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



I don't even know what this jibberish means.



Yes, in the land of opinion where opinion alone trumps common sense, logic and facts, it was really dumb.
Fortunately, the world doesn't work that way. But I'll remember your comments and illogic next time you side with a non-athlete vs. an athlete with inside knowledge and experience on the subject of football, in particular when it relates to the Cowboys.
By this logic, Marshall Faulk knows more about the inner workings of the Cowboys than Tony Romo. LOLOLOL!!!

This really went over your head so I'll explain it for the third time.
You somehow think that a person can't judge something as bias without the proof you want. That's ridiculous. To "mock" how stupid that was I suggested,in jest, that we now use the word seemingly(I defined this for you honey) in front of the word bias to appease you. That was a joke. No one is doing that. Get it? That's satire. It is hard for some to pick up on. By some I mean you.

 

[DogFace]

Stealing my constructs now. LOL!
I don't even know what question you're asking. You sound like a parrot.



Huh?
Do you know you just agreed with me? LOL!
If you can't prove the refs are bias, you have no basis for your claim that they are. See, this is what happens when you have no idea what you're talking about and try to match wits with someone who does. You end up agreeing with him (in this case, me).



Coming from you, this is a major compliment.
Almost anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that a person who has experience in a given field ALWAYS has greater insight than a person who doesn't have experience in a given field.
Only in the land of the Internet would one dare to offer differently.
And the fact you interpret this common observation "the stupidest (sic) argument on this site," says a whole lot about your inability to grasp basic concepts. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



I don't even know what this jibberish means.



Yes, in the land of opinion where opinion alone trumps common sense, logic and facts, it was really dumb.
Fortunately, the world doesn't work that way. But I'll remember your comments and illogic next time you side with a non-athlete vs. an athlete with inside knowledge and experience on the subject of football, in particular when it relates to the Cowboys.
By this logic, Marshall Faulk knows more about the inner workings of the Cowboys than Tony Romo. LOLOLOL!!!

This makes absolutely no sense. What did I say that compares with the "Faulk knows more..." Statement. I have no idea what you're talking about. What logic exactly are you talking about?
At least you manned up and said your original statement was stupid.
I'm satisfied being completely correct. Thank you.

 

[tyke1doe]

You do understand mocking. I'm sure you've experienced it many times.

I've experienced fools who think they're wise too. LOL!

Your original stupid premise was that the op could not accuse the refs of bias. That's dumb.

Sigh.

How did the refs cheat? That's a strong accusation. Do you have proof that they cheated? If so, please offer evidence.

Two people can witness the same accident and come to different conclusions on what happened. No, what you see isn't always accurate. There's a picture circulating around this forum on someone's avatar where it appears Parcells and Belichik are about to embrace for a kiss. Your eyes sometimes interpret scenes based on one's perceived biases. And even moreso, one snap shot doesn't not necessarily accurately portray what is happening, especially if you remove it from a context.

Be that as it may, you can't prove the refs are cheating or are exhibiting bias because that's a question of motive, and there's NO WAY you can determine a person's motives based solely on what you see.

I don't know why. But how does that prove bias?
You have to know the ref's motive to substantiate bias. So, come on big guy, show me anything that suggests the ref was being bias? Any statement where he says, "I hate the Cowboys, and I'm going to screw them when I ref their games."

You may not like the call. You may not understand the call. But that doesn't make the call bias. Get frustrated all you want, but you have no evidence that the refs are out to get the Cowboys.

Bias, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. And for every Cowboys fan claiming the refs are out to get Dallas, fans of other teams believe that the refs are out to benefit the Cowboys.

So where in my original posts do I say someone can't call another bias? I don't.
Rather, what I said is that in order to claim someone is bias, one must show proof.
I don't expect you to understand, let allow differentiate between a person accusing one of bias and a person proving one is bias.
I guess that's what you call playing semantics. Bahahahahahaha!

I then ask you to prove there was no bias as a way for you to understand there was no way to prove either.

Huh? More jibberish.

You have no basis for saying the refs aren't biased.
Do you understand that?
You don't understand the word seemingly?ok I defined it for you.

Wow. Do you communicate like this in real life? Your sentence structure is severely lacking.
I don't have to prove anything because I'm not claiming refs are bias. You are.
The refs could be bias; they may not be bias. But I'm not making any claims. I'm simply asking how you and Cowboyvic substantiate referee bias. So far, you haven't come close to doing so.
I'm sorry if I'm exposing your jibberish double talk. But you have no bases for such a claim. NONE.

You somehow equate your little league umpire status as experience in the field.
That's sad. Keep trying little guy.

You have a lot to learn and I'm here to help.

Uh, umpire experience at any level is better than no umpire or official experience.
Furthermore, the issue is referee bias. Of course, the experience of a referee would be better than a person with no experience.

As for your help, sorry, but I don't need any help in logical contortions, straw men, incomprehension and jibberish.
But thanks for offering.

 

[tyke1doe]

This really went over your head so I'll explain it for the third time.
You somehow think that a person can't judge something as bias without the proof you want. That's ridiculous.

In your world, it's ridiculous. In the world of common sense, it makes perfect sense.
Bias goes to motive. Motive is very difficult to prove because it's not something you can see. It's like thought.
It's like claiming someone is a racist because he hates rap music. One can hate rap music, but to claim one is a racist because one does so is a claim that demands proof.
You have exhibited that you have little understanding of how logic works.
So much so that you think asking for proof of bias is (in your words) ridiculous.
Wow.

To "mock" how stupid that was I suggested,in jest, that we now use the word seemingly(I defined this for you honey) in front of the word bias to appease you. That was a joke. No one is doing that. Get it? That's satire. It is hard for some to pick up on. By some I mean you.

This makes no sense at all. You're drowning, son. And it's pretty apparent because you've reached for the "feminization" card. LOL!

 

[tyke1doe]

This makes absolutely no sense. What did I say that compares with the "Faulk knows more..." Statement. I have no idea what you're talking about. What logic exactly are you talking about?
At least you manned up and said your original statement was stupid.
I'm satisfied being completely correct. Thank you.

Sigh.
Let me educate you. Oh, and follow closely the bouncing ball of logic.
You seem to think that a person with experience in a given field (my experience as a baseball umpire) has less to offer or less insight than a person who does not have experience in a given field (you).
By that logic ... Tony Romo, who has experience as a Dallas Cowboy, has less to offer and less insight into the inner workings of the Cowboys than Marshall Faulk, who does not have experience within the Cowboys locker room.
Change the names and the experience and insert the appropriate variables and my statement is logical and sound.
These are the principles upon which we operate in the real world. No one takes the advice of a non-doctor over a doctor when it comes to medicine. No one takes the advice of a person with no knowledge of medicine over the advice of a person who knows something about medicine. No one takes the advice of a person who has never flown over the advice and insight of a person who has flown when it comes to flying.

And you say this is stupid reasoning?

Seriously?

Bahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

[DogFace]

Sigh.
Let me educate you. Oh, and follow closely the bouncing ball of logic.
You seem to think that a person with experience in a given field (my experience as a baseball umpire) has less to offer or less insight than a person who does not have experience in a given field (you).
By that logic ... Tony Romo, who has experience as a Dallas Cowboy, has less to offer and less insight into the inner workings of the Cowboys than Marshall Faulk, who does not have experience within the Cowboys locker room.
Change the names and the experience and insert the appropriate variables and my statement is logical and sound.
These are the principles upon which we operate in the real world. No one takes the advice of a non-doctor over a doctor when it comes to medicine. No one takes the advice of a person with no knowledge of medicine over the advice of a person who knows something about medicine. No one takes the advice of a person who has never flown over the advice and insight of a person who has flown when it comes to flying.

And you say this is stupid reasoning?

Seriously?

Bahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

No one compares a little league ump with a professional referee Other than a sadly delusional person who somehow equates the two.

Sad and rather pathetic.

 

[DogFace]

In your world, it's ridiculous. In the world of common sense, it makes perfect sense.
Bias goes to motive. Motive is very difficult to prove because it's not something you can see. It's like thought.
It's like claiming someone is a racist because he hates rap music. One can hate rap music, but to claim one is a racist because one does so is a claim that demands proof.
You have exhibited that you have little understanding of how logic works.
So much so that you think asking for proof of bias is (in your words) ridiculous.
Wow.



This makes no sense at all. You're drowning, son. And it's pretty apparent because you've reached for the "feminization" card. LOL!

You really have don't understand that? Umm it can't be explained any more clearly.
You somehow view "honey" as a feminine term. Interesting that you make that connection. I use it as a way to gently talk to simple minded people as to not hurt their feelings. I failed. I'm so sorry little buddy.

Your perceived logic is bad.

In the above sentence perceived is a qualifying adjective it is used in the same way seemingly could be used to help you with others use of the word bias. Again, that's to mock you. I know let me guess you don't get it. Ok.

 

[tyke1doe]

No one compares a little league ump with a professional referee Other than a sadly delusional person who somehow equates the two.

Sad and rather pathetic.

It depends on the comparison, oh ye of limited worldy experience.

If I said my experience as a little league ump is on the same level as that of a professional referee, then you would be correct.
If I said my experience gives me greater insight than that of a professional referee, then you would be correct.

But if I said my experience gives me some insight as to how referees view the game and whether they're focused more on the game than bias, you would be incorrect.

The comparison being made here is that I as an umpire am so focused on the game that I don't have time to show bias. The comparison being made here is that I as an umpire have been in situations where I disliked the coaches yet still made a call that benefited the team I did not like because it was the right call as I saw it.

And my experience gives me an insight that one who has never officiated a game would not have.

What's sad and pathetic is that you are so entrenched in your erroneous perspective that you can't understand the nuances of life that would enable you to understand my comparison.

 

[tyke1doe]

You really have don't understand that? Umm it can't be explained any more clearly.
You somehow view "honey" as a feminine term. Interesting that you make that connection. I use it as a way to gently talk to simple minded people as to not hurt their feelings. I failed. I'm so sorry little buddy.

Your perceived logic is bad.

In the above sentence perceived is a qualifying adjective it is used in the same way seemingly could be used to help you with others use of the word bias. Again, that's to mock you. I know let me guess you don't get it. Ok.

LOL!

There's nothing more amusing than to read someone who has no command of the English language try to explain jibberish as if it is part of the English language.

In addition to that, you contradict yourself at every turn. The term "honey" is a term of endearment. It is generally used between spouses (a woman calling her husband "honey," for example) or used to apply to women. It is more commonly used in a feminine sense. For the most part, men don't call other men "honey," or, rather, that is not the general application one man applies to another, excluding gay couples, of course.

Second, your use of the term "honey" (since you don't know me) IS an attempt to hurt my feelings, along with your application of the term "simple-minded."
You are upset and aggitated because I'm calling you out and making mincemeat of your argument. And since you don't like it and can't match my wit, you reach for pejorative terms to compensate for the lack of comprehension and intelligence you bring to this conversation.

You don't even know what you're talking about, which makes your every post more hysterical than the next.

 

[DogFace]

LOL!

There's nothing more amusing than to read someone who has no command of the English language try to explain jibberish as if it is part of the English language.

In addition to that, you contradict yourself at every turn. The term "honey" is a term of endearment. It is generally used between spouses (a woman calling her husband "honey," for example) or used to apply to women. It is more commonly used in a feminine sense. For the most part, men don't call other men "honey," or, rather, that is not the general application one man applies to another, excluding gay couples, of course.

Second, your use of the term "honey" (since you don't know me) IS an attempt to hurt my feelings, along with your application of the term "simple-minded."
You are upset and aggitated because I'm calling you out and making mincemeat of your argument. And since you don't like it and can't match my wit, you reach for pejorative terms to compensate for the lack of comprehension and intelligence you bring to this conversation.

You don't even know what you're talking about, which makes your every post more hysterical than the next.

Of course you don't understand. I'm sure that happens to you often.
I thought you were a woman and that was an honest mistake. For that I apologize.

As for all the rest of what you said. That's funny. All your grandiose talk of how worldly and advanced you are is great. That was adult of you to admit your original premise was extremely stupid. I accept your apology. Now please in the future try to think before you say something so dumb. I can't always be here to correct you.

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course you don't understand. I'm sure that happens to you often.

Yes, it does, particularly on the Internet where conversations aren't quite constructed with logic.

I thought you were a woman and that was an honest mistake. For that I apologize.

Is that why you called me "little buddy"? Is "buddy" used to refer to women?

As for all the rest of what you said. That's funny. All your grandiose talk of how worldly and advanced you are is great. That was adult of you to admit your original premise was extremely stupid. I accept your apology. Now please in the future try to think before you say something so dumb. I can't always be here to correct you.

Again, this doesn't even make any sense.
And my original premise was extremely astute because it hails from the world of common sense.
But I should expect you somehow think it was stupid or some form of an apology. Any misintrepretation will do to save face.

P.S., Oh and thank you for recognizing my talk as "grandiose."

 

[DogFace]

Yes, it does, particularly on the Internet where conversations aren't quite constructed with logic.



Is that why you called me "little buddy"? Is "buddy" used to refer to women?



Again, this doesn't even make any sense.
And my original premise was extremely astute because it hails from the world of common sense.
But I should expect you somehow think it was stupid or some form of an apology. Any misintrepretation will do to save face.

P.S., Oh and thank you for recognizing my talk as "grandiose."

Little buddy is a gender specific term?

Yes, it does, particularly on the Internet where conversations aren't quite constructed with logic.



Is that why you called me "little buddy"? Is "buddy" used to refer to women

Again, this doesn't even make any sense.
And my original premise was extremely astute because it hails from the world of common sense.
But I should expect you somehow think it was stupid or some form of an apology. Any misintrepretation will do to save face.

P.S., Oh and thank you for recognizing my talk as "grandiose."

Explain to me what about that paragraph makes no sense. Please be specific and use your logic so I can understand what you might think when you read a pretty straight forward sentense\paragraph.
I'm sure you will change the discussion with a variety of big words that make you think you sound smart. In reality by not answering the straight forward questions it makes you look bad. Just again admit I was right about this too and leave it at that. You're looking ridiculous changing the subject.

Buddy and honey are exclusively to be used on male and female respectively?
Ok. That's as arbitrary as your original dumb claim about the word bias. At least you rethought that and corrected yourself afte extensive help from smart people.
See you can make progress. Now pleaese apply this new found knowledge that you're not always right in other areas. Possibly to your extensive umpire career. Have a nice night!

 

[tyke1doe]

Little buddy is a gender specific term?


Explain to me what about that paragraph makes no sense. Please be specific and use your logic so I can understand what you might think when you read a pretty straight forward sentense\paragraph.
I'm sure you will change the discussion with a variety of big words that make you think you sound smart. In reality by not answering the straight forward questions it makes you look bad. Just again admit I was right about this too and leave it at that. You're looking ridiculous changing the subject.

Buddy and honey are exclusively to be used on male and female respectively?
Ok. That's as arbitrary as your original dumb claim about the word bias. At least you rethought that and corrected yourself afte extensive help from smart people.
See you can make progress. Now pleaese apply this new found knowledge that you're not always right in other areas. Possibly to your extensive umpire career. Have a nice night!

Sigh.

Buddy \b(ud)- as a boy's name is a variant of Bud (English), and the meaning of Buddy is "brother".
Read more at http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Buddy#MpgBuE0QXOZv6sQA.99

You know, it's one thing to be ignorant about the experience of a particular poster. But to be ignorant of well-established truths that merely require a simple check of a dictionary or the Internet - not to mention common sense - for validation and verification is a sign of unmitigated stubborness.

When a word has a specific application that is verified by credible sources, it is not arbitrary. Of course, the mere fact you can't understand this explains why you can't recognize distinctions and are having a hard time processing established concepts and why you think these are ridiculous.

Second, unlike you, if a person offers a credible argument, I am apt to change my mind. But notice I said credible argument. That's what intelligent people do. When they are presented with information that they factor into their opinion and the information is a reasonable fit, they change their minds and their positions. Which gets me back to my initial point: show me the CREDIBLE information that says refs are cheating or have it in for the Cowboys?

Are you even paying attention to the discussion?

Third, as I stated previously "bias" can be applied generally to anything. I conceded that if one uses "bias" in a general sense to mean "influence" and that "influence" isn't necessarily "bad" then all refs have bias. But that's really irrelevant to the present conversation. The conversation isn't just that people have bias, but that refs, in having a bias, are cheating or ruling against the Cowboys.
That's like saying, "Everyone has an opinion." Okay, so? That tells me nothing. But if someone uses their opinion to mislead others, that's when it matters.

I would advise you to re-enroll in school/college or take it more seriously if you are in school/college now. The points I've made are matters of logic and intelligence, i.e., the ability to differentiate between concepts, the ability to distinguish nuances and variations of thought and language, the ability to evaluate arguments within their context, etc.

Either you know this and are too stubborn to admit that you do and that what I'm saying is totally logical or you are woefully deficient in your logic and intelligence.

Explain to me what about that paragraph makes no sense.

Bahahahahahahaha!!!

That's like a man who speaks Chinese asking a man who speaks only English to decipher Chinese to make it more sensible. He doesn't speak Chinese so how is he going to do that?
I don't speak jibberish so how am I going to make sense of jibberish?
It's not my job to make sense of jibberish. It's your job to communicate clearly.

 

[Rockport]

Now children.....

 

[tyke1doe]

Now children.....

Well, this is the Rant zone.

 

[Rockport]

Well, this is the Rant zone.

There's definitely some serious ranting going on. Entertaining.

 

[DogFace]

Sigh.



You know, it's one thing to be ignorant about the experience of a particular poster. But to be ignorant of well-established truths that merely require a simple check of a dictionary or the Internet - not to mention common sense - for validation and verification is a sign of unmitigated stubborness.

When a word has a specific application that is verified by credible sources, it is not arbitrary. Of course, the mere fact you can't understand this explains why you can't recognize distinctions and are having a hard time processing established concepts and why you think these are ridiculous.

Second, unlike you, if a person offers a credible argument, I am apt to change my mind. But notice I said credible argument. That's what intelligent people do. When they are presented with information that they factor into their opinion and the information is a reasonable fit, they change their minds and their positions. Which gets me back to my initial point: show me the CREDIBLE information that says refs are cheating or have it in for the Cowboys?

Are you even paying attention to the discussion?

Third, as I stated previously "bias" can be applied generally to anything. I conceded that if one uses "bias" in a general sense to mean "influence" and that "influence" isn't necessarily "bad" then all refs have bias. But that's really irrelevant to the present conversation. The conversation isn't just that people have bias, but that refs, in having a bias, are cheating or ruling against the Cowboys.
That's like saying, "Everyone has an opinion." Okay, so? That tells me nothing. But if someone uses their opinion to mislead others, that's when it matters.

I would advise you to re-enroll in school/college or take it more seriously if you are in school/college now. The points I've made are matters of logic and intelligence, i.e., the ability to differentiate between concepts, the ability to distinguish nuances and variations of thought and language, the ability to evaluate arguments within their context, etc.

Either you know this and are too stubborn to admit that you do and that what I'm saying is totally logical or you are woefully deficient in your logic and intelligence.



Bahahahahahahaha!!!

That's like a man who speaks Chinese asking a man who speaks only English to decipher Chinese to make it more sensible. He doesn't speak Chinese so how is he going to do that?
I don't speak jibberish so how am I going to make sense of jibberish?
It's not my job to make sense of jibberish. It's your job to communicate clearly.

You have very limited personal skills. That's apparent. I would be surprised if that's not what's holding you back.
You also need to try to talk with people to understand slang words like little buddy can have other meanings that may not be defined by a dictionary.

I assumed you were and older lonely lady. I apologized. That's just the impression I had of you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Try being a man and answering questions. I've answered all of yours no matter how stupid they were.

This is what you do. Run away crying. I'm sure you've perfected it by now.
It was a simple task I've asked you now 3 times. With all your advanced education that's lead you to be a powerful little league ump and internet tough guy you should be able to explain what about that paragraph you could not understand.

I'm successful and happy. I'm sure you are too.

Oh. I saw a typo in your post on the other thread. No one pointed it out. It was obvious and made the sentence Not make sense. Smart people figured it out.