Are you doing an illustrative example or are you stating facts, or both?

For example,

those numbers are made up, but they do illustrate a general example of what "disproportionate" means.

When I said "I straight up thought this was Chillrob" I meant that as I scrolled up I saw an actual dog post and it took me a brief second to realize that it was not Chillrob. I won't go so far as to say that should've been obvious, but, reasonably non-babybrains ask for clarification when something is unclear, sometimes.

I'm starting to suspect that you might not actually be Albert Einstein.

Wait,

is Chillrob BFFs with Albert Einstein and got him on the line to provide an example of what "disproportionate" means?

You are grossly ignorant of the fact that your posting is not, in fact,

Have you considered the possibility that your writing is extraordinarily poor?

ya but what determines a "pit bull"? is it one drop?

Maybe we should ban people from owning any pets that can kill a grown man in a one on one fight.

I meant that specific post, the one you first referenced, in general. I assumed that would make it easier for you to explain. My bad.

I swear I do not know what level you are on.

I recognize that following the thread is difficult for you, but that was a quote from that specific post:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=4517

Neither your gif, nor that post as a whole, was “compelling.”

Except I didn't misread anything and have no idea what you think I misread.

BTW, no one else has any idea what you are talking about either.

Either you are less intelligent than everyone else, or you are so far above everyone else that no one can ever possibly understand your genius.

Either way your posts here are pointless, and if you're smarter than everyone else it seems like you would have figured that out by now.

Damn, you really are an idiot or deliberately trying to sound like one.

I wasn't talking about any links, I was talking about the points made by the person in the words he typed himself in the post.

A person’s ability to communicate via the written word is certainly one marker by which intelligence can be inferred. Based upon that, I think most here are safe in drawing conclusions as to which of your two hypotheses is correct.

Yes, of course, specifically and generally. "Extraordinarily poor" would obviously be an overstatement in general, but in specific contexts, sure.

For example, the more mastery a person has over a topic, the easier it becomes for that person to explain that topic to other people of any level, such as children or people with child brains. This doesn't follow some sort of linear relationship but it's reasonable guideline. So, every time I pause and ponder how to explain something, I always wonder if might not have the mastery over the topic like I thought. When I feel I'm having trouble dumbing things down enough, that's a reflection of my own personal shortcomings.

And even better example might be trying to explain to people that they're functionally illiterate and can't seem to process written words and simple sentences, by using written words and simple sentences. That might seem to be an obvious paradox, but it could be that I'm simply not good enough.

Fascinating. You have constructed quite the complex explanation for why you constantly fail so completely to communicate effectively. The simplest explanation of course, is simply that you do not possess the “mastery” that you think you do. Of course, that comes down to the aforementioned lack of self-awareness that you also continue to fail to comprehend. A paradox indeed.

No, I followed completely, which is why I apologized for confusing you and gave you the offer to drop it.

"Your posting" refers to a largely undefined set of all posts. It does not refer to the specific post we were talking about, even if you're subjectively including the specific post in the larger set. If you simply brainfarted and mistyped, that's fine.

More importantly, it doesn't seem to pinpoint what I said was compelling about the post. I'm sure it was very uncompelling for many different things I did not say. This is why I asked for clarification.

If you think me using a reaction gif of a cartoon character saying "haha oh wow" does not compellingly show that I was, in fact, feeling a "haha oh wow" sort of feeling, then fair.

Here:

They weren't my photos, nor were they my numbers. I posted them because I thought they were ridiculous and shouldn't be used. As in, the opposite reason you inferred. This is, I think, the 3rd time I explained this.

Here's a pop quiz:



What is the significance of me screenshotting those names?

Of course they do.

There's a whole forum following along, laughing and marveling:



If one good thing comes from this thread, it will be you babybrain pussies learning a tough and long overdue lesson about the potential frailty of ingroup-outgroup dynamics and othering. When the rubber meets the road the only person you can ever really count on is yourself.

Me: I might not possess the mastery that I think I do.

Albert Einstein: You might not possess the mastery that you think you do. Because you lack self-awareness.


haha Albert hot DAMN these waters are getting CHOPPY boy this sailing is getting ROUGH

You clearly used those numbers to show that the yearly number of animals killed by dogs were only roughly 10% of the number someone else estimated. If you thought the numbers were incorrect, you could not be refuting him.

No one else had brought up those numbers recently, so there would be no other reason for you to quote them.

It matters not in the least who originally posted, or who counted the dead animals. They were "your numbers" because you posted them. Everyone else in this forum understood that, and so did you.

You later just didn't like me turning the same numbers on you, so you made up a completely different reason for posting them, which in context makes so little sense that even you couldn't have possibly been doing what you now claim.

You aren't fooling anyone here. No matter how many times you 'explain' it, it won't change anyone's minds. It is not that we don't understand, it's that we know you are lying.

Does this mean you know everyone is laughing at you?

If you think someone other than you is laughing at me (or anyone else here), please let us know which user that is.

Fake quote. If you really said this, you would have quoted an actual post.

BRUH WATAFAK R U TALKING ABOUT

Ugh. Points made while arguing have nothing to do with lack of imagination limiting one's ability to process new information. Never mind.

Well, it wasn't meant to be a quote. It's a paraphrased mock conversation.

But also: