354 réponses à ce sujet

[Catamantaloedis]

If it was in response to me offering pizza, as I offered my horses, then yes.

[justafan]

IDK what all these posts about horses are about. But given the nature of the OP's other posts, I was pleasantly surprised that this one made a rather valid observation.

One could argue the Hunt for Saren, Haestrom, Suicide Mission, and the Geth Dreadnought missions as being suicidal to some degree (freedom's progress doesn't really count, as it was more of a standard recon mission gone wrong). Whether this makes her more qualified than Shepard I would have to disagree with. Shepard has lots of experience under his belt, and as much as I like Tali, like with Garrus, all her missions have a bad tendency to go horribly wrong (even though it is not her fault).

She is far more valuable as a teammate and confidant to Shepard than as a commander. Unless of course Shepard is of the Ruthless background and got almost everyone killed on the Suicide Mission. In which case anyone is more qualified than him.

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If it was in response to me offering pizza, as I offered my horses, then yes.

Nope.

[balance5050]

Spiderman.... Spiderman... he can do anything a spider can.

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I didn't use imply incorrectly at all.


It can be inferred FROM his statement that he would have sex with horses. However then statement itself does, in fact, imply that he would engage in sexual intercourse with a horse.

Yes, you did.

He implied with his statement that YOU engage in questionable equestrian activities.  You then INFERRED that he did as well.

One requires intent, the other does not.

His statement implies that he would have sex with a horse because he said that he did not want my "sloppy seconds". The implication being that he would have sex with one of my horses if it was a virgin.

Actually, his statement implies that he would NOT have sex with a horse (more specifically, any of YOUR horses).

You then have to make the inferrence that he might then have sex with other horses (he never states he would or wouldn't with any other horse).

(*Crosses off  "Teach someone about Reading Comprehension and Grammar" off of today's checklist...*)

[wsandista]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I didn't use imply incorrectly at all.


It can be inferred FROM his statement that he would have sex with horses. However then statement itself does, in fact, imply that he would engage in sexual intercourse with a horse.

Yes, you did.

He implied with his statement that YOU engage in questionable equestrian activities.  You then INFERRED that he did as well.

One requires intent, the other does not.

His statement implies that he would have sex with a horse because he said that he did not want my "sloppy seconds". The implication being that he would have sex with one of my horses if it was a virgin.

Actually, his statement implies that he would NOT have sex with a horse (more specifically, any of YOUR horses).

You then have to make the inferrence that he might then have sex with other horses (he never states he would or wouldn't with any other horse).

(*Crosses off  "Teach someone about Reading Comprehension and Grammar" off of today's checklist...*)

I wouldn't try logic with him. 5 year olds can't understand it.
*BROFIST

[Catamantaloedis]

His statement implies that he would not have sex with a horse if I had sex with it.

I can infer this from reading the statement. But the statement itself makes the implication.

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If it was in response to me offering pizza, as I offered my horses, then yes.

No, because there is nothing about his statement that means he "might" if certain conditions are met.  You are reading into his statement, hence why you INFER.

[Swimming Ferret]

Random Jerkface wrote...

That's more missions gone wrong, not suicide missions.

BOOM!

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

His statement implies that he would not have sex with a horse.

There you go, finally you get it right.

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

His statement implies that he would not have sex with a horse if I had sex with it.

I can infer this from reading the statement. But the statement itself makes the implication.

If he had said "I would only have sex  IF it weren't your sloppy seconds"  I would agree with you.

The only thing he told you was that he didn't want your sloppy seconds.  Meaning he didn't want your horses.
There is nothing implicating him in equestrian fornication, other than your INFERENCE that he MIGHT if they were unsoiled.

[Catamantaloedis]

Imply. According to Collins English dictionary:

3. (logic) To enable a conclusion to be inferred

http://dictionary.re...rowse/Imply?s=t


Now admit you are wrong.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 30 mai 2012 - 05:12 .

[linkblade0]

wsandista wrote...

linkblade0 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

linkblade0 wrote...

Enough with the horses please. We need new material

Dolphins?

Very well good sir

*Edit: Nevermind, the horses may continue

AND SO THEY SHALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



BTW moderators, this is NOT porn.

I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes straight after seeing this

[Dark_Caduceus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...
You know what guys? I've been so immature and pigheaded throughout this entire thread; and I'm truly sorry.

Well, nice to know you manned up in the end.

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Imply: according to Collins English dictionary

3(logic) To enable a conclusion to be inferred

http://dictionary.re...rowse/Imply?s=t


Now admit you are wrong.

Read my post above this one.
He doesn't "enable" anything.
So I am not wrong.

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Imply. According to Collins English dictionary:

3. (logic) To enable a conclusion to be inferred

http://dictionary.re...rowse/Imply?s=t


Now admit you are wrong.

You made an assumption. You did not correctly imply anything.

You should get some sleep. I think it is past your bedtime.

[Catamantaloedis]

Inferring, which you say I am doing, is in the very definition of imply, but okay

Someone obviously doesn't like to admit when they are wrong.

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Inferring, which you say I am doing, is in the very definition of imply, but okay

Someone obviously doesn't like to admit when they are wrong.

No, like I said earlier, to "IMPLY" requires INTENT.
Big Difference.

[Catamantaloedis]

wsandista wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Imply. According to Collins English dictionary:

3. (logic) To enable a conclusion to be inferred

http://dictionary.re...rowse/Imply?s=t


Now admit you are wrong.

You made an assumption. You did not correctly imply anything.

You should get some sleep. I think it is past your bedtime.

Why would I imply anything? I didn't make the statement.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Okay guys, I can admit it; I was incorrectly using the word "imply", thanks for clearing it up..

Wow, you've done a real 180!

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 30 mai 2012 - 05:15 .

[wsandista]

linkblade0 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

linkblade0 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

linkblade0 wrote...

Enough with the horses please. We need new material

Dolphins?

Very well good sir

*Edit: Nevermind, the horses may continue

AND SO THEY SHALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



BTW moderators, this is NOT porn.

I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes straight after seeing this

Me neither. This is epic.

[Catamantaloedis]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Inferring, which you say I am doing, is in the very definition of imply, but okay

Someone obviously doesn't like to admit when they are wrong.

No, like I said earlier, to "IMPLY" requires INTENT.
Big Difference.

Should I listen to you, or a dictionary which makes no mention of intention?

Its difficult.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Inferring, which you say I am doing, is in the very definition of imply, but okay

Someone obviously doesn't like to admit when they are wrong.

No, like I said earlier, to "IMPLY" requires INTENT.
Big Difference.

Oh, I get it now. So an implication requires intent... makes sense.

Now you're getting a hang of it!

[Sisterofshane]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Inferring, which you say I am doing, is in the very definition of imply, but okay

Someone obviously doesn't like to admit when they are wrong.

No, like I said earlier, to "IMPLY" requires INTENT.
Big Difference.

Should I listen to you, or a dictionary which makes no mention of intention?

Its difficult.

The word "enable" within the definition is the synonym for "intent".  If you had actually read it, then you wouldn't be having such a hard time.

[wsandista]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I am a moron who doesn't know how to correctly use words.

Finally you admit the truth.