(quoting the whole out-of-context mess for reference and maximum embarassment.)
as "excessive quoting" falls under "spamming" (rule 4) i'll refrain from quoting you at all, dev/HC.
relevant, you are using a mixed metaphor. as you do not understand how they work, it goes firmly with the topic at hand.
personal experience, furthermore, an absolute. you have no way of knowing if anyone does or does not use the term, for one. for two, you are not present at every conversation dealing with the object in question. third, your statement is irrelevant, we are not discussing the usage of the term "racecar", only that it is a valid qualifier for "car".
neither of which is the jargon file, a glossary of the community i have been talking about. you, and "someone else" are not valid sources of information on the topic. the jargon file is.
i refer you to rules 4 and 6. contribute more than just a single word that attempts to provoke an emotional response.
as "excessive quoting" falls under "spamming" (rule 4) i'll refrain from quoting you at all, dev/HC.
as "insufficient quoting" falls under posting of unintelligible crap, i'll continue quoting the full versions of your crappy posts.
you do not understand mixed metaphors.
irrelevant and, generally speaking, WRONG.
relevant, you are using a mixed metaphor. as you do not understand how they work, it goes firmly with the topic at hand.
you are fucking retarded. i first thought that you said that i don't understand mixed metaphors because you used one in a sarcastic fashion, requiring me to have a sarcasm detector at hand. fact: i did
not use any mixed metaphors
1. now, it is not only shown that mixed metaphors are irrelevant, but also that
you don't understand them, and that you're WRONG.
breaking security, network intrusion, etc is cracking. you can use a hack to crack, but that does not necessarily mean that the hack IS a crack.
performing, with cars, first-to-finish matches, time trials, etc. is racing. you can use an everyday car for a race, but that doesn't mean that the car is a sports/race car. in other words:
yuo ideot! tahts not a car, thats a sprots/race car!
we use the word "racecar" to distinguish a car with a special purpose (racing) from a general purpose automobile (the jalopy you drive to community college)
yet noone, not even the casters of matches use the term "race car".
personal experience, furthermore, an absolute. you have no way of knowing if anyone does or does not use the term, for one. for two, you are not present at every conversation dealing with the object in question.
make that: yet the term "race car" is rarely used.
third, your statement is irrelevant, we are not discussing the usage of the term "racecar", only that it is a valid qualifier for "car".
WRONG. full explanation:
formally, if X = {acts of cracking} and Y = {acts of hacking}, then X ⊆ Y. similarly, if X = {sports cars} and Y = {cars}, then X ⊆ Y. in both cases, for any x ∈ X, it is true that x is an act of hacking or a car (depending on the case), but also that x is an act of cracking or a sports car. many people say "x is an act of hacking", and only a few say "x is an act of cracking", however, almost everyone says that "x is car", and almost noone says that "x is a sportscar" (all of the 4 statement templates are correct). you are saying that, in the first case, X and Y should have been defined as: X = {acts of cracking} and Y = {acts of hacking} \ {acts of cracking}, ie., if x ∈ X, then x is an act of cracking, but not an act of hacking. but then, in the second case, X and Y should have been defined as: X = {sports cars} and Y = {cars} \ {sports cars}, ie., if x ∈ X, then x is a sports car, but not a car.
you are claiming that a composition like "hacking (breaking into computer systems)" (which intelligent(TM) people do) is WRONG, and even that plainly using "hacking" in reference to breaking into computer systems (which many people do) is WRONG (thus claiming that many people are WRONG). the only way you may do this is to also claim that use of "car" in reference to a sports car (which almost everyone does) is WRONG (thus to claim that almost everyone is WRONG). however, you are not claiming the latter, and therefore you are inconsistent and WRONG.
you, and "someone else" are not valid sources of information on the topic. the jargon file is.
WRONG. and you are misinterpreting the jargon file.
i refer you to rules 4 and 6. contribute more than just a single word that attempts to provoke an emotional response.
i refer you to
rules 4 and 6. contribute more than just a shitload of words that attempt to provoke emotional responses.
1 disregarding retarded interpretations of my statements
