Summon the frog, get the peep 🤷‍♂️

I think Mike Rowe has a lot of credibility in making a similar point about the skilled trades in general.

:wink:

:-1:

When did this happen‽

1 Like

  :slight_smile:

1 Like

:joy_cat:

1 Like

image

2 Likes

And that VOICE. Makes you wanna be gay. Ish.

I don’t believe it does. Not because I didn’t quote the question mark, but because I was not answering the questions you posed.

I did not answer the question, at least that was not my intent.

I also did not answer this question.

For me, my response was intended to be subject adjacent. It was inspired by 1-2 words from your post to be a related subject, but was not intended as an answer, and did not answer the core of the questions about why what I’d previously said sounded much the same. Instead, I shared a general point about myself and how I love Bitcoin and do not love scam-coins. Not related to businesses overhyping AI. I intentionally didn’t even bring up any of that context. The answer was intentionally substantially dodged and avoided like any politician might do while I talked about subject-adjacent stuff that never answered the question. :joy:

The thread doesn’t say that each comment must be completely unrelated to everything that has ever been said in any other post in the thread. :wink:

It is related to my comment #26 where I posit similar problems in determining what constitutes as an answer:

So if I ask a very general question like “Crease, are you still reading this thread?” and you ever post in this thread again, you will have substantively answered my question even if you don’t specifically address it. Also, if I ask a question like “what do you guys think of Wyze?” and now if anyone ever talks about any of their Wyze products or this forum at all in the rest of the thread, I could thus claim you substantively answered my question, whether intended or not. I considered many such questions, and decided that they were out of bounds, and that I could only count clear and obvious direct answers because otherwise it would be too easy to just post a whole comment full of trick questions and never type in here again and be guaranteed to win because every response would count as an answer to one of my trick questions, and this would be cheating.

So, to me, it is less about quoting the question mark, as it is that I purposely avoided the context of the question of how it is related to AI or why it would remind you of AI or what the businesses are doing with AI, and instead shared something about my own ideology. :wink: I suppose intent has something to do with why “it doesn’t count.”

1 Like

Lawyerese is like strands of slippery linguini hanging off a fork.

1 Like

I am semi-fluent in this language…my father is an attorney, and I worked for his law firm during 2 different periods of my life. Sooo…the shoe fits. :joy:

See, here? You didn’t ask a question. I am not answering your question, but I am providing a subject-adjacent comment. :wink: Same thing I did above.

1 Like

I will defer to the party of the third part for the moment as he seems also to be semi-fluent in spaghetti. :laughing:

You can take this point, because this argument just made my point for me (even if nepotism rules in your favor).

This is why lawyers’ wives get drunk. :cocktail::cocktail::cocktail:

1 Like

Is this what @carverofchoice does to his bagging-on partner-in-crime mostly on other platforms (thank GOD!) ? He’s a relatively big :dog2: so yes possible for carver to saddle and spur him on. :horse:

Let us not forget Mr. Crease’s commitment to the decent, expressed eloquently in another thread. Is he fulfilling his pledge as he splashes in this playfully-suggestive commode?

I myself am seldom pricked by any such scruples. :woozy_face:

Like this :laughing:

1 Like

:rofl:

:cheese:[1]


  1. :cheese: ↩︎

1 Like

Bah, my point was the opposite. :wink: Comments need to be preponderantly clear direct intended answers to questions for me to count them as a point on my scorecard, rather than coincidentally. :slight_smile: But all may score things as they wish with different point systems as the frog’s initiating verbiage is ambiguous, so we are all playing the same game by different rules. :rofl:

1 Like