Quote:
Originally posted by quiet
umm no.
you have to go one way or the the other.
you argued that there was some overlying premise to the initial post. and of course, there is not. there are several premises. again, i can pull them out of the post if you like.
then, when i mentioned this, you moved on to the title.
if the title was to come into play, then the statment "it was started on the premise of both (paysite and affiliate)" - would be completely bogus. as the title did not mention either.
but now it seems you are back to disregarding the title. if that's the case, and you agree that there is more than a single premise in the initial post - you have no more ground to stand on.
- we agree to disregard the title
- we agree that there is more than one premise in the initial post
if that's agreed, then i am correct. "it was started on the premise."
the initial premise (ie the premise the post started with) in the first post had to do with paysite owners.
there is no way of getting around it...
|
I'm not riding the fense at all. Nor am I trying to change anything I've said.
Neither of us have disagreed that there are several premisies in the thread.
The point of contention is the idea you seem to have that the thread was Started regarding paysites and not alliliate, putting much more emphesis on paysites than affiliate. Not the case. I felt they were equally weighted in the presentation on the first post.
The initial premise of the thread was regarding paysites. But it wasn't "THE PREMISE" as you stated, implying that it was made for paysites and affiliate was an afterthought.
Paysites were "a premise" of the thread - which i agree to, not "the premise" as you initally stated and I caught you on.
__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!
Now read without the word dog.
|