Chat explains perfectly that Plum could assume he has a higher IQ than you (a sack full of jellyfish) Chat will not say that allows Plum to ‘infer’ he has a high IQ.
FFS man stop making an utter fool of yourself
Fuck off Moffie this is what Chat is saying:
But if, as you say, they’re reasoning that their IQ must therefore be higher, that reasoning is their inference — they are drawing that conclusion.
So if you’re asking them directly whether that’s what they’re doing — drawing that conclusion — then your sentence is justified:
Fuck me how dumb are you old man - seriously just fuck off you are boring the crap out of me
Why am I bothering with such stupidity huh?
ROTFLMAO!!!
This absolute pleb simply refuses to stop embarrassing himself.
Dawie, tell me, do you really believe yourself to be the smartest person on this thread?
Do you really think that everybody here is simply going against you in some act of revenge or simply because they dislike you?
Does it not occur to you that perhaps, nobody is agreeing with you because you're wrong?
Have you yet understood yet that taking the early L is much better than taking the much later and much more embarrassing L?
Probably not.
You should ask yourself why that hasn't occurred to you, fatty.
Buttplug I don’t give a toss what you or anyone else on here thinks of me fuckwit
One certainly is that yes I definitely think I’m brighter than you and your bumbchum Moffie if that’s really important to you but who gives a fuck
What I am enjoying is kicking your sorry arse and seeing you squirm given your pathetic childish need to have had an issue with a word I chose only to embarrass yourself with the Chat confirmation that my choice was perfectly acceptable used in its context
For a minute you thought you had me in a corner only to end up flat on your fucking ugly face you stupid prick
Now fuck off you boring cunt
Have you now moved on to claiming you are winning and trying your best to believe what you're saying?
You keep going lower and lower, Dawie.
I'm gonna stick around because I bet you'll go even lower.
To be honest, I don't there is a bottom with you.
Awe Buttplug you can change the narrative and claim victory once you have provided your rebuttal to Chat confirming my use of infer was perfectly acceptable in the context I used it
I can’t help that you are too fucking stupid to understand that but better than that is your inability to counter my choice as there simple is no counter
Yes without doubt I have your number along with your equally pathetic bumbchum
I’m embarrassed having to ask this question…but this is what Porker has brought us to:
Yes or no answer, if one respondent on a Chat site has solid reason to believe he has a higher IQ than another respondent, is he justified in thinking he has a high IQ
No.
Having solid reason to believe you have a higher IQ than another respondent does not justify assuming you have a high IQ overall.
It only supports a relative comparison (higher than one person), not an absolute conclusion about your IQ level compared to the general population
…. …
Which is why Chat changed high to higher.. Plum wasn’t inferring anything and he certainly wasn’t inferring because he is smarter than the dumbest person in the class, that he has a high IQ. Chat confirms that’s unjustified logic.
So there is no reason to believe he was inferring he has a high IQ.
There is every reason to believe the out of control fat man simply didn’t know the difference between imply and infer,
Case closed.
Oh fuck off you loser this is all I need to confirm and vindicate my position:
When someone says “your IQ is low”, they’re not necessarily inferring anything in that moment — they’re asserting or implying something.
But if, as you say, they’re reasoning that their IQ must therefore be higher, that reasoning is their inference — they are drawing that conclusion.
So if you’re asking them directly whether that’s what they’re doing — drawing that conclusion — then your sentence is justified:
? “Are you inferring that you have a high IQ?”
This reading works if you mean:
“Are you drawing the conclusion that you must have a high IQ (based on your claim that mine is low)?”
You can twist and turn as much as you like but this is what Chat said about my use of the word infer -
But if, as you say, they’re reasoning that their IQ must therefore be higher, that reasoning is their inference — they are drawing that conclusion.
So if you’re asking them directly whether that’s what they’re doing — drawing that conclusion — then your sentence is justified
You see Moffie let me paint pictures for you - Chat is saying - ‘then your sentence is justified’
Thats all I needed to close the case
Here is a little hint for you don’t argue with a seasoned lawyer
Now run along you pathetic loser
So we have dealt with the fact that my use of the word infer is justified
So now let’s deal with your next pathetic attempt at a counter - let’s call it high or higher
I posed the question to pathetic Buttplug - ‘are you inferring you have a higher IQ than me?’ given he keeps telling me how LOW my IQ is
So regardless of where you are trying to level out Buttplugs IQ be it high, middle range or low - my question was directed at him in the belief that my IQ was lower than his regardless of what his might be -,my reasoning rightly or wrongly was based on the fact that he and yourself keep telling me my IQ is sooooo low
I would not have posed that question if I thought his IQ was lower than mine (which in reality it clearly is, much like yours - clearly)
Now chew on that you fucking moron
Good luck
Nope Chat substituted the word ‘higher’ for the word high. And when asked directly if one could infer what you claim Plum inferred it said no.
Which is of course what any kid in school could tell you and what you would accept if you had a shred of honesty about you….which you clearly don’t.
Lood de Jager is a lumbering oaf... a man who somehow manages to be 120 kilos of ballast without generating an ounce of impact. He has the tackle radius of a Jaffa Cake and about the same nutritional value to a defensive line. His "presence" on the field is mostly atmospheric; you know he’s there only because the maul moves slower.
Technically, he’s a lock who plays like he’s still buffering. His lineout calls are predictable, his lift timing drags, and his carrying style resembles a malfunctioning forklift... all weight, no direction, and guaranteed to stall in traffic.
People say, "Ah, but he’s a workhorse." Yes, but so is a donkey. You can load him up all you want; you’re not getting to the try line any faster. His cleanouts are a masterclass in arriving late and achieving nothing. He goes into contact upright, offers zero leg drive, and exits the ruck looking like he’s just realised rugby is a contact sport.
He’s heavy, sure, but he’s heavy in the same way wet laundry is heavy: cumbersome, unthreatening, and in constant need of support. His contribution to forward dominance is like Kolisi’s to loose play or De Allende’s to creative midfielding... purely theoretical. If Kolisi is the ambassador and De Allende the battering plank, Lood is the walking white flag. The universal signal that momentum has left the building.
At this point, the only thing Lood locks down with consistency is the pace of the game. Watching him hit a ruck is like watching a fridge fall over in slow motion... technically mass in motion, but spiritually exhausted.
Oh fuck off you idiot it’s bloody obvious that if some prick keeps telling me I have a low IQ, they are hardly going to be saying that if they thought their own IQ was lower
And I never said it was one or the other, I posed the question given my reasoning not my declaration
Wake the fuck up you plank
Stick to snap, crackle and pop - you are no match for a seasoned solicitor
Dumb, dumb, dumb plank…..your claim was Plum inferred he had a high IQ because he thought he had a higher IQ than you…anybody with half a brain or a cyber brain like Chat can spot the fault in that logic.
But that’s not what happened….you simply didn’t know the difference between implied and inferred.
As for you being a seasoned solicitor….maybe, seasoned with chutney that fell off your burger,
Awe poor Moffie clutching at straws again
Let me try shout it and maybe then it will sink in
Here’s the logic you fucking monkey…..your bumb buddy kept telling me I had a low IQ. From that I reasoned that he must think that his IQ is above mine. You got this bit?
So I asked him the question using infer (based on reasoning) to which Chat concluded I was justified in doing given the context
That dumbfuck is all that happened but you are too fucking stupid to comprehend this fact.
The two of you have been completely owned, desperately trying to squirm your way out of a corner
But keep coming old man as you are too fucking stupid to know when you have well and truly been handed a beating
Don’t fuck with a solicitor who spent his life fighting battles - I don’t lose old man and this is not a battle - it’s too fucking easy
What’s it then - Dave doesn’t know the difference between infer and imply or is it high or higher? Fucking child’s play - up your game old timer
Chuck in the towel you fucking sad excuse of a Bok supporter - Bok supporter my arse
You have fucking zero worth on many counts but none so bad as your anti Bok
Infer vs imply we can live with stupidity but Bok betrayal is unforgivable
But alas you are too fucking dumb to register
Straws….the fact that your argument is a logical fallacy? Try again
No Moffie this is what Chat said and it’s all that counts
When someone says “your IQ is low”, they’re not necessarily inferring anything in that moment — they’re asserting or implying something.
But if, as you say, they’re reasoning that their IQ must therefore be higher, that reasoning is their inference — they are drawing that conclusion.
So if you’re asking them directly whether that’s what they’re doing — drawing that conclusion — then your sentence is justified:
? “Are you inferring that you have a high IQ?”
This reading works if you mean:
“Are you drawing the conclusion that you must have a high IQ (based on your claim that mine is low
The above confirms the use of ‘infer’ is justified
High or higher IQ is inconsequential - what we can determine by virtue of Buttplug saying my IQ is low is that one would reason that he thinks his IQ is above mine and I posed the question to him
That’s it old timer - no more or no less
The only case closed is how fucking dumb you are
The argument is about my use of the word infer and I’ll say it again as you are clearly suffering from dementia - Chat confirms my use of the word is justified
Let that sink in - candy from a child
Chat says above the statement is flawed….read and learn.
Sapp’s sentence
“Buttplug, are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?”
is not justified in meaning, even if the grammar can be parsed.
Here’s why:
Sapp likely misused “infer,” realized it, and then tried to justify it by stretching its definition.
But since his logic depends on the invalid leapfrom “higher” to “high,” the statement is flawed both logically and contextually, even if not strictly ungrammatical.
And there finally we have the whole truth laid bare, the misuse of infer to cover a prior mistake and flawed logic the only way you could twist it into an inference. Porker you are the world’s worst liar, although very persistent. The only way you are seasoned is:
1 You spilled HP sauce or chutney on your gut as you ate another burger slumped in your chair.
2 You had enough to drink to be truly pickled
3 You got smoked by the latest used car salesman you did a deal with..
4 You haven’t showered for a while
And the only way you are a solicitor is when you are soliciting more ice cream sales.
Grrr...
"Argue against my AI while I claim victory"
Dawie puts on a brave face but he's seething right now. He knows he made a whoopsi and that everybody else sees it. He knows that he looks even dumber than he looked before this incident.
But he can't turn around now.
All he can do is put on a brave face and continue to claim victory.
Meanwhile the rest of us can only but laugh our arses off at how pathetic a creature he turned out to be.
And he still hasn't figured out, despite me explaining it to him very clearly, that AI will argue in any direction you ask it to.
Here, I'll demonstrate...
Query;
Argue that living a healthy and honest life is bad for you.
Chat;
The Case Against Living a Healthy and Honest Life
Living a healthy and honest life may sound virtuous, but it can paradoxically make existence more difficult.
First, honesty isolates. In a world built on social diplomacy and polite deceit, being truly honest can alienate you from others. People often prefer comfort over truth, and blunt sincerity can cost friendships, opportunities, and even safety. Lies, on the other hand, grease the social machinery that keeps life running smoothly.
Second, health consciousness breeds anxiety. Constantly counting calories, avoiding pleasures, and obsessing over longevity can create stress—the very thing a “healthy” lifestyle seeks to prevent. Those who indulge, relax, and live spontaneously often experience more joy and less guilt than those trapped in the tyranny of self-discipline.
Finally, virtue rarely pays dividends. The world often rewards cunning, charm, and moral flexibility. Living honestly and healthily may make you good—but not necessarily successful, rich, or even happy. Sometimes, survival and satisfaction belong to those who bend the rules, not those who live by them.
In short: honesty exposes you, health obsession drains you, and virtue rarely protects you
Moffie what part of this Chat confirmation are you struggling with you fucking idiot huh?
The misuse of infer to cover a prior mistake? What mistake would that be you lying prick?
When someone says “your IQ is low”, they’re not necessarily inferring anything in that moment — they’re asserting or implying something.
But if, as you say, they’re reasoning that their IQ must therefore be higher, that reasoning is their inference — they are drawing that conclusion.
So if you’re asking them directly whether that’s what they’re doing — drawing that conclusion — then your sentence is justified:
? “Are you inferring that you have a high IQ?”
This reading works if you mean:
“Are you drawing the conclusion that you must have a high IQ (based on your claim that mine is low
Case closed you stupid boring cunt. You are no match for a solicitor - in fact you are no challenge at all
Buttplug I’m not sure who is more stupid you or your bumbchum Moffie - I’m going to go with you as there is not much in it - but I just don’t like you so I’m going to go with you
So your best counter given Chat clearly says my use of infer is justified, is that Chat is easily manipulated huh?
If that is the case fuckwit then why do you repeatedly rely on it as a source of evidence you fucking idiot?
This profound stupidity is on par with Moffie’s pathetic attempt to discredit the Boks saying the opposition are weaker
Bunch of fucking monkies - you two should go out on a date if you can get your head out Moffie’s arse in time
Dawie, here is the difference...
I will make a point and then let chat explain it to you after I already have.
You will make a fault point, get destroyed, and then beg chat to make an argument for you.
There is a difference there but your knuckles have been dragging on the ground for far too long for you to discern it.
And so you keep making a complete idiot out of yourself despite knowing that you used infer incorrectly.
You're basically lying, and everybody knows it.
A liar and stupid. Great combo, guy.
Oh fuck off, don’t kid yourself that you make any points, you are a fucking idiot
Just because my Chat confirmation served to embarrass you it’s suddenly fraught with conjecture huh?
Buttplug I own you - you and Moffie are such easy pickings
Up your game man - maybe another Roos at 12 will serve you better or maybe get that ugly girlfriend fully invested on here
Ill be kind to her - she is obviously stupid enough being with you and with that life must be hard enough for her?
Okay, explain to us, one last time, in your own words...why I was inferring that I have a high IQ.
Haha how I was deducing that my IQ is high
Don’t fuck with a solicitor who spent his life fighting battles - I don’t lose old man and this is not a battle - it’s too fucking easy
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I literally almost spat my Coffee out when I read this
DumbAss I did not think there was enough room for you to climb up Moffie’s arse given Buttplug is firmly cemented therein but alas
You really are a prize cunt
But I’m going to ask you one more time as I’m guessing the lift at least reaches mid way
Why do you waste our time visiting a rugby message board when your rugby contributions are absolutely ZERO?
I mean how desperate and sad do you need to be to troll a site you can’t contribute to? Surely there is more to life for you? Are you really this much of a loser?
Its a sincere question, I’m genuinely interested in your answer so please oblige me
Buttplug you seem to be smarting? I’m sorry for your loss
I’ll be gentler next time - I promise
"Why do you waste our time visiting a rugby message board when your rugby contributions are absolutely ZERO?"
Oh no...another person that Dawie suggests should leave
Clinging to his life vest the Solicitor repeats the same few words:
So your best counter given Chat clearly says my use of infer is justified, is that Chat is easily manipulated huh?
………
Nope Chat never had any context, when given a little context it says the use of inferred is ….NOT JUSTIFIED…..oops the life vest is gone. What will Porker do now, he had no logic, except a word he undoubtedly fed Chat. Now sadly the word is gone.
What new lie er argument will this pickled solicitor produce now?
Sapp’s sentence
“Buttplug, are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?”
is not justified in meaning, even if the grammar can be parsed.
Here’s why:
Sapp likely misused “infer,” realized it, and then tried to justify it by stretching its definition.
But since his logic depends on the invalid leapfrom “higher” to “high,” the statement is flawed both logically and contextually, even if not strictly ungrammatical.
In case there is any doubt that is pure unedited Chat. The judge believes the fat man got the word wrong and is simply trying to stretch the truth….which is what we all believe.
Poor old Porker is so rattled, while asking DA why he posts here, he comes up with this:
‘Its a sincere answer, I’m genuinely interested in your answer so please oblige’
The strain is beginning to tell. In Dave’s world he has many sincere answers, all he has to do is invent the questions
I mean how desperate and sad do you need to be to troll a site you can’t contribute to?
That's like me asking you why or how you became a lawyer..... same principle applies David
Moffie get this into your tiny little brain - I will keep repeating my Chat confirmation as that’s all I need
You can squeal, squirm and try as hard as you like to escape that confirmation but it’s just going to have you embarrassing yourself even further
I chose to use infer and Chat confirmed the use was justified - that old man is case closed - so how the fuck do you conclude I’m clinging on huh?
You are the one that has been exposed for declaring my use was incorrect only to have Chat expose you for the dimwit you are
I own you Moffie - well and truly
Moffie get this into your tiny little brain - I will keep repeating my Chat confirmation as that’s all I need
We get that Fat Man you will continue to use a Chat statement it subsequently reversed because you think that gives you cover. It doesn’t, it only demonstrates you are totally dishonest.
You can squeal, squirm and try as hard as you like to escape that confirmation but it’s just going to have you embarrassing yourself even further
‘squeal and squirm’ ….now who does that sound like
I chose to use infer and Chat confirmed the use was justified - that old man is case closed - so how the fuck do you conclude I’m clinging on huh?
You chose to use infer because you thought it meant the same as imply. Chat agrees you were confused and then tried to stretch the truth to cover your mistake
You are the one that has been exposed for declaring my use was incorrect only to have Chat expose you for the dimwit you are
Except Chat describes your logic as an invalid leap
I own you Moffie - well and truly
Another tired attempt to pluck victory from the ashes of defeat….just admit you screwed up.
The best is, I'm entirely unsure how I am supposed to infer anything from talking about how dumb Dawie is.
Dawie, why not simply talk me through this process of inferring what I am already implying.
Simply tell me what steps I followed in my inference.
Inference….gosh is that the same as implication?
Moffie are you mentally retarded?
Chat never reversed a single thing you pathetic liar. Nothing I have done has been dishonest - I used infer by choice and would again, I knew what I meant as did Chat - I can’t help that you and Butthole are too stupid to understand that.
I thought infer meant the same as imply?Is that because a worthless twat like you says as much? Stop fucking lying you sad loser
Chat agrees I was confused - wow another lie
Moffie so do you think the more lies you tell, the more credibility it will give you huh?
Invalid leap - another lie wow
I’ll say it again - I used the word infer by choice and Chat confirmed I was justified in using it
Get that into you sad fucking old head you pathetic liar
Buttplug I take it being up Moffie’s arse is where you are most comfortable? Yes or no?
Dave, you are insisting that you mean to use infer.
But you don't seem able to explain how I was meant to infer my high IQ from talking about your low one?
Simply explain it to us...
What part of this aren’t you getting?
Sapp’s sentence
“Buttplug, are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?”
is not justified in meaning, even if the grammar can be parsed.
A pickled pickled solicitor wrote this:
Buttplug I take it being up Moffie’s arse is where you are most comfortable? Yes or no?
I kid you not, that primary school stuff supposedly comes from someone who practiced law.