What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?
The only one acting like a “moron” is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.
You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.
I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn’t that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
I never said anything about regulatory definition.
I did, and you’ve been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don’t get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don’t decide what my argument is just because the one I’m actually making is too hard for you to refute.
You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Projection in a nutshell.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
My feelings aren’t hurt, I’m simply pointing out that you apparently don’t have any good-faith arguments left because you’ve resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.
Listen, you don’t have a point anymore. If you had something to add other than a feeble attempt at contradiction then we could of had a lovely conversation. Your behavior is definitely an issue. Cheers!
What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?
The only one acting like a “moron” is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.
You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.
I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn’t that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
I did, and you’ve been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don’t get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don’t decide what my argument is just because the one I’m actually making is too hard for you to refute.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Projection in a nutshell.
My feelings aren’t hurt, I’m simply pointing out that you apparently don’t have any good-faith arguments left because you’ve resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.
Listen, you don’t have a point anymore. If you had something to add other than a feeble attempt at contradiction then we could of had a lovely conversation. Your behavior is definitely an issue. Cheers!
That’s great, real great. Now go find a mirror, look into it, and say that again, word-for-word.
Ohh wow, this kid pulls out I am rubber you are glue.
I wasn’t prepared for that. You win good sir!
People who rely on projection seem to have it so easy when they can just pull out the sarcastic “no u” as soon as they get called out on it.
This isn’t much different…
Still nothing to say, no surprise.
Yeah, you’re still talking about yourself. This conversation’s been at a dead end for a while now.