BiglawOrBust wrote: cogitoergosum wrote:
Your response: He was asking if it was anyone else's first choice, which is obviously a relative claim.
You were not
referring to a claim, you were quite explicitly referencing the question - incorrectly
Haha, wow, try to show the BLS thread a little love and this is what I get.
Good luck BLS folks.
Let me spell this out clearly for you. Others' choices
about which he was inquiring would be statements, claims, etc. Which, in that instance, is relative. I was not referencing the question in the proposition which you seem happy to quote. What I was saying was "He was asking if it was anyone else's first choice, [the answer to] which is obviously a relative claim." Wow, sorry you struggled with that one.
Your initial response to him about how it's relative is pointless and redundant. Leave the wordplay for your idiotic ontological argument.
If that is what you intended, the correct wording would be "He was asking if it was anyone else's first choice, which obviously would be
a relative claim." You are talking about an actual entity (the question) and an potential one (the response). The actual one should be referred to with an is
, while the potential should be referred to with a would be
or something similar.
And for whatever it's worth, the post to which I was responding was one of doceydoe's first ten posts on the board, and while it may seem pointless to you, I was trying to introduce her to the conventional TLS wisdom without invoking pejoratives like "shiTTTlaw" as I don't think that's cool.
You can continue resume your douchebagginess now. I'm signing off.