@prof
Here is a thought....if you had actually thought that there was a reasonable equivalence between my original statement and your "paraphrase" why make something up and then dress it up with quotes....why not, you know, just use the original quote, that would have been simple, and dare I say, intellectually honest and defensible. But no, that original quote was not good enough to express what YOU wanted to say, so you went that extra mile or two and made up your own quote and unwittingly and absolutely showed the true depths of your honestly, and this just after a mini-lecture on intellectual honesty ( and btw that depth of honesty that you displayed is one of the hallmarks of the mindset of dogmatic fundamentalists....as in, the reality doesn’t quite jive with my preconceived notions of what should be, so we’ll just cobble together something that does.....read, the big problem with dogmatic fundamentalism is that it is intellectually dishonest, and apparently not much unlike you...so I guess we can now safely say the conditional has now morphed into an affirmative eh...soooo.....nice shooting sparky, that was your foot you just hit ).
And then to lecture on the theme of shameless....wow, coming from you after that display of intellectual "honesty", that is really the epitome of rich.
And speaking of roughly paraphrasing, here is something from my past that fits nicely....
Son, I would stop whining about that F you just got on your paper. You have a much bigger problem. You just failed the course.
Here is a thought....if you had actually thought that there was a reasonable equivalence between my original statement and your "paraphrase" why make something up and then dress it up with quotes....why not, you know, just use the original quote, that would have been simple, and dare I say, intellectually honest and defensible. But no, that original quote was not good enough to express what YOU wanted to say, so you went that extra mile or two and made up your own quote and unwittingly and absolutely showed the true depths of your honestly, and this just after a mini-lecture on intellectual honesty ( and btw that depth of honesty that you displayed is one of the hallmarks of the mindset of dogmatic fundamentalists....as in, the reality doesn’t quite jive with my preconceived notions of what should be, so we’ll just cobble together something that does.....read, the big problem with dogmatic fundamentalism is that it is intellectually dishonest, and apparently not much unlike you...so I guess we can now safely say the conditional has now morphed into an affirmative eh...soooo.....nice shooting sparky, that was your foot you just hit ).
And then to lecture on the theme of shameless....wow, coming from you after that display of intellectual "honesty", that is really the epitome of rich.
And speaking of roughly paraphrasing, here is something from my past that fits nicely....
Son, I would stop whining about that F you just got on your paper. You have a much bigger problem. You just failed the course.
