Originally Posted by Miburo
Hey, Fayrra bro. I do not believe those glorious red-named forum goers intended to insult your intellect or correct your statement with their recent posts. Which would perhaps make your counter-offensive a tad bit of an overreaction, maybe.
I was trying not to assume what their intention was per see, though I'm sure you'd know better than I. So I'd just agree with you there having seen your input now.
But the reason for the overreaction was because I was talking about chickens, and T-rexs with lazers on their backs (at least I planned to talk about lazers somewhere in there and forgot), and all I got in return was Superiority and Clades. Because the Chicken and T-rex was basically ignored, I lost my raging boner, and resorted to technical logic and technical semantics respectively. In a playful kind of "I have blue balls now" way. I wasn't seriously super duper attacking them, or anything, though. Red-names are pretty awesome. Though I admit, out of Lonely and ACt, I've seen more of ACt's posts.
Originally Posted by ACt
Assuming awesomeness runs in the genetic pool of the 'groups of those with common ancestors' (that is what a Clade is, correct?), then correcting family with clade is a completely correct statement. But it turns out awesomeness does not run in the genetic pool of the groups, since I was just joking about intuition and preferences and such, when I said "turns out it runs in the family, durr." Meaning, if it doesn't run in the family, it also does not, technically, run in the clade. The whole thing falls apart.
In other words I'm lame.