Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Yep, your thinking is way out of line. Those were merely the first two rationals that popped in my mind, certainly not the two most important rationals in forming my opinion. They are both observational.
|
Thank you for confirming. Your idea of prioritizing and way of thinking is indeed difficult to rationalize.
It almost looks like... Wait, let me rephrase that. I
suspect that you are often times setting yourself up to be misinterpreted. It blends in perfectly with cherry picking. You are upset that I used the term? And you even throw a definition in my direction. One I was aware of in meaning, not necessarily in your wording. What I said here, which you also quoted, but didn't respond to (bold added for emphasis):
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
Why, oh why, did you have to drag Bob Dylan into the spotlight and ignore last years scandal? That, in my humble opinion, did a whole lot more damage than both your prime reasons combined. You would unfortunately also have to admit that last year's events gave a good beginning to start reparations of lost trust and reputation in the Nobel Prize as it was intended to be.
|
Is a perfect example why this definition:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Cherry picked is a term used when someone ignores facts that doesn't match a thesis. Since no one has put out any facts at all, how can I be cherry picking? We are talking opinions, not facts. Using the term in that manner renders it meaningless.
|
Applies. It will take time to fix it, but it is against your wishes if you don't want the Nobel Prize to (re)gain importance.