Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:56 am
Alec Baldwin was tried in a court of justice, which means evidence was presented, witnesses took the stand, arguments were made and then he was acquitted. End of story.
Yes, but we have the advantage of not being there in court, and not being aware of all the evidence, which puts us in a far better position to arrive at a proper verdict.
A very funny response, but shouldn't we...like...take note...of the clarity of AS's first couple of sentences in that post? How out of the mists the figure of a well-defined assertion stepped forward?
What is it about the Alec Baldmin case that elicited such a rhetoric-free lack of ambiguity and creativity from Agent Smith?
Sometimes opportunities like this knock only once.
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:56 am
Alec Baldwin was tried in a court of justice, which means evidence was presented, witnesses took the stand, arguments were made and then he was acquitted. End of story.
Yes, but we have the advantage of not being there in court, and not being aware of all the evidence, which puts us in a far better position to arrive at a proper verdict.
You have a point! The tree in my sister's compound agrees with ya.
Last edited by Agent Smith on Tue May 02, 2023 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:56 am
Alec Baldwin was tried in a court of justice, which means evidence was presented, witnesses took the stand, arguments were made and then he was acquitted. End of story.
Yes, but we have the advantage of not being there in court, and not being aware of all the evidence, which puts us in a far better position to arrive at a proper verdict.
A very funny response, but shouldn't we...like...take note...of the clarity of AS's first couple of sentences in that post? How out of the mists the figure of a well-defined assertion stepped forward?
What is it about the Alec Baldmin case that elicited such a rhetoric-free lack of ambiguity and creativity from Agent Smith?
Sometimes opportunities like this knock only once.
But the first sentence of "agent smith" here included the 'evidence' word, and this could be one of the most ambiguous words, which existed in the days when this is being written. That sentence also includes the 'argument' word, which can also be a VERY ambiguous word.
Furthermore, that sentence says that "alex baldwin" was acquitted, which some might misconstrue as that meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually NOT guilty, which is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
Yes, but we have the advantage of not being there in court, and not being aware of all the evidence, which puts us in a far better position to arrive at a proper verdict.
A very funny response, but shouldn't we...like...take note...of the clarity of AS's first couple of sentences in that post? How out of the mists the figure of a well-defined assertion stepped forward?
What is it about the Alec Baldmin case that elicited such a rhetoric-free lack of ambiguity and creativity from Agent Smith?
Sometimes opportunities like this knock only once.
But the first sentence of "agent smith" here included the 'evidence' word, and this could be one of the most ambiguous words, which existed in the days when this is being written. That sentence also includes the 'argument' word, which can also be a VERY ambiguous word.
Furthermore, that sentence says that "alex baldwin" was acquitted, which some might misconstrue as that meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually NOT guilty, which is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
Very good points age. Furthermore, if someone were reading your post, someone might skip over the word NOT, even though you took great care to capitalize it, and think that you said "meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually guilty", which of course is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
In fact it seems as if the ways someone could misunderstand just about anything written here are bordering on infinite!
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:13 am
A very funny response, but shouldn't we...like...take note...of the clarity of AS's first couple of sentences in that post? How out of the mists the figure of a well-defined assertion stepped forward?
What is it about the Alec Baldmin case that elicited such a rhetoric-free lack of ambiguity and creativity from Agent Smith?
Sometimes opportunities like this knock only once.
It was just my way of agreeing with what I took Agent Smith's comment to mean.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:13 am
A very funny response, but shouldn't we...like...take note...of the clarity of AS's first couple of sentences in that post? How out of the mists the figure of a well-defined assertion stepped forward?
What is it about the Alec Baldmin case that elicited such a rhetoric-free lack of ambiguity and creativity from Agent Smith?
Sometimes opportunities like this knock only once.
But the first sentence of "agent smith" here included the 'evidence' word, and this could be one of the most ambiguous words, which existed in the days when this is being written. That sentence also includes the 'argument' word, which can also be a VERY ambiguous word.
Furthermore, that sentence says that "alex baldwin" was acquitted, which some might misconstrue as that meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually NOT guilty, which is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
Very good points age. Furthermore, if someone were reading your post, someone might skip over the word NOT, even though you took great care to capitalize it, and think that you said "meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually guilty", which of course is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
In fact it seems as if the ways someone could misunderstand just about anything written here are bordering on infinite!
Seriously?
If your apparant quoting of Age is not falsified, Age was merely pointing out the versatility of Agent Smith's. So, for you, Flannel Jesus, to then adminster Old Testament justice on Age and his post....
I'm aghast.
Fortunately both of your intents and acts are thoroughly ambiguous. I am making a conscious decision to, from this moment forward, view this series of posts as praising each other in the William Empson tradition. Consider me on team generative...
But the first sentence of "agent smith" here included the 'evidence' word, and this could be one of the most ambiguous words, which existed in the days when this is being written. That sentence also includes the 'argument' word, which can also be a VERY ambiguous word.
Furthermore, that sentence says that "alex baldwin" was acquitted, which some might misconstrue as that meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually NOT guilty, which is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
Very good points age. Furthermore, if someone were reading your post, someone might skip over the word NOT, even though you took great care to capitalize it, and think that you said "meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually guilty", which of course is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
In fact it seems as if the ways someone could misunderstand just about anything written here are bordering on infinite!
Seriously?
If your apparant quoting of Age is not falsified, Age was merely pointing out the versatility of Agent Smith's. So, for you, Flannel Jesus, to then adminster Old Testament justice on Age and his post....
I'm aghast.
Fortunately both of your intents and acts are thoroughly ambiguous. I am making a conscious decision to, from this moment forward, view this series of posts as praising each other in the William Empson tradition. Consider me on team generative...
But the first sentence of "agent smith" here included the 'evidence' word, and this could be one of the most ambiguous words, which existed in the days when this is being written. That sentence also includes the 'argument' word, which can also be a VERY ambiguous word.
Furthermore, that sentence says that "alex baldwin" was acquitted, which some might misconstrue as that meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually NOT guilty, which is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
Very good points age. Furthermore, if someone were reading your post, someone might skip over the word NOT, even though you took great care to capitalize it, and think that you said "meaning that "alec baldwin" was actually guilty", which of course is OBVIOUSLY VERY False.
In fact it seems as if the ways someone could misunderstand just about anything written here are bordering on infinite!
Seriously?
If your apparant quoting of Age is not falsified, Age was merely pointing out the versatility of Agent Smith's. So, for you, Flannel Jesus, to then adminster Old Testament justice on Age and his post....
I'm aghast.
Fortunately both of your intents and acts are thoroughly ambiguous. I am making a conscious decision to, from this moment forward, view this series of posts as praising each other in the William Empson tradition. Consider me on team generative...
This post, and even thread, is now further PROOF of the statement;
In fact it seems as if the ways someone could misunderstand just about anything written here are bordering on infinite!
And, as I have been continually POINTING OUT and SAYING here, in this forum, it is ONLY through OBTAINING CLARIFICATION, and/or CLARITY, that MISUNDERSTANDING DIMINISHES and UNDERSTANDING PREVAILS.
Hehe!