Hand gun vs Chemical Weapon :: World of Warcraft

Quote Reply

#177 Dec 14 2012 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Gbaji wrote:

Sure. But defining the intended target area in such a way so as to account for the inaccuracy of the weapon somewhat defeats the purpose of using a word like "accurate" in the first place.

Except that isn't the case. I'm not denying that there aren't any inaccurate WMD. There exists inaccurate forms of every weapon. An accurate weapon can become less accurate with distance along with other factors, such as weather or over usage. In any case, you can't keep making up false statistics to fictional weapons in your defense of their "inaccuracy".

Gbaji wrote:

I could go to a shooting range and decide that the entire piece of target paper is my target and thus declare my shooting to be 100% accurate. But that's a useless declaration isn't it? We usually want to know how close to the center of the target each shot got and use that to determine accuracy.

And your declaration of accuracy is considered amateurish to a professional. If your goal was to neutralize a moving vehicle, then not neutralizing the car is considered "inaccurate". It doesn't matter if you hit the tire, the fuel tank, the driver or a completely different object resulting as a blockade, a hit would be seen as an accurate shot. You can't declare accuracy without knowing the intent of the person.

Gbaji wrote:

That same method is used to determine accuracy for any sort of projectile weapon. Yes, even those with large radius effects will still have a center of the effect and a center of the targeted area. The closer to the center of the target area, the more "accurate" the weapon delivery was (and the more likely we're going to contain the effect to just the area we wanted to hit).

Read above. Likewise, unless you know what that center of target was, then you can't declare it's accuracy.

Gbaji wrote:

Handwaving away the fact that my rocket hit 200M to the left of the center of the target because the payload has a 300M radius isn't sufficient in this case. Presumably that spot I selected as the center of my target area was chosen because it's... wait for it... at the center of the area I want to target.

That's exactly what I said. Why are you still trying to Jedi your point across as something different?

Gbaji wrote:

Accuracy in this context is always about getting the center of the projectile as close to the center of the target as possible. That's it. Don't over complicate things.

It's been very simple from the beginning. You're just tap dancing around your point because you know it isn't valid.

I set a bomb INSIDE a building (CENTER of the target) or I drop a bomb/missile/projectile directly above a building (CENTER of the target) and nuclear radiation/gas/chemical agents/etc affects the desired range and people. The weapon was accurate.

You can't throw bullets and claim that guns aren't accurate

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 3:26pm by Almalieque

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#178 Dec 15 2012 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Smasharoo wrote:

She's saying she likes to sex the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to sex uneducated hobos.

You're made for one another!

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#179 Dec 17 2012 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Smasharoo wrote:

She's saying she likes to sex the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to sex uneducated hobos.

You're made for one another!

And for hobos.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#180 Dec 17 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

lolgaxe wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

Smasharoo wrote:

She's saying she likes to sex the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to sex uneducated hobos.

You're made for one another!

And for hobos.

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#181 Dec 17 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Decent

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.

The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#182 Dec 17 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

Smasharoo wrote:

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.

The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"

I take it you'll tell her about the birds and the bum-blebees when she's older.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 1:08pm by Timelordwho

____________________________

Just as Planned.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#183 Dec 17 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent

someproteinguy

Meat Popsicle

13,666 posts

Timelordwho wrote:

Smasharoo wrote:

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.

The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"

I take it you'll tell her where all the hobos went when she's older.

Smart move, no one should have to learn about Cleveland at a young age.

____________________________

That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#184 Dec 17 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

Putting a chemical weapon payload on the exact same rocket does not make the rocket any more accurate. It does, however, make the weapon as a whole more effective. Why? Because due to the properties of a chemical weapons payload it does not need to be as accurate to be effective.

Please tell me you get this.

Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...

Almalieque wrote:

And your declaration of accuracy is considered amateurish to a professional. If your goal was to neutralize a moving vehicle, then not neutralizing the car is considered "inaccurate". It doesn't matter if you hit the tire, the fuel tank, the driver or a completely different object resulting as a blockade, a hit would be seen as an accurate shot. You can't declare accuracy without knowing the intent of the person.

I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#185 Dec 17 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good

Omegavegeta

View User Forum

Sage

8,236 posts

Quote:

The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"

All he would've had to do was point at the line at the McDonald's in South Station.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#186 Dec 17 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Gbaji wrote:

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...

Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate? Maybe if something was playing on the radio, we would listen.

Gbaji wrote:

I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".

I'll respond to this for the nth time that you have yet once gave the definition that you're using that contradicts Webster's dictionary (you know, the one that I'm using). You're simply making up weapons with false data to prove a point. Now. you're just simply not answering questions because you're too pertinacious to admit your inaccuracy (See what I did there).

Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:

I set a bomb INSIDE a building (CENTER of the target) or I drop a bomb/missile/projectile directly above a building (CENTER of the target) and nuclear radiation/gas/chemical agents/etc affects the desired range and people. The weapon was accurate.

Give me a definition that contradicts that usage of accuracy.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#187 Dec 17 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...

Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?

No. As has been explained several times, it is the delivery system which may be accurate (or not). The payload has no vector of accuracy at all. It does not move on its own. Your question is as absurd as asking if blue is loud.

Quote:

Gbaji wrote:

I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".

I'll respond to this for the nth time that you have yet once gave the definition that you're using that contradicts Webster's dictionary (you know, the one that I'm using).

It's not the definition which is in question, but your application of it. Knowing the definition of a word doesn't help if you don't understand it. Which appears to be the case here.

Quote:

Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:

I set a bomb INSIDE a building (CENTER of the target) or I drop a bomb/missile/projectile directly above a building (CENTER of the target) and nuclear radiation/gas/chemical agents/etc affects the desired range and people. The weapon was accurate.

Give me a definition that contradicts that usage of accuracy.

I can't. You know why? Because your usage assumes that the delivery system is accurate. See how you stated that the bomb/missile/projectile detonates directly above the center of the target. That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition. But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.

Your problem, and what I have disagreed with you all along, is that you keep insisting that putting a payload with a larger effective radius makes the weapon more accurate. But that's not correct. What it does do is offset any inaccuracy of the delivery system. It allows an inaccurate weapon (weapon in this context being the combination of delivery system and payload, just in case you're confused) to still be effective because the payload's radius of effect is greater than the delivery systems inaccuracy. Again though, this does not make the weapon "accurate". It makes it effective.

Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 6:44pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#188 Dec 17 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

AHA! So that's your problem

Gbaji wrote:

Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.

No.. WMD is not a payload. Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction. You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction wrote:

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically.

Gbaji wrote:

No. As has been explained several times, it is the delivery system which may be accurate (or not). The payload has no vector of accuracy at all. It does not move on its own. Your question is as absurd as asking if blue is loud.

As I said several times as well. I'm specifically referring to the entire weapon system, not aspects of them. Even by your ignorant statement, that still doesn't explain how a rocket or a bomb is inaccurate.

So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?

Gbaji wrote:

It's not the definition which is in question, but your application of it. Knowing the definition of a word doesn't help if you don't understand it. Which appears to be the case here.

So let's start off with you giving a definition and we can go from there.

Gbaji wrote:

That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition

So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.

Gbaji wrote:

But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.

Wait, so now the payload matters? This is the Internet. No one cares that you are wrong. Why the circles?
You just said that payload isn't "accurate", but the delivery system. So why do you care about the payload in a question of accuracy?

Gbaji wrote:

Your problem, and what I have disagreed with you all along, is that you keep insisting that putting a payload with a larger effective radius makes the weapon more accurate.

Not only have I never said that, I corrected you on that. So now, you're just trolling. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADIUS, but hitting the desired targets. I stated that nuking Rhode Island to kill one person would not be accurate. Why is it so difficult to admit to being wrong, just once?

Gbaji wrote:

What it does do is offset any inaccuracy of the delivery system.

And I ASK AGAIN? What delivery system are you talking about? You're just making up stats. Give me real stats of weapon inaccuracies. You can't assume that a 3rd world country can't get accurate systems. There exist inaccurate systems for every type of weapon. Not only that, your inaccuracy depends on how you use it along with other factors.

Gbaji wrote:

It allows an inaccurate weapon (weapon in this context being the combination of delivery system and payload, just in case you're confused)

I"m not confused at all. You're conveniently changing definitions when it benefits you as EVERYONE thinks of the whole weapon system when discussing accuracy. HTF do you separate payload from the delivery system when dealing with accuracy, but not tips/tax from a meal purchase?

Gbaji wrote:

to still be effective because the payload's radius of effect is greater than the delivery systems inaccuracy. Again though, this does not make the weapon "accurate". It makes it effective.

And again, I'm not talking about the efficacy of the weapon but the accuracy. Did you hit your desired targets AND NOTHING BUT YOUR DESIRED TARGETS? No, then it isn't accurate. Yes, then it is accurate. It's that simple.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#189 Dec 17 2012 at 11:07 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Almalieque wrote:

AHA! So that's your problem

Gbaji wrote:

Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.

No.. WMD is not a payload.

Um... I'd argue that it is, but it's kinda irrelevant. I actually originally said "chemical weapons", specifically referring to the payload, since I was responding to Smash, and that was what he was talking about. Feel free to go back and look if you don't remember.

Quote:

Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction.

Uh... And generally refers to the payload. Actually, scratch that, it always refers to payload. The fact that a weapon causes mass destruction is always a function of the payload, not the delivery system.

Quote:

You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction

I'm sorry. Could you give me an example of a WMD where the "mass destruction" has nothing to do with the payload? Cause, Um... it's the payload that causes destruction, right? Certainly, you can't have "mass destruction" without some special feature of the payload that makes it so. You're seriously going to try this?

Quote:

So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?

Of course. But you're approaching the issue backwards. It's not that they have to be inaccurate, but that weapons that cause mass destruction don't need to be as accurate to be effective. Hence... wait for it... they are the weapons of choice for those who don't have accurate delivery systems. I'm sure I've said this several times already. Do you even bother to read?

Quote:

Gbaji wrote:

That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition

So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.

Gbaji wrote:

But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.

Wait, so now the payload matters?

Oh... My... F'ing God! You can't actually be this stupid. It's just not possible. Smiley: eek

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#190 Dec 18 2012 at 12:19 AM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

gbaji wrote:

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...

Nobody listens to static. Well, John Nash, maybe...

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#191 Dec 18 2012 at 6:50 AM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

gbaji wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

AHA! So that's your problem

Gbaji wrote:

Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.

No.. WMD is not a payload.

Um... I'd argue that it is, but it's kinda irrelevant. I actually originally said "chemical weapons", specifically referring to the payload, since I was responding to Smash, and that was what he was talking about. Feel free to go back and look if you don't remember.

Quote:

Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction.

Uh... And generally refers to the payload. Actually, scratch that, it always refers to payload. The fact that a weapon causes mass destruction is always a function of the payload, not the delivery system.

Quote:

You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction

I'm sorry. Could you give me an example of a WMD where the "mass destruction" has nothing to do with the payload? Cause, Um... it's the payload that causes destruction, right? Certainly, you can't have "mass destruction" without some special feature of the payload that makes it so. You're seriously going to try this?

Quote:

So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?

Of course. But you're approaching the issue backwards. It's not that they have to be inaccurate, but that weapons that cause mass destruction don't need to be as accurate to be effective. Hence... wait for it... they are the weapons of choice for those who don't have accurate delivery systems. I'm sure I've said this several times already. Do you even bother to read?

Quote:

Gbaji wrote:

That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition

So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.

Gbaji wrote:

But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.

Wait, so now the payload matters?

Oh... My... F'ing God! You can't actually be this stupid. It's just not possible. Smiley: eek

Ironically, you are doing the very thing that you accused me of. Modern WMD are simply weapons that cause weapons on a large scale. In today's society, the payloads are CBRN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction wrote:

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/917314/weapon-of-mass-destruction-WMD wrote:

weapon of mass destruction (WMD), weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat. Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponsâ€”frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons. See nuclear weapon, chemical warfare, biological warfare.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#192 Dec 18 2012 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good

stupidmonkey

Sage

4,137 posts

Almalieque wrote:

indiscriminately

____________________________

Dandruffshampoo wrote:

Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.

Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:

Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#193 Dec 18 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Yeah, but what definition of it?

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#194 Dec 18 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

indiscriminately

Me, on page 3 wrote:

This all seems paradoxical to me.

Isn't this perceived "accuracy" of WMD's derived from the indiscriminate goals of their use? As in, it's "accurate" because you don't really care how accurate it is?

That's silly.

How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 11:58am by Eske

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#195 Dec 18 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent

someproteinguy

Meat Popsicle

13,666 posts

Eske Esquire wrote:

How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

There are always a few inspiring souls who will press onward and finish the race despite being lapped a few dozen times.

____________________________

That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#196 Dec 18 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Eske Esquire wrote:

How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Do you not see who the two main players keeping it up are?

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#197 Dec 18 2012 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Eske Esquire wrote:

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

indiscriminately

Me, on page 3 wrote:

This all seems paradoxical to me.

Isn't this perceived "accuracy" of WMD's derived from the indiscriminate goals of their use? As in, it's "accurate" because you don't really care how accurate it is?

That's silly.

How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 11:58am by Eske

Primarily because you didn't win it. Weapons don't discriminate. What's your point? If anything, a bio-weapon is the closest weapon that could be designed to discriminate.

Your quoted statement is false because it applies to all weapons. How many children did that killer miss? How many times did he hit a limb or a non-vital organ? Does that mean the weapons are now "not accurate".

It's the same thing. People use hand guns because you do not have to be an expert in order to kill a bunch of people. As long as you know how to load a mag and pull the trigger, just keep shooting and you will eventually kill people. Just because you use the guns inaccurately, doesn't change their accuracy. Likewise with WMD. People use them because you can make a lot of destruction all at once. Just because the users decide to use them with inaccuracy doesn't mean the weapon itself is inaccurate.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#198 Dec 18 2012 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

You're still confusing "accurate" with "effective". They really do mean two different things.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#199 Dec 18 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

lolgaxe wrote:

Eske Esquire wrote:

How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Do you not see who the two main players keeping it up are?

Yeah, I just used the question as a thinly-veiled way to talk about how I won the tread. I mean, I even threw in that slick McDonald's analogy, just to drive it all home further.

Me, winning, etc.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 4:40pm by Eske

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#200 Dec 18 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

gbaji wrote:

You're still confusing "accurate" with "effective". They really do mean two different things.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accuracy wrote:

1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value â€” compare precision

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuracy?s=t wrote:

the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.

Nope, you're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. Really dude, it's just the Internet.. It's not a big deal. I've been wrong several of times.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#201 Dec 18 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Sigh. Let me be more clear: The word "effective" perfectly matches what you are talking about. Thus, it's the word you should be using, and if you used it no one would disagree with what you are saying. Instead, you are using the word "accurate", which has a definition which does not really match what you are talking about. But instead of recognizing this and changing the word you use, you have chosen instead to stretch the definition of "accurate" in order to make it fit what you are trying to say.

Also, just quoting the definition doesn't mean you're right. I could quote the definition of the word "gargle" and make just as valid an argument (ie: not a valid one at all).

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow