echo..it is what it is, Hoax?
hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative. cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive). but your logic fails you here the way it failed ups years ago. you've tried for years to ignore the competition and we didn't go away. to suggest that i would go away because i'm not popular or the other children just don't want to play with me, well that's just silly. i amuse myself but not anymore than the little "ups good fedex bad" mantra that many like to put forth around here. believe me, i've been ignored by better.
but you just can't help yourself, can you? lolI am currently posting on a forum titled UPS Disscussions and I see nothing in the title that relates to FedEX so I agree that we should not feed the trolls.
Have you ever noticed in the Fedex Forum they refer to their centers or hubs as stations!
Vassup?!
You are not a Troll, you are an antagonist.hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative. cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive). but your logic fails you here the way it failed ups years ago. you've tried for years to ignore the competition and we didn't go away. to suggest that i would go away because i'm not popular or the other children just don't want to play with me, well that's just silly. i amuse myself but not anymore than the little "ups good fedex bad" mantra that many like to put forth around here. believe me, i've been ignored by better.
Not ignored, just tolerated, by your betters.hmmmm. no(1), i don't(2) think i'm all that negative(3). cocky and reasonably informed, but not(4) negative(5) (that's a double negative and thus a positive)( Only equal numbers of negatives make a positive, so you prove yourself negative)
. but your logic(you are using implied logic,that never works) fails you here the way it failed ups years ago(show proof of this statement). you've tried for years to ignore the competition and we didn't go away.(ignore? UPS has never ignored competition and has a very definite focus on FedEx.) to suggest that i would go away because i'm not popular or the other children just don't want to play with me, well that's just silly. i amuse myself( now, that is troll talk) but not anymore than the little "ups good fedex bad" mantra that many like to put forth around here. believe me, i've been ignored by better.(
I think my lack of capitalization has thrown you off. Lazy on my part. If you mean antagonist in the context that my views do not conform with the protagonist majority, then yes, I am an antagonist. If you mean that I just like to antagonize, then no, not really. That my views may be antagonistic, however, seldom keeps me from posting.You are not a Troll, you are an antagonist.
As far as the double negative thing, I will just have to count the negatives in your run along sentence.
Not ignored, just tolerated, by your betters.
Here's a troll in living color. FedEx4Life posts on other sites with the same username (check FedExcess.com), the same misinformation, and the same pro-FedEx propaganda. Why is it that you write like a 3rd grader on this site, yet somehow manage to be more articulate on the others? Is that a troll tactic to worm your way into our hearts?
I don't know if you're management, a hired shill, or some Klingon (as in dingleberry) that just likes to stir the feces, but please just get lost. You're a fake, a phony, and a jerk for wasting our time here. Tell your handlers that you've been found out.
I'm lost. Are you saying that you're positive that he's negative?bbsam, I'm having a little trouble following you on this slant. Here's why. You said:hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative.
cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive)
While being negative is, well a negative trait, you state you are not in fact negative. So, that in of itself a positive. So this doesn't fit into the equation of 2n=1p. It actually becomes one and one"Cocky" being a negative and "reasonably informed" being a positive, your claim to this being an overall positive just doesn't float the boat.
I do have to admit that I am not a scholar on any level, thus I don't understand your calculations.
lol. No, I am not a scholar either. But I do enjoy word play from time to time. It may simply be that in this instance be that the equation is not 2n=1p but rather that 1n+1p>0. It would all depend of upon the value one assigns to n and p. In fact, depending upon the subset in which on is dealing, "cocky" could be construed as a positive and thus increasing the amount by which 1n+1p>0. Of course the inverse is also true that if the negative value of "cocky" so completely overshadows a miniscule value of "reasonably informed" as to make the relationship 1n+1p<0 and by definition negative. On the chance that n and p are assigned the same value then we are faced with the obvious conclusion of a zero sum. So in conclusion, the literary and logical suggestion that two negatives make a positive can only be true in a completely objective setting. Once adjectives like "cocky" and "reasonably informed" enter the fray, we have entered into the realm of the subjective, and thus a more fluid relationship in the assignment of negative or positive. Or I could just be full of crap.bbsam, I'm having a little trouble following you on this slant. Here's why. You said:hmmmm. no, i don't think i'm all that negative.
cocky and reasonably informed, but not negative (that's a double negative and thus a positive)
While being negative is, well a negative trait, you state you are not in fact negative. So, that in of itself a positive. So this doesn't fit into the equation of 2n=1p. It actually becomes one and one"Cocky" being a negative and "reasonably informed" being a positive, your claim to this being an overall positive just doesn't float the boat.
I do have to admit that I am not a scholar on any level, thus I don't understand your calculations.
That's one thing I am positive about, .........or not.lol. No, I am not a scholar either. But I do enjoy word play from time to time. It may simply be that in this instance be that the equation is not 2n=1p but rather that 1n+1p>0. It would all depend of upon the value one assigns to n and p. In fact, depending upon the subset in which on is dealing, "cocky" could be construed as a positive and thus increasing the amount by which 1n+1p>0. Of course the inverse is also true that if the negative value of "cocky" so completely overshadows a miniscule value of "reasonably informed" as to make the relationship 1n+1p<0 and by definition negative. On the chance that n and p are assigned the same value then we are faced with the obvious conclusion of a zero sum. So in conclusion, the literary and logical suggestion that two negatives make a positive can only be true in a completely objective setting. Once adjectives like "cocky" and "reasonably informed" enter the fray, we have entered into the realm of the subjective, and thus a more fluid relationship in the assignment of negative or positive. Or I could just be full of crap.
Oh no, I am saying I am negative to the positive assumption that he is neutrally charged to the atmosphere.I'm lost. Are you saying that you're positive that he's negative?
lol. No, I am not a scholar either. But I do enjoy word play from time to time. It may simply be that in this instance be that the equation is not 2n=1p but rather that 1n+1p>0. It would all depend of upon the value one assigns to n and p. In fact, depending upon the subset in which on is dealing, "cocky" could be construed as a positive and thus increasing the amount by which 1n+1p>0. Of course the inverse is also true that if the negative value of "cocky" so completely overshadows a miniscule value of "reasonably informed" as to make the relationship 1n+1p<0 and by definition negative. On the chance that n and p are assigned the same value then we are faced with the obvious conclusion of a zero sum. So in conclusion, the literary and logical suggestion that two negatives make a positive can only be true in a completely objective setting. Once adjectives like "cocky" and "reasonably informed" enter the fray, we have entered into the realm of the subjective, and thus a more fluid relationship in the assignment of negative or positive. Or I could just be full of crap.
I think my lack of capitalization has thrown you off.Nope Lazy on my part.Yep If you mean antagonist in the context that my views do not conform with the protagonist majority,Nope, that is not what I meant. then yes, I am an antagonist.Agreed If you mean that I just like to antagonize, then no, not really.(Double negative, just a joke.) That my views may be antagonistic, however, seldom keeps me from posting.Keep posting. Those that wish to ignore have that right and the rest will just tolerate them.