Wrong once again. You mean the ONE dictionary you cited — the Merriam-Webster dictionary — that had only recently changed the definition of marriage to conform to current, though still not majority, trends.

You find pleasure in being wrong, don’t you?

Yes, yes. The ten data points are tough for you, even though when defending your silly flub you said you KNEW that there were ten data points. You do have problems, that’s for sure. Let’s see what you said:

There are only THREE data points in that quote. You can read, can’t you?? I fully understand that Biden released 10 years worth of tax returns when he was running in 2008, but your quote only has THREE numbers. Give it up moron. [bold added for emphasis]

So, tell me, MISTER GUY THE PLAGIARIST, how is it you “fully” understood that there were ten data points and yet chose to only use three? I am sorry, but your defense is looking spectacularly stupid. (And what you are actually doing is looking for an external locus of control, which is a fairly liberal strategy: you are looking to blame me for your blunders. You are playing the victim rather poorly, but you are playing the victim. Unfortunately the cause of your difficulties is internal, not external.)

How many times must you be wrong before you realize that you live in denial?

As I’ve said repeatedly, you are wrong ad infinitum.

And ad nauseam.

Good luck.

Wrong again Billy-boy.

“it was YOU who turned several ridiculous times to the dictionary for help during our conversation regarding historic district commissions and gay marriage (in another thread here, ‘City Won’t Give An Inch’); recall how in that discussion, I schooled you in how a dictionary actually works.”

LOL…you mean those dictionaries that almost all define marriage as not only between a man & a woman?? Wow…

“Still having trouble with those ‘ten’ data points, there mister diminutive guy?”

No, YOU are, but there’s another nice bit of projection on your part there Billy-boy.

“Non-sensical back-peddling.” What exactly is that? Have you not YET learned how to spell — or think? It’s “back-pedaling,” not ‘back-peddling.” (The laughs truly do not stop.)

Truly, URAFW.

Here is a richly ironic sentence if there ever was one, and YOU wrote it:

Maybe to those that need to use a dictionary for every word that they come across, moron.

”

Please recall, if you can, that YOU sought a dictionary to define “justice.” YOU’RE the one who turned to the dictionary for help — and then PRETENDED you had not, plagiarist. I wasn’t the first to turn to a dictionary, you were. Moreover, it was YOU who turned several ridiculous times to the dictionary for help during our conversation regarding historic district commissions and gay marriage (in another thread here, “City Won’t Give An Inch”); recall how in that discussion, I schooled you in how a dictionary actually works. Well, to be accurate, I actually I could not have schooled you, because you are so utterly uncomprehending.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you are wrong, AND you have once AGAIN projected on to me what YOU YOURSELF have committed.

Still having trouble with those “ten” data points, there mister diminutive guy? Wow.

As I’ve said several times, you are rich. Good luck with aaaallllll that.

Too bad you can’t be bothered to add *actual citations* to your stolen “quotes” here, which is a pretty standard practice.

“By ‘according to the data,’ what did YOU think was meant?”

Once again Billy-boy, quit your nonsensical back-peddling. Show us the 10 data points that you used to calculate your phony numbers, or just go away.

“But I wonder if the authors of Merriam-Webster would agree with mister guy (he is just shrinking away) that THEIR definition is a ‘common definition’?”

And yet more useless back-peddling from you…ugh…it’s all you really have at the end of every, single day, eh Billy-Boy??

“So far, the Merriam-Webster definition is not particularly ‘common,’ is it?”

Maybe to those that need to use a dictionary for every word that they come across, moron.

“I know I said I’d be leaving formal polemics in this thread”

…and you lied…just like I knew that you would.

I know I said I’d be leaving formal polemics in this thread, and I have. But this is all a bit like renovating a kitchen: the job is done but now it’s time to clean up.

MISTER GUY at least tacitly admits he doctored (modified) a Merriam-Webster definition of justice to make it look like his own. But I wonder if the authors of Merriam-Webster would agree with mister guy (he is just shrinking away) that THEIR definition is a “common definition”? Really?

Here’s JUSTICE as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary:

1. just behavior or treatment : a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people. a. the quality of being fair and reasonable. b. the administration of the law or authority maintaining this. 2. a judge or magistrate.

Here’s JUSTICE as defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition):

1. the quality of being righteous; rectitude. 2. impartiality; fairness. 3. the quality of being right or correct.

So far, the Merriam-Webster definition is not particularly “common,” is it?

mister guy (just wasting away). He’s wrong again, ad infinitum.

URAFW

Here is what should have appeared in plain text:

Let’s see. “Nonsensical back-peddling.” Not to be confused with sensical back-peddling. Or just back-PEDALING. It’s not every day one meets someone fluent in jabberwocky. I think the White Knight is talking backwards, don’t you?

You know what I am thinking of right now? I am thinking of Dick Cheney talking about “death throes.” Death throes, indeed.

(URAFW)

†I will freely admit (something you will not do) that had I submitted the source of the quote over which you continue to embarrass yourself, you MIGHT have an excuse for your ridiculous blunder. BUT note that I NEVER suggested that the words I quoted were my own: I masked no such thing. You, however, not only lifted a definition from Merriam-Webster, you tried to conceal it by making subtle modifications in punctuation. There is NO DOUBT you meant those words to appear as your own. For that, you are a plagiarist. I, on the hand, was, at worst, too hasty. And I was wrong to assume you would show a little circumspection before leaping to your wild, erroneous calculation. I regret expecting too much of you. I will gladly take the blame for that.

Are you still around? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Let’s discuss who can’t read. Here’s what was originally posted (I will cut to the chase, so to speak):

In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.”[bold added for emphasis]

IMMEDIATELY you should have figured out the source† of that quote: just cut and paste it into Google’s search bar and you instantly find from whence I culled that excerpt.

And then I wrote in the subsequent paragraph:

According to the data, Biden gave about 1/8 of 1 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity. I will let you do the math, but suffice it to say that for every dollar poor Joe Biden earned, he gave away less than a half cent.

By “according to the data,” what did YOU think was meant? Did you think the DATA were the three data points given? WHY?! Who in their right mind would make such an inference? Don’t you realize that the data are Joe Biden’s tax returns; that the data source is Joe Biden himself?

So here is what you expect us to believe: YOU KNEW the data were from 10 years’ worth of returns, but since you only saw three data points, you figured you’d DISPROVE the overall analysis by computing from those three points. Is this your idea of a sound defense of your obvious incompetence?

We are all laughing in your general direction.

______________

Yes, you are a plagiarist. You presented something that was not your own as if it was.

______________

Truly, you are the funniest thing going right now. This is perfect:

Quit your nonsensical back-peddling, you moron.

Let’s see. Nonsensical back-peddling. Not to be confused with sensical back-peddling. Or just back-PEDALING. It’s not everyday one meets someone fluent in jabberwocky. I think the White Knight is talking backwards, don’t you?

You know what I am thinking of right now? I am thinking of Dick Cheney talking about “death throes.” Death throes, indeed.

(URAFW)

†I will freely admit (something you will not do) that had I submitted the source of the quote over which you continue to embarrass yourself, you MIGHT have an excuse for your ridiculous blunder. BUT note that I NEVER suggested that the words I quoted were my own: I masked no such thing. You, however, not only lifted a definition from Merriam-Webster, you tried to conceal it by making subtle modifications in punctuation. There is NO DOUBT you meant those words to appear as your own. For that, you are a plagiarist. I, on the hand, was, at worst, too hasty. And I was wrong to assume you would show a little circumspection before leaping to your wild, erroneous calculation. I regret expecting too much of you. I will gladly take the blame for that.

My goodness, how dense can one person possibly be?? This is YOUR original quote from above Billy-boy (from where it actually came we might never know):

“Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.”

There are only THREE data points in that quote. You can read, can’t you?? I fully understand that Biden released 10 years worth of tax returns when he was running in 2008, but your quote only has THREE numbers. Give it up moron.

“he’s also given to plagiarism (that nasty habit).”

Wow…YOU cite a direct quotation (from above) with NO source, and I *modify* a common definition of justice to prove that your claims about it are totally false…and I’M the one that’s the plagiariser??

“Maybe you should have first tried to understand what I meant by ‘ideally.’”

Quit your nonsensical back-peddling, you moron.

Please note that Mr. Guy, or Boy Guy, or whatever he is, is not only wrong ad infinitum, he’s also given to plagiarism (that nasty habit).

In his response to my claim that “Justice ideally is a state of perfection,” Mr. Plagiarizing Guy wrote:

Nonsense. Justice is simply the maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments OR the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. It’s not a hard concept to grasp or to make real.

Such amazing prose, Mister Guy!

Now, go check out THIS LINK if you want a great laugh. Seriously, click on it to discover just how original — and capable — Mister Guy actually is! Talk about “ROTFL,” Mister Guy. You’re the gift that just keeps on giving.

Let me repeat myself: The irony you cannot see is just so beautiful!

(Maybe you should have first tried to understand what I meant by “ideally.”)

(FW)