{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by l MGW l:
12/2/2014 7:57:17 PM
1
Using flowery language doesn't change the fact that you don't even have an argument.
I tried to give you one with the whole we vs. I scenario, but since you're so keen on attacking that let me enlighten you on something: the term "we" does not in and of itself denote authority or a majority. It is simply using the first person when in a group. I am not the only one I this board who holds my original argument as valid. Many others agree, look at the OP and comments for proof. Therefore, the use of "we" is valid.
Just because you have a dictionary and use pretty words doesn't mean you have a superior grasp of the English language. You're just a bored kid/adult sulking in his parent's basement and make yourself feel better by nitpicking and attacking people on forums. Nevermind that you don't have any valid opinions of your own, and that you're incapable of the basic social function of civil debate
English
-
No, I'm a bored well-paid professional adult in my own living room, sans dictionary using my basic college education in rhetoric to point out how retarded you're being.
-
You have yet to address ANY of my points or arguments. You continue to do nothing but make personal attacks, even after I refuted your silly "we" vs. "I" claim. I highly doubt that you are any of those things. Well-paid professional adults don't act or talk in the way you do on forums. Most of us relax, discuss, and debate. Those who attack have real world problems that frustrate them and have no one to take them out on, so they do so here. I am college student, currently struggling with finances because being a full-time student, division III athlete, and having a part-time job doesn't pay all that well and yet I have a higher maturity level than yourself (a self-proclaimed adult making loads of cash? doubtful). If you think I'm buying what you're selling, you're dead wrong. You are a shining example of my point, so please, keep the attacks coming. You're also a great example of why it pays not to believe everything posts on the internet, because I have serious doubts about any of the things you claim you have achieved. Your demeanor and maturity suggest they are not true. In fact, your behavior today has further justified my cause that you are a witless cyber-bully with no valid opinions. You are basically a high school bully with a better vocabulary. Congrats!
-
Doubt my professionalism all you want, but you're wasting your time in college if you can't wrap your head around these basics of rhetoric: avoid fallacious reasoning, avoid emotional appeals and allow your argument to stand on its own merits. I am not struggling financially and it's been almost ten years since college, but I can spot a poor rhetorician a mile away.
-
You're attacking my rhetoric while using slang and curses in your own? Google hypocrite. Also, I'm a biology major on a pre-med track so I'm really not overly concerned with how well I write on an internet forum. That being said, you aren't backing up any these claims with proof or citations of my poor rhetoric that you so adamantly bash. This is a forum where we post our OPINIONS on the game and debate our OPINIONS with the OPINIONS of others. Myself, and those who agree with me (the group as I was referring to when using "we"), believe these changes to be beneficial. We have given our reasoning for such, and those opposed have voiced their opinions why such changes would not be beneficial. You have done neither. You continue to make attacks with absolutely no support. As a college student your responses would yield no better than a "D" because you are not supporting your claims, only proclaiming them as truth. You have also responded to a comment within a thread without addressing the central debate of either, which is quite frankly, odd.
-
You keep doing it. There's no "we" here. You speak for yourself, noone else. Even if you were the metaphorical mouthpiece of the majority, any argument you made which relied on majority consensus to upgird its premises is, again, invalid by definition. You persist in perpetuating this error in post after post, perseverating to a degree that borders on malign obstinacy. It's preposterous, to be perfectly frank; perhaps even pompous.
