You seem to have trouble reading English, so I'll point out that my original post did not call you stupid, it simply stated the irony of you making an english mistake in the same post you were mocking another for their mistake.
You seem to ignore even the things that you say so I'll highlight some to you.
My later posts then did call you stupid, based on your numerous postings in this thread, and so far my assumption has proved quite accurate. Anyone who resorts to using either spelling/grammatical errors or resorts to the UAI = intelligence debate, as the basis for their arguement clearly possesses infearior logic skills and thus appears quite foolish.
Using spelling/grammatical errors as a basis for argument is at the same level as saying that someone is stupid because their posts are apparently not fluent enough. Oh by the way, there is such a thing as an implication. You have clearly inferred my level of intelligence from my 'non-easy to read sentences.' Since you have used a variation of spelling/grammatical errors as a basis for your argument then you "clearly possess the inferior logic skills" which you speak of. Remember the following? It shows that you did in fact use the 'logic' that I referred to.
NonExistant said:
I see higher school English didn't teach you how to construct fluent and easy to read sentences. Instead it simply taught you to be opinionated and construct largely irrelevant arguements, as a cover up for your stupidity.
Again, I have simply used
variations of the comments you have made, and even you think such comments are stupid. So why don't you realise how senseless your original comments were?
You will also note that I never brought up the UAI = intelligence point, YOU were the first one to bring that up. I merely pointed out how it was stupid to call someone's UAI "crap" when you infact posess a far lower UAI than it.
Maybe you should take your own advice and read other people's posts properly. Whether or not you brought up the UAI argument, is irrelevant. The UAI reference only provided a context. The whole point with the UAI argument is that a
single observation is used to 'deduce' another person's level of intelligence. I deliberately used it to highlight how senseless it was for you to make reference to my level of intelligence from a single observation.
In any case the UAI argument(whether or not it is relevant to this topic) is a more solid argument as it assesses a student's ability over at least an entire year during which the student has very reasonable control over their final scores. Reiterating that point, an entire
year to prove themselves. On the other hand, one or two posts? What's that? A couple of minutes? Again, for those who can't read between the lines. This paragraph is a side issue and you should read other parts of my post before being "foolish" and taking it out of context.
Anyhow, I'm sure you enjoyed your 4000 units of english, arts, drama, ect. I'd love to see what job you'll end up in with those "skills".
I love how you assume that I did "4000 units of english, arts, drama, etc" simply because I got a decent score in HS english. Yet again you have passed judgment on another person based on a single observation. FYI I did 2 maths, physics and chemistry as well, in HS. I'm not doing an arts course either. Look in my profile to see which course I'm doing if you wish to, but it's a
real course. Maybe next time you should at least make the effort to find out a bit more about what you're talking about before making some more ridiculous assumptions.
Asylum - others wish to pass judgment on me. I prefer not to just accept their incorrect assumptions.
