Crafting is well and truely ****** in BoL

You're purposefully obtuse. If you can't figure out the Charlie Brown symbolism, that's on you. I'm going to give an example of why your opinion means very little. When the food/drink buff stripping and removal of harvest descriptions happened you made the comment, and I'm paraphrasing, that the food/drink was not a bug, it was intentional, and it should be removed from the bug forums and then said that the harvest issue was "most likely" a bug. We see how that turned out.

Every post you make is full of whataboutism, apples to oranges comparisons, a half dozen different fallacies, and unadulterated rose colored glasses. That's at best, at worst you're just a Great Value brand troll.

You textually reek of impotence.

 

Wait. WHAT?!? And "bubble gnome" is not a reference to an us-them dichotomy or friend-enemy distinction?

Cognitive dissonance here for sure....

 

As the kids say, "Little dick energy."

 

I wish I had a salt emoji. It's much more modern than Charlie Brown youtube videos.

 

I better back down before Zynt goes berserk....

 

Zynt is quite willing to listen to logic, even if upset. But you must supply logic, not opinions.

 

That rule applies to many on this forum.

Many conspiracy theories, little logic....

 

You're still not getting it. The term "Bubble Gnome" describes a type of person. It is neutral with respect to friend/enemy status.

Also, please stop throwing around the term cognitive dissonance until you understand what it means.

 

That, of course, is your opinion. NOT FACTS!

 

Incorrect. I've seen "bubble gnome" used in ways as a reference to us (EQ2Wire forums) and them (OF forums).

And don't try to pull some Jungian archetype crap on here. I've seen the "bubble gnome" usage on multiple occasions as a dichotomy.

I've studied social psychology and even the specifics of us-them/friend-enemy dichotomy (Carl Schmitt, Martin Buber). This knowledge is used in negotiation and mediation. I know my terms.

 

Back at you.

 

Ask for your money back.

 

That is your opinion. I never said mine was facts. You assumed that. You remind me of the joke about Circular Definition: See Circular Definition.

 

Here is Gillymann the self-confessed expert mathematician (a.k.a. expert on "statistical reasoning") daring to lecture me on a field he has never before professed expertise on. What are you going to tell me next?

 

Funny that whomever claims "circular reasoning" first gets the commanding heights in a debate...

 

Back in December 2018, I told you that 'The Great Courses' don't count as expertise.

 

Already answered. Use search.

 

Nice pivot.

 

If I watch 100 hours of The Atheist Experience and a few of Bart Ehrman's talks can I then declare myself an expert on the Bible?

What if I throw in 20 minutes of frantic wiki searches?

I just want to know what to shoot for here.

 

You've just described Gillymann.

He probably watched 100 hours of Big Bang Theory to understand statistical reasoning. There was literally no academic journal/article online to highlight the distinction between "statistical analysis" and "statistical reasoning."