Clones usual reply when not able to produce a more intelligible
reply. Instead of constructive discussion over the overall topic at
hand, you choose to focus on a small and unimportant part of his
post, taking it way out of context and choosing to nitpick trivial
details instead.
Not on anyone's side, but despite you all saying this and that
about parn, the fact remains you guys seem to be fascinated with
his posts, and regardless of the barrage of insults and criticism
you all hurl at him, you all still come back for more. Shows how
much you're secretly fascinated with him, huh.
So how do you define clones?
This is not nitpicking. If you want to use a bad analogy for
your topic, you jolly well take responsibility for the bad
analogy.
Since you want to act intellectual, I give you a
chance. Please tell me
1) how pointing out the bad analogy by parn isn't to the topic
since the analogy is being used as a supporting point?
2) why is it that the main analogy, being used as a point of
support, is a trivial detail, and only a small and unimportant
part?
3) how this post of yours is related to this topic at all?
Give a bad analogy in a paper and you will be penalised
like mad. And you are telling me that this is trivial????
Bottomline: She should have chosen a better analogy.
