07-28-2016, 12:34 AM
(07-27-2016, 11:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is what you said. Your on job exposure to criminals made you smarter in your ability to judge criminal behavior while my on job exposure to criminals made me more stupid and gullible.
BTW when "grown ups" get shown up by the exposure of a huge contradiction in their logic they address the issue instead of just tossing out insults.
Care to continue the discussion like a grown up?
Nope, not what I said. I directly quoted myself in my response to you and that quote, taken directly from the post you responded to, completely blew your claim out of the water. it's also why you carefully omitted that part when you quoted me, which is par for the course for you. This kind of behavior from you, which oddly enough directly mirrors that of St. Lucie, is so common that it's surprising when you make a post without indulging in it. I'm all for fifteenth chances though, so please feel free to go back, read what I actually wrote, which btw does not even remotely resemble your inane paraphrasing above, and try and come back and make a logical point. I won't get too hopeful but I will try to hold onto some optimism.
(07-28-2016, 12:24 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's not how i read it.
"Sadly, experience in dealing with criminals gives you a definite feel for criminal behavior
The two bolded parts are not same, so they're not hypocritical.
1. Experience in a field gives you insight into the actions of those you deal with.
2. Limited experience in a field--or maybe better stated, limited occurrences--can lead to assumptions that aren't necessarily the norm of those you deal with. (the bolded part being an opinion).
#2 can occur in #1, but in this case, the two are not mutually exclusive.
That's not how anyone without an agenda would read it which is why it was obvious to you and not so much to Freddy. You'll notice how Fred routinely omits parts of posts that directly call out his glaring mischaracterizations or flat out refute his claims? He's an agitator, nothing more.
