Ohio Chatter DEV

BR1986FB

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?

Sorry...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to queencitybuckeye again.

BR1986FB

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.

Discussion is encouraged. Being an abrasive asshole? Not so much....

queencitybuckeye

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'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 ...

Me?

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?

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.

BR1986FB

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 !

queencitybuckeye

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.

Then what's his number? You DO understand that's what "quantifiable" means, correct?

justincredible

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 !

Wat?

Me?

queencitybuckeye;1541335 wrote:Then what's his number? You DO understand that's what "quantifiable" means, correct?

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.

thavoice

justincredible;1541338 wrote:Wat?

Little wager.
Steelers win, BR gone forever.
Browns win. I am gone forever.

justincredible

thavoice;1541350 wrote:Little wager.
Steelers win, BR gone forever.
Browns win. I am gone forever.

That's a really dumb bet.

Mulva

What if they tie?

Sonofanump

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.

I predict that you will "leave" and "come back" multiple times.

Word association: Gibby is to Ty Webb as SQ is to __________?

SportsAndLady

Mulva;1541354 wrote:What if they tie?

Then Me? Is SQ

queencitybuckeye

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.

Yes, the discussion does tend to deteriorate when someone uses a word without knowing what it means.

Heretic

Mulva;1541354 wrote:What if they tie?

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.

Sonofanump

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.

Unless it is at a restaurant and someone mouths off to his spouse.

said_aouita