Monsieur_DeLarge
Semi-Pro
Buddha, Sutta Pitaka:
"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
Your question has a point, a my counter-question attacks your point. Now, you need to make counter-argument.
In 1975 it was likely that Borg would win at least one US Open by 1981 but we know what happened. So, I think Novak would not swap two slams for one FO.
Quoting Buddhist texts instead of answering the question just makes you look like you're obfuscating to avoid the issue. And your counter-question didn't "attack" my point, it avoided it. In fact all you did was repeat my question, but refocused on an irrelevant third variable (the French Open). If my argument [sic] was so worthy of attack, you shouldn't have used it yourself.
However, there's no need for you to procrastinate further. Your studious avoidance of my original question ~ especially when you're willing to answer your own ~ tells me what I want to know.
Regards,
MDL
Last edited: