Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
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):
Is a perfect example why this definition:
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.
|
Why would I bother to respond to every little twist you try to throw out?
Let's see now, you try to throw up straw men then claim that I went out of my way to set myself up to be misinterpreted? Maybe you need to look in a mirror and ask yourself why you spent so much effort hurling yourself at a conclusion about what I meant without confirming it one way or the other.
I think that my first post was quite clear. I questioned if the Nobel prize was the most important event in literature [note that I did not say it was not, I questioned if it was. A very deliberate distinction]. Then I gave two examples of why it didn't appear to be. I was not trying to write a thesis or build a case, I was simply questioning if a statement was true or not.
Perhaps a more productive tact might be simply to say why you think that it is indeed the most important event in literature, if that is what you think, and engage in a discussion, rather than go into standard internet attack mode.