Where exactly did you correct anything that I posted, which you know nothing about, so therefore the question to be asked is how could you "correct" my statements? Sit down, you do not know what you are talking about, plain and simple truth.
How can I correct your statements...is that a trick question?
If you make statements, and I read them, then I can interpret them (and by definition, I would then know more than "nothing" about them), and if they are faulty/imprecise observations or extrapolations, I can also communicate and "correct" them. That's how our universe works. One self-contained sentient being can express themselves in a manner that is externally perceivable by another such being, and the second being can do the same in return. This is partially a result of the concept of distance in 3 dimensions, which creates the possibility of separation of entities, such that one can observe another. The 4th dimension, time, allows for events, as well as consideration and interpretation of events, which allow for incorrect or correct results to be arrived at.
As for the "where", I would think it was pretty obvious, but ok:
1. Your convenience store robbery scenario was unlikely/implausible, for reasons already stated. You can go back and read them if you want.
2. Your response about exiting the store, pulling your gun, and taking some action with it forthwith was irresponsible, and not something that should be coming from anyone involved with law enforcement. Once outside the immediate vicinity of the crime, contacting the proper authorities would be the #1 priority, and then following that, there are a number of factors to be considered before storming back in and endangering other people's lives besides yourself and the robber.
3. After I posted a question that was preceeded by "Put yourself in a robber's shoes...", you answered with what you, John Q. Public packing heat, would do instead. When I said "you were the robber in this scenario", you (in a burst of karma) went off on a tirade, telling me I was mistaken about what you yourself had either missed entirely or forgotten within 30 seconds of reading it...
Well done. You have made your case. I especially liked the stuff about self-contained sentient beings and the 4th dimension.
Where exactly did you correct anything that I posted, which you know nothing about, so therefore the question to be asked is how could you "correct" my statements? Sit down, you do not know what you are talking about, plain and simple truth.
How can I correct your statements...is that a trick question?
If you make statements, and I read them, then I can interpret them (and by definition, I would then know more than "nothing" about them), and if they are faulty/imprecise observations or extrapolations, I can also communicate and "correct" them. That's how our universe works. One self-contained sentient being can express themselves in a manner that is externally perceivable by another such being, and the second being can do the same in return. This is partially a result of the concept of distance in 3 dimensions, which creates the possibility of separation of entities, such that one can observe another. The 4th dimension, time, allows for events, as well as consideration and interpretation of events, which allow for incorrect or correct results to be arrived at.
As for the "where", I would think it was pretty obvious, but ok:
1. Your convenience store robbery scenario was unlikely/implausible, for reasons already stated. You can go back and read them if you want.
2. Your response about exiting the store, pulling your gun, and taking some action with it forthwith was irresponsible, and not something that should be coming from anyone involved with law enforcement. Once outside the immediate vicinity of the crime, contacting the proper authorities would be the #1 priority, and then following that, there are a number of factors to be considered before storming back in and endangering other people's lives besides yourself and the robber.
3. After I posted a question that was preceeded by "Put yourself in a robber's shoes...", you answered with what you, John Q. Public packing heat, would do instead. When I said "you were the robber in this scenario", you (in a burst of karma) went off on a tirade, telling me I was mistaken about what you yourself had either missed entirely or forgotten within 30 seconds of reading it...