AS108 wrote:
Just stop, you’ve made yourself look like a fool end of. You posted ‘you claimed that stats such as’. That is you saying I used or said ‘stats such as’. Then you said I didn’t say stats such as. Quite clearly contradicting yourself. I think we’ll leave it there.
Are you really this dumb? When I used the term 'such as' it was in the context of it being one of several statistics you claimed were directly comparable. It didn't offer any mitigation to
your stance that they were/weren't directly comparible depending on which best suited your argument! Here, let explain context to you as you're clearly even more stupid than you first appear (doesn't seem possible, I know, but you keep providing the evidence):
If I said "I was running" you'd no doubt be able to picture a man running. If I said "my nose is running" it wouldn't mean my nose had suddenly donned little running shoes and was trotting round the block. In that context the word "running" had a different usage. Understand?
Similarly when I used "such as" in my sentence it didn't have the same meaning as it would had you used it. If
you'd used it, it would have meant that 'top try scorer' was one of a series of things needed to compare players from different teams (and, of course would have meant you were arguing against your own point). When
I used it, it was to illustrate it was one of several instances where you'd claimed individual statistics were directly comparable. Can you see how, in context, they have the opposite meaning and therefore you can't quote my use as if it has the same meaning as had you used it.
Are we getting there yet or are you still finding the English language confusing?
