You did not. Here's what you said.
Do you see any mention of what kind of watch you're referring to? Because the lack of qualifiers would only lead the reader to (logically) draw the conclusion that you're referring to all watch 'fanatics' and all watches, since you used the word 'our'. Do you dispute this?
In case you haven't realised (which now seems highly possible), my argument from the start has been against the all-inclusive nature of your statement. I don't care if you're in the majority, the fact is that just as not all watch 'fanatics' modify their watches, not all are against that idea either. What on earth made you think that I was suggesting all of them do? Equating the majority to the whole was what you proposed and what I objected. Why can you not see that?
Here's a break down of the whole 'remark about fakes' that I hope even a kindergarten student could grasp.
daveathall posted:
In the bolded line, he states that most of the PVD'ed Sea-Dwellers are fakes (conveniently without any proof mind you), and in doing so implicitly acknowledges that he knows some real Sea-Dwellers that are PVD'ed exist. Since I used the argument that people mod Rolexes by way of applying the PVD process, it is only logical to conclude that he was refuting, or attempting to, my argument since he mentioned Sea-Dwellers and PVD too. The lack of content in that post besides the completely made-up statistic on PVD SD fakes forces me to conclude that he is refuting my claim that 'watch enthusiasts modify Rolexes' too by saying most of the PVD'ed Rolexes are fake.
Now if my stance is 'watch enthusiasts modify Rolexes', and he is countering me, then it logical deduction will suggest his stance is 'watch enthusiasts do not modify Rolexes'.
Since he is arguing that by way of '9 times out of 10 they are fake Sea Dwellers that are PVD.', then
owner of modified Sea-Dweller of which majority are fake = not watch enthusiast
Take out the 'modified SD' and just replacing it with a regular Rolex, since he can't decide that it's solely the originality of the whole timepiece that is sacrosanct (by his acceptance that 'Seiko monster is a relatively cheap watch and ripe for modification'), and since I'm not targeting that part of his argument (again I'm attacking the all inclusive nature of his grouping) the statement then becomes
owner of Rolex model of which majority are fake = not watch enthusiast
One can assume that a reasonably large portion of Rolex Submariners are outright copies (logos and all), and perhaps an equally large number 'homages', such as those built by Alpha and a whole panoply of other more reputable companies. Considering how frequent 'Submariners' are seen on the wrists of people all over the world, coupled with the relatively high price of real Submariners, it is thus not unreasonable to assume that most of the Submariners that exist aren't actually real.
Now if we assume the not unreasonable assumption that most of the Submariners are fakes, then
owner of Rolex Submariner = owner of Rolex model of which majority are fake
and
owner of Rolex model of which majority are fake = not watch enthusiast
thus
owner of Rolex Submariner = not watch enthusiast
If you say so.
I haven't used a single 'big word', certainly not one that required me to Google. Again, ironically, your ad-hominem argument does nothing but draw attention to your unfortunately small vocabulary.
This started out as an objection to the use of the word 'our' and the arrogant presumption that every one else fits the OP's idealised version of what each individual in his particular group should be like. In this case the group being 'watch fanatics' however loosely or tightly that term can be interpreted, and the ideal being the absolute aversion to the modification of watches.
Now though, it has become a tirade against the inability of certain people to see sense despite overwhelming logic. Even if this has been a couple of troll attempts all along, it was a pretty horrible effort at going about it.
