man i do not need to haggle over the particular meanings you had in your head, your comment was at best unclear or simply incorrect, judging by how much you've backpedaled the original points here---sometimes you can just take and L and admit it,
but don't talk down to me like i don't know how to read, i know what "no actual historical evidence that the Spartans were militarily superior to anyone else" means, and nothing you wrote previously or subsequently supports it. it's a damn tired shtick to act like anyone who disputes what you say just doesn't 'get it'
What meanings in my head? What? You are the one who has given a totally arbitrary definition of military superiority of 'just winning lol', when that not what anyone else means when they are talking about the quality of a military. It's not haggling over what is in my head. I'm not talking down to you. I was actually trying to be chill and discuss a historical question in detail, and you're getting annoyed by the detail, because you think it's condescending? Like sorry if you think that they you need to grow up. This is how these discussions work. If you say something which someone thinks is wrong and they cite extensive evidence and sources, then it's not on them if that annoys you. This is called clarification and explanation. If you think there is backpedaling then yeh, you've misread. What do you want? People not to tell you you've misread when you have? Does everyone just get to decide what everyone else means in their heads? If you're not down to do any of that then don't post an aggressive, sassy comment about a minor academic question where you show you don't actually know what you're talking about. Either respond properly with arguments and evidence and respectfully, instead of making up detached-from-reality accusations, or don't respond in the first place.
You final comment is literal nonsense. I've explained exhaustively how they were not systematically or institutionally superior. All the current experts in these field think you're wrong. I'm not just saying that if someone disagrees with me then they 'dont get it'. Where did I say that?Again, just read what I wrote. It says or implies that no-where. I'm saying that specifically you didn't correctly understand some points (which is fine, happens to everyone), made clear why and then gave extensive argument for why I think your position on the academic issue was wrong. Your opinion happens to contradict the current collective expert opinion that has upended the field in the last few decades.
So, frankly, I don't know what L's your chatting about, and honestly you're just making obvious arrogance and the fact that you don't know what you talking about.
Kindly don't respond to me again. Don't want to waste the oxygen.
man i do not need to haggle over the particular meanings you had in your head, your comment was at best unclear or simply incorrect, judging by how much you've backpedaled the original points here---sometimes you can just take and L and admit it,
but don't talk down to me like i don't know how to read, i know what "no actual historical evidence that the Spartans were militarily superior to anyone else" means, and nothing you wrote previously or subsequently supports it. it's a damn tired shtick to act like anyone who disputes what you say just doesn't 'get it'
What meanings in my head? What? You are the one who has given a totally arbitrary definition of military superiority of 'just winning lol', when that not what anyone else means when they are talking about the quality of a military. It's not haggling over what is in my head. I'm not talking down to you. I was actually trying to be chill and discuss a historical question in detail, and you're getting annoyed by the detail, because you think it's condescending? Like sorry if you think that they you need to grow up. This is how these discussions work. If you say something which someone thinks is wrong and they cite extensive evidence and sources, then it's not on them if that annoys you. This is called clarification and explanation. If you think there is backpedaling then yeh, you've misread. What do you want? People not to tell you you've misread when you have? Does everyone just get to decide what everyone else means in their heads? If you're not down to do any of that then don't post an aggressive, sassy comment about a minor academic question where you show you don't actually know what you're talking about. Either respond properly with arguments and evidence and respectfully, instead of making up detached-from-reality accusations, or don't respond in the first place.
You final comment is literal nonsense. I've explained exhaustively how they were not systematically or institutionally superior. All the current experts in these field think you're wrong. I'm not just saying that if someone disagrees with me then they 'dont get it'. Where did I say that?Again, just read what I wrote. It says or implies that no-where. I'm saying that specifically you didn't correctly understand some points (which is fine, happens to everyone), made clear why and then gave extensive argument for why I think your position on the academic issue was wrong. Your opinion happens to contradict the current collective expert opinion that has upended the field in the last few decades.
So, frankly, I don't know what L's your chatting about, and honestly you're just making obvious arrogance and the fact that you don't know what you talking about.
Kindly don't respond to me again. Don't want to waste the oxygen.