Chris Moses wrote:
I rest my case. If anyone else thinks that Mike has proved me wrong here, please clue me in. I don't see it. Unless he'd like to split hairs between "stupid" and "dumb" (they are listed as synonyms however, so that would be a pretty thin case).
Exactly why I brought up the definition for "imply". For what I said to have actually implied that Mochizuki was dumb, there could be no other reasonable explanation for the scenario that I presented. I do not feel that anyone could make that argument, there simply was not enough information available.
David Orange wrote:
Well, it seems to me he wasn't attacking your teacher, but you.
(grabbing the opening)
No, that's impossible, he doesn't do that sort of thing.
Tell us again, Chris.... what is it you study and who is your teacher that you're so worried about getting besmirched? Let me tell you something... I'm not the one damaging either your style or your teacher. Let me assure everyone of one fact.... if you argue simply the facts, right or wrong, you do well by yourself and whatever you do.
Whenever you argue someone else's personality, you always run the risk of having your own personality examined. OK, you asked for any disagreements with your misreading of a conditional statement.... you got it. At least a public one. Privately, I doubt you'd want to know. But enough of that.
Please do me a favor and answer at least ONE of the questions you've been asked to respond to and which you've ignored in favor of the personality stuff. Unless you have some compelling "koryu secrets" or unnamed teachers or you're safe in quoting vague compliments from Asian teacher you have met, no matter how briefly... how about doing a comment on how something is done or do an explicit and on-topic sequel-question on how something is done?