Reply With Quote
I trust Manu to create a lot of assists in the clutch.... To the refs, the fans in the stands, the other team....
I trust Manu and Marco
I trust Marco only,
I trust Manu only
I don't trust either
Other
Since when have we seen Manu and Marco together in the playoffs?
I trust Manu to create a lot of assists in the clutch.... To the refs, the fans in the stands, the other team....
Yeah I have no idea how this is relevant to your first post in this topic.
We've seen both of them individually in the playoffs, and we can also use their previous experience in big moments during the regular season against tough teams.
Since trust requires knowing, not faith, we don't have any knowledge of Marco in the playoffs with Manu, so it would be faith instead.
Trust is the wrong word. Trust me here.
Oh I see you're evaluating their impact together and not in isolation. Yeah then you're correct.
That's what the OP is asking, regardless of the poll choices.
Perhaps I was referring to them individually rather then as a group? Thus being the correct word.
The player agenda schtick is so 2005, tbh. Can't believe posters still play that role
The word "and" in the thread le says otherwise or do you not understand Boolean functions?
Where do you see the word 'and'? Also, even under the scenario that I did it would not necessarily support your thought.
Individually I have faith in Marco, and my "trust" level for Manu is about 3 out of 10 which ranks among the lowest of any spurs player. I am less trusting of only tier players like Errors (1.5 out of 10) or Joseph (2 out of 10).
Duncan = 9 out of 10
Parker = 6.5 out of 10
Leonard = 7 out of 10
Yeah, I trust Leonard more to play within his capabilities during the playoffs than I do Parker.
Since the OP le uses "Manu, Marco" it's implying "and", not "or" as made evident by the question in the poll.
Don't be intentionally obtuse.
Problem is you are basing your argument off of inferences, while mine is not based on assumption, because I am the OP.
You're trying to use what you meant as what you said, and the two obviously aren't the same. That leads right back to trust vs faith. If you meant Manu or Marco, you certainly never once said so. Instead, you've said "Manu, Marco" and "Manu and Marco".
My argument is based off of the actual words you used, not on what you claim you intended to say. Your intent is worthless outside of your own mind if you cannot get your words to convey it.
A comma is used to differentiate two different pairings to show contrast in-between the two. Thus, me separating them by a comma supports my argument - and why I actually posted the thread - supports my argument.
Besides, the fact that I use Marco and Manu separately in the poll pretty much also supports my argument.
Your poll would be "yes" or "no" if you were being straight forward, but because you wanted more options, you made separate choices. We already know enough about Manu to know what his playoffs will be like, but we don't know about Marco. When Manu and Marco are discussed on this forum, they are discussed in tandem. Do we trust that the tandem of Manu and Marco will continue to produce in the playoffs like they have in the regular season. That's the only sensible way to take the OP. Otherwise why use just two Spurs players?
No, you meant the tandem, and you offered the opportunity to write one of them off.
Your M.O. is quite obvious, you're just not very good at it.
Scrub's actually right there. A comma can mean "or" just as much as it can mean "and". It's that way in headline writing, at least, although the "and" use is much more common.
That's a cute wall of text, but again it is nullified with your lack of knowledge when it comes to proper grammar, as well as a lack of Elementary-level reading comprehension considering the OP, me, told you what I meant by the thread.
Also, if I took your concept and put "yes" or "no" it would actually support your argument because that would be pairing them together.
I allowed for that, but since he said "and" in his poll question, the comma automatically takes on the "and" function.
Example:
Do you like s, ass?
Question: Do you like s and ass?
1. I like both s and ass
2. I like only s
3. I like only ass
4. I don't like either
Now I am obviously asking if you like s and ass, even though I allow you to chose only one in the poll options.
Your intent is nebulous in the OP yet made clear in the poll question when you use "and".
In fact, your OP is improperly written. You don't use a comma separator unless you have a conjunction, such as "Manu, Marco and Patty"
But that's not what is being argued. So really, you are at a stalemate.
Yeah, but you're using two different "ands" and concatenating their meanings. Looking at your example, you're using "and" as an inclusive disjunction in the question and as an injunction in the first answer, meaning that liking both is an option. That's technically an inappopriate use of the word. "Or" should be used there, not "and". But colloquially, we use "and" anyway.
Counter-example:
A headline reads, "People prefer cats, dogs to spiders".
The colloquial translation of that is, "People prefer cats and dogs to spiders." But it doesn't necessitate the injunction. In fact, it implies the inclusive disjunction, unless the poll had answers like a) cats and dogs b) spiders. The translation was inappropriate, yet the use of the comma was correct.
Scrub says he intended to use the disjunction instead of the injunction. His poll questions support that. His use of "and" is technically incorrect, but it's colloquially acceptable. So too is using a comma to indicate that. It was kind of inconsistent, but not really confusing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions