This thread is gay

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 10:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okay, rocket surgeon . . .  Lemme "dumb it down" for you as you stated.

"Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.  Good work."

Your above quote is sarcasm.  Sarcasm involves the use of irony.  Irony involves conveying a meaning opposite of the literal meaning.  When you make a sarcastic comment your intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning.  Therefore, when you wrote "not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic" you mean not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is not genetic.  Parents are relatives, correct?  Yes, correct.  So you sent the message not sharing traits with parents is more proof something is not genetic.  I can't believe I have to explain this.  (See, that is sarcasm because I'm not surprised I have to explain this to you.)  But, you think because I can't show you a verbatim quote you didn't send that message.  Once again, you're incorrect.  You're getting as bad as Rugby with the "I didn't say that" crap.


I agree with Pat's explanation.

So you cannot show me where I said what you suggested and must admit your little analogy made zero sense.

Who mentioned anything about Pat. I asked you did you agree with the assertion that because relatives do not share a trait is more proof that something is genetic? It's a yes or no; it's not "rocket surgery". I thought it was a silly assertion and pointed it out as such. Even the the person that said it has said he may have used poor wording.