Sorry...queencitybuckeye;1541324 wrote:Saying that good music, something that is the very definition of subjective, is quantifiable could reasonably be considered a meltdown. Why else would someone post something so obviously incorrect?
Discussion is encouraged. Being an abrasive asshole? Not so much....Me?;1541327 wrote:Alright, so now that I'm aware that discussion is in fact discouraged on this internet based discussion forum, I see why SQ probably wanted to leave.
It's strange, I've never seen someone who is really smart have to convince others of that fact. Of course he could be the first, or ...Heretic;1541319 wrote:If there's one thing I've noticed more than anything that makes it easy to compare the two, it's the same sort of "I'm through with this argument because you're not intelligent enough to see the facts" (with the "facts" being his opinion on the matter) sort of way he handles disagreements.
At the very least, they have the same viewpoints and same way of handling people disagreeing with them.
It has nothing to do with what someone's opinion of good music is. You're the one who obviously isn't following the conversation. ABILITY is quantifiable. Here is a perfect example: John Mayer--I'm sure a lot of dudes here hate his music. But if you want to take that opinion and use it as a basis to say that he isn't one of the all time greats on guitar, then you're an idiot. His ABILITY is quantifiable, whether you like what he does with it or not.queencitybuckeye;1541324 wrote:Saying that good music, something that is the very definition of subjective, is quantifiable could reasonably be considered a meltdown. Why else would someone post something so obviously incorrect?
Then what's his number? You DO understand that's what "quantifiable" means, correct?Me?;1541331 wrote:It has nothing to do with what someone's opinion of good music is. You're the one who obviously isn't following the conversation. ABILITY is quantifiable. Here is a perfect example: John Mayer--I'm sure a lot of dudes here hate his music. But if you want to take that opinion and use it as a basis to say that he isn't one of the all time greats on guitar, then you're an idiot. His ABILITY is quantifiable, whether you like what he does with it or not.
Wat?BR1986FB;1541336 wrote:You folks have a good weekend. I'm out of here. Browns win, I'm back on Monday. Browns lose, well....it's been fun !
Oh...ok. So now we're going to get into semantics...therefore I'm going to walk away from the discussion. Of course this means that I'm currently having a meltdown. Which CLEARLY also means that I'm SQ. When in reality, it just means that I don't care to waste more of my time talking in circles once a conversation deteriorates to a certain point. Once you start holding someone to the strict Websters definition of a word when you know exactly what they meant and in what context they used the word (especially when it's used in a way that is widely used) because you can no longer argue against the bigger point, the conversation should just end or we're just wasting our precious time. But hey everyone, apparently rational thinking is considered a meltdown around here.queencitybuckeye;1541335 wrote:Then what's his number? You DO understand that's what "quantifiable" means, correct?
Little wager.justincredible;1541338 wrote:Wat?
That's a really dumb bet.thavoice;1541350 wrote:Little wager.
Steelers win, BR gone forever.
Browns win. I am gone forever.
I predict that you will "leave" and "come back" multiple times.Me?;1541327 wrote:Alright, so now that I'm aware that discussion is in fact discouraged on this internet based discussion forum, I see why SQ probably wanted to leave.
Then Me? Is SQMulva;1541354 wrote:What if they tie?
Yes, the discussion does tend to deteriorate when someone uses a word without knowing what it means.Me?;1541346 wrote:Oh...ok. So now we're going to get into semantics...therefore I'm going to walk away from the discussion. Of course this means that I'm currently having a meltdown. Which CLEARLY also means that I'm SQ. When in reality, it just means that I don't care to waste more of my time talking in circles once a conversation deteriorates to a certain point. Once you start holding someone to the strict Websters definition of a word when you know exactly what they meant and in what context they used the word (especially when it's used in a way that is widely used) because you can no longer argue against the bigger point, the conversation should just end or we're just wasting our precious time. But hey everyone, apparently rational thinking is considered a meltdown around here.
Then it's a steel cage deathmatch. Given BR's previous occupation as a pro wrestler and how he's been a big part of the backbone of our main fitness/nutrition threads, this could turn out badly for thavoice.Mulva;1541354 wrote:What if they tie?
Unless it is at a restaurant and someone mouths off to his spouse.Heretic;1541373 wrote:Then it's a steel cage deathmatch. Given BR's previous occupation as a pro wrestler and how he's been a big part of the backbone of our main fitness/nutrition threads, this could turn out badly for thavoice.
That's true.Me?;1541294 wrote: The level of conversation is somewhere between absurd and retarded from my short experience.
Me?;1541273 wrote:Ok, you guys can keep going around in circles. Does anyone have any concrete evidence?
Gonna lose 5% of your posters either way.justincredible;1541351 wrote:That's a really dumb bet.
