Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize you had gone all the way back to the beginning of this and had abandoned the fact that you keep projecting onto me.
It had nothing to do with me not liking your answer, but pointing out the glaring logical flaws of it. But I don’t have any different response to logically fallacious arguments.
So the “glaring logical flaw” in me suggesting that Olympic shooting must be easier than whatever other form of competitive shooting op was talking about because it’s “boring as hell” was that I was projecting my opinion onto you? Even though you weren’t part of the discussion yet? Huh?
So the “glaring logical flaw” in me suggesting that Olympic shooting must be easier than whatever other form of competitive shooting op was talking about because it’s “boring as hell” was that I was projecting my opinion onto you?
No, I explained it to you. But you don’t like the explanation. It’s like you were warning me.
All you ever said was that I was projecting, which was not a critique of my logic but of my delivery of the explanation of the logic. You haven’t actually addressed my point in any of these comments.
Incorrect. I admitted I was wrong here and made another argument. However, in your previous post you said “all I did” was say that you were projecting. Now “all I’ve done” is something completely different. Maybe you should stop trying to cherry pick parts of my argument as “all I did” and address my actual points.
Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize you had gone all the way back to the beginning of this and had abandoned the fact that you keep projecting onto me.
It had nothing to do with me not liking your answer, but pointing out the glaring logical flaws of it. But I don’t have any different response to logically fallacious arguments.
So the “glaring logical flaw” in me suggesting that Olympic shooting must be easier than whatever other form of competitive shooting op was talking about because it’s “boring as hell” was that I was projecting my opinion onto you? Even though you weren’t part of the discussion yet? Huh?
No, I explained it to you. But you don’t like the explanation. It’s like you were warning me.
All you ever said was that I was projecting, which was not a critique of my logic but of my delivery of the explanation of the logic. You haven’t actually addressed my point in any of these comments.
Incorrect. Feel free to go back to the beginning, which you’ve already done, and reread my dismantling of your garbage logic.
You just ignored it and started whining about how your strawmen and projection was actually my fault.
All you did was misunderstand the word “should” and then cry "projection,’ neither of which addressed my actual argument in the slightest.
Incorrect. I admitted I was wrong here and made another argument. However, in your previous post you said “all I did” was say that you were projecting. Now “all I’ve done” is something completely different. Maybe you should stop trying to cherry pick parts of my argument as “all I did” and address my actual points.
Make a point and I’ll address it.