Then what the heck is the problem? If there's is a difference, why can't I or anyone else hear it? Can you hear the difference between Serena's and Sharapova's screams? There is a difference but you can't hear it? There's also a sound difference when they close the roof. Are you saying no one can hear the difference, either?
When you state something "is" different, as you have, you are saying something about the nature of things, and not about your act/experience, whether or not the word fact is used in the context.
So if I said Dimitrov "is" going to win Wimbledon this year. Is that a "fact"?
No that is a prediction. But if you say something is different than something else, you have made a definitive factual statement. About something in the past, ie factual, not hypothetical.
Still straw arguing. Apart from that I have no problem really.
That is not a fact, but your experience or impression which could be coloured by other factors.
Then it's not a fact. What you're describing is "conjecture", "inference", "supposition" or a "postulation". Any of these words apply, non of which are interchangeable with the word "fact". Please locate a dictionary before you injure yourself further.
There's no effective distinction between the first and second sentence other than your use of the word "definitely".
Is it a fact you were shocked by 9/11?
Because I never said that was a fact. Please show me where I said that was a "fact".
Those are ideas, preferences, dreams, opinions, expressions, desires and feelings. Starting to get it?
So it's not a fact that sometimes you dream when you sleep?
Hint: It takes at least two to argue.
I think you're finally making progress. Facts can be verified, proven. You didn't seem to understand that until now.
Have you heard another car honk their horn over the past year? Yes? Can you verify or prove it?
You do not need to use the word fact to make a factual statement.
But if you're going to claim something as a fact, it's customary to use the word "fact" to let people know that.
Um...did you already forget about the 8 finals and 7 titles he won with his Tour 90?
That was during the weak era before the Nadal generation matured so he could get away with inferior equipment.
Was Sampras also using "inferior equipment" when he won 7 Wimbledons with an even smaller racquet? Almost all of his opponents were using bigger racquets also. So did Sampras also play during a "weak era"?
Not that much bigger, most of his opponents in the finals were also using midsized racquets while only 1 of Federer's opponents were using mids, the rest were using midplus sized racquets.
Why count only the finals? But if you want to look only at the finals, Agassi used a 107, Rafter used a 97, Pioline used a 97, Becker used a 92, Ivanisevic used a 93 (or 90 if you don't believe Head). Only Courier used the same sized racquet as Sampras. So just like with Federer, only one of Sampras' opponents in a final used the same size racquet as he did. The rest were using much bigger racquets, just as with Federer.
Sampras played in 4 out of 7 finals vs opponents who used midsized racquets while Fed only faced 1 opponent out of 8 who used a midsized. Not to mention that Fed hasn't seen an opponent with a midsized in 12yrs.
Not really, and at least not nescessarily. When you say something is different from something else, you are talking about the things, and not about an act.
So now a 97 is a "midsize"? In any case, Agassi used a racquet that was a whopping 22 sq. in. bigger than Sampras's! And still lost. Both Rafter and Pioline used racquets that were 12 sq. in. bigger than Sampras's. Becker's racquet was 7 sq. in. bigger than Sampras's.
But the only thing I claimed as a fact, was when I used the word "fact".
I'm talking specifically about the fact I heard the difference in the sound of Federer's old and new racquets. And I used the word "fact" to differentiate it between any other claims I may or may not have been making regarding this specific issue.
Trouble counting to 4?
The "category"? The "category" is totally arbitrary. A 92 sq. in. racquet is not even a midsize, IMO - everyone has an opinion. A 78 sq. in. racquet can also be categorized as a "midsize". Does that mean there's no difference between a 78 and a 92?
Well said.
"latest"? Come on, you're on this board enough to know that that video has already been posted in multiple threads on this board over the past 3 weeks, right?
