--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Hi Curtis, yep, that's why I didn't reply to Judy's response- life > > is too short. I have always found that you write in a clear and > > unequivocal way, and I saw that with your original post about > > 'angry wisdom'/road rage, that it came off to me as witty and fun. > > Nothing 'exceptionally dishonest' about it- where *that* coloring > > came from I don't know...and don't *want* to know... > > That's the problem, you *don't want to know*. > > "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." > Facts?
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a fact as such: 1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION -This doesn't fit what we are discussing, which is *your intepretation* of someone else's post, so this definition doesn't go far enough in establishing that you have facts to share. 2 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence> -Your interpretation of the post(s) may be actual, and again it might not. This definition doesn't establish your "facts" either. 3 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> -same situation as that covered in definition #2. 4 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality - in fact : in truth -yours is a *subjective* presentation of the truth as you see it. So this definition of a fact also doesn't conform to "facts", as you are using the term. So you are not referring to my lack of interest in knowing the facts of the discourse between you and Curtis, but rather my lack of interest in knowing your interpretation of the the discourse between you and Curtis. Your stance here is entirely subjective, not factual as you claim.
