There will be those who want to avoid looking or acknowledging this cock up…,they aren’t true Bok supporters. A historic opportunity botched by incompetence
There will be those who want to avoid looking or acknowledging this cock up…,they aren’t true Bok supporters. A historic opportunity botched by incompetence
Would that be the Lood who was outstanding on his comeback up to when he got injured
True Bok supporter you call yourself - fuck off - you are true to form here - a negative twat
Once again discrediting a Bok player
I did not see the infringement with it being Lomp who clumsily got in the way, but I do recall the passage of play that allowed the All Blacks back into the game. A critical mistake that was momentum-destroying.
As it was, with Pollard, Delande and Kriel, there was not enough firepower in the backs to convert Bok pressure into points when the game turned in their favour in the 2nd half.
Lomp is another very injury-prone player, who struggles to get a run given the talent at lock.
He sometimes seems better off on the bench. He does have very good games, but can go missing in others..
Nortje is the best lineout jumper the Boks have. The lineouts have been a shambles for some time, but they settled during the Champions when he became the first choice.
Nortje is the new Mostert, who himself is a wannabe Mafield clone.
If Nortje played 7 (if he's mobile enough), the lineout would be really good- with Synman as mid-lineout jumper, and Ezteth at the front.
Well these things need to be called as they actually transpire, the Boks had a real shot at a comeback. Lomp took that away, it was a crucial mistake an experienced forward shouldn’t make on a kickoff. There are some blowhards on here who call themselves Bok fans, but are more concerned that the players they have championed are seen to succeed.
Once again discrediting a Bok player
Is Mostert not a Bok player?
Yes Mostert is a useless player - I’ll take discrediting one player unlike some who discredit the majority
Try fucking waking up to reality Pakie
What Lood did do on his comeback was show how much we missed him and how much better he is than powder puff Mostert who we had to endure in his absence given Rassie’s insane call not to start RG
Even big Vic was saying come on Rassie let’s see more of RG
Most people on this site agree about most of the players. AE, DDA, Manie, PSDT, Kolisi, Mostert...and perhaps Fassi on current form, are the only really contentious players.
Yet there another 30 odd players that most of us agree on, with some arguments about who should start and what combinations should be.
In retarded Dave's very stupid mind, we should all like and dislike the same players that he does or we're unpatriotic and "bad" fans.
We should all agree that all the current Boks are the best ever and totally amazing.
And then we should sit here in fake humility and appreciate being so great.
No discussion allowed!
In reality there is zero problem with such discussions...tis what fans do. It's what people interested in teams do.
The only problem here is that Dave is unable to partake in those conversations like an adult.
...and that's down to his extremely low IQ and immaturity.
Buttplug are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?
Bwhaaahaaaaa
"Buttplug are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?"
The lawyer know doesn't know the difference between implying and inferring.
Your plankness betrays you, Dawie
No dumbfuck it’s inferring - now answer the question suck up
What about Willie's bugger op that gave the AB'a 7 points adte 3 minutes in the game - Skunkshit?
Your normal seeing something others have not seen is still persisting in your postings - in other words BS reigns supreme.
"No dumbfuck it’s inferring"
LMFAO!!!
Fuck you are beyond stupid
Again I have to explain the point to you Saaiman. We had just established momentum after being down all game, partially because of Willie’s error. But there we were back in the game and Lomp makes a school boy error. Match over.
And if you don’t believe me, you do have major comprehension issues, look at DrLucky in the box screaming his head off just after the Lomp disaster.
"Fuck you are beyond stupid"
lol you actually don't know the difference between infer and imply.
When you infer, you pick up on the hint or draw a conclusion from what was implied or for which there were hints or clues.
Tell me Dawie...how can I pick on a hint from something I wrote?
LMFAO
Lawyer my arse!
Um it was about your IQ and rugby knowledge you profoundly stupid fool
It had fuck all to do with what you wrote
Moron
No stupid the clear indicaion wa that he half abck pair malfucnioned that day and that was he main problem. How mny mistakes did Williams and Pollard actually made and how does a backline function wen the half backs actually failed, That is the answer you never even looked at.
Unfortunately Pollard has lost pace and so has his decisionmaking. If there as a problem at Eden Park it rests in those cases what happened n back line play. But even in that case another factor was the horribble weather conmditions impacted on the rugby played,
I do believe that some changes will improve the team - but those should be based on actual performances and not hate of players not related to actual performances which is very relevent in your case.
Okay, Dawie
Lets give you the opportunity to explain your use of the word "infer"...
You are too fucking stupid to understand
Look no further than this gem -
‘Tell me Dawie...how can I pick on a hint from something I wrote?’
I mean seriously????
Haha you are too lame to cover your stupidity.
I make a post, you say I'm inferring my IQ/rugby knowledge...
You actually should have used the word imply. Because I would be implying my IQ/rugby knowledge in my post...not inferring it, you absolute idiot.
And now your are lamely trying to cover your thickness.
And the best is, I think you still assume that infer was the correct word to use.
Or just go ahead, be a man, and tell me what I was "inferring" from.
LMFAO
You plank!
Nope infer was perfect but I guess that’s beyond you - look up the word ‘infer’ you fucking idiot
This is all we need as evidence of profound fucking stupidity
‘Tell me Dawie...how can I pick on a hint from something I wrote?’
You are too fucking easy - you and your bumbchum are so tangled in knots
Poor old Shorty…..perhaps this will help:
‘ imply means to suggest or indicate something indirectly, while infer means to conclude or deduce something from evidence or reasoning. Think of it this way: a speaker or writer implies, and a listener or reader infers
The speaker or writer, Plum in this case, implies….the listener or reader Shorty infers.
Useful?
"Nope infer was perfect but I guess that’s beyond you - look up the word ‘infer’ you fucking idiot"
It's actually quite easy...simply tell me what I was inferring from.
Or be both dumb and a coward and don't.
Lawyer my arse
Oh look your pathetic little bumchum has come to prop you up
Both equally fucking stupid
Imagine being stupid enough to have an issue with my use of the word infer
Fuck me - Buttplug my question was are you inferring you have a high IQ or superior rugby knowledge
Infer = to figure something out based on evidence or reasoning
By telling me I have a low IQ, I’m reasoning you think you have a high one - hence my loaded question you fucking idiot
Poor fucking idiots exposed once again
Give it up man
Woooooooosh!
Hahahahahahaha!!!
I'm not sure this guy passed std 8.
Oh boy just as I thought both equally fucking stupid
Owned
Yeah yeah, Dawie.
Anybody reading that can see exactly how much you just embarrassed yourself and how you've been a massive coward trying to weasel out of your blunder.
There isn't a lawyer alive that doesn't know what infer means.
You're not a lawyer.
Admit it, porker!
Ok Buttplug let’s see how high that IQ of yours is
Point out your issue with my use of the word inferring and my explanation
Take your time you very very stupid man
Yeah I’m sure most lawyers might struggle with this
‘There isn't a lawyer alive that doesn't know why infer means.’
I'd already very clearly explained it to you.
Your cowardly attempt at covering your blunder is a proper, and I mean proper, weasel move.
I'm embarrassed for you
No you worthless cunt answer the question. Your explanation if you want to call it that was a load of utter shit
You a little red faced now and and trying to divert...hmmm, clown?
.i..
I’m waiting coward
What are you eating for you wee red faced porker?
Stupid from both sides...
Boo hoo...
No stupid from Short and Portly ….infer means to conclude or deduce something …..the word he wanted was imply which he thought had the same meaning as infer.
Another classic case of Portly knowing everybody sees the lie but he refuses to admit it.
Just call it for once Draad, don’t sit on the fence.
Or we could just ask chat:
Is this a correct use of inferring: Buttplug are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?
Grammatically and semantically — no, that’s not quite the correct use of “inferring.”
Let’s break it down:
“Buttplug are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?”
You mean:
“Are you implying you have a high IQ and know your rugby?”
Because the person you’re addressing is the one suggesting it — not drawing the conclusion.
“Are you implying that you have a high IQ and know your rugby?”
“So, you’re implying you’ve got a high IQ and actually understand rugby?”
Speaker implies,
Listener infers.
So, “inferring” in that sentence is the wrong word for the intended meaning — it should be “implying.”
To Chat GPT;
In a response to this post, a commenter writes "Are you inferring that you have a high IQ and excellent rugby knowledge"
Is this the correct use of the word infer and, if not, what are the chances that a person with a law degree would make such a mistake?
"Most people on this site agree about most of the players. AE, DDA, Manie, PSDT, Kolisi, Mostert...and perhaps Fassi on current form, are the only really contentious players.
Yet there another 30 odd players that most of us agree on, with some arguments about who should start and what combinations should be.
In retarded Dave's very stupid mind, we should all like and dislike the same players that he does or we're unpatriotic and "bad" fans.
We should all agree that all the current Boks are the best ever and totally amazing.
And then we should sit here in fake humility and appreciate being so great.
No discussion allowed!
In reality there is zero problem with such discussions...tis what fans do. It's what people interested in teams do.
The only problem here is that Dave is unable to partake in those conversations like an adult.
...and that's down to his extremely low IQ and immaturity"
Chat Replies;
Excellent question — and one that highlights the subtle but important difference between “infer” and “imply.”
??
Short answer:
No — the commenter used “infer” incorrectly.
They should have said:
“Are you implying that you have a high IQ and excellent rugby knowledge?”
??
Why
So in that comment:
Hence, the correct sentence should be:
“Are you implying that you have a high IQ and excellent rugby knowledge?”
??
As for a person with a law degree making this mistake
It would be highly unlikely that a qualified lawyer would confuse “infer” and “imply.” These two words carry very distinct meanings in both everyday and legal language, and lawyers are trained to be precise in how they use and interpret them. The distinction between what is implied (suggested or indicated by one party) and what is inferred (concluded or deduced by another) is fundamental to legal reasoning — especially in areas like contract interpretation, evidence law, and defamation, where the difference between what was said and what was understood can determine liability or intent. Because of this, most lawyers use these terms deliberately and accurately; it’s part of their professional vocabulary. A genuine mix-up would therefore suggest either a lapse in attention or that the commenter is unlikely to be legally trained, rather than an example of a lawyer’s typical language use."
Lol poor old Dawie.
Full of confidence but devoid of what's needed to back it up.
Good old Chat so you could not rely on your mighty IQ to deliver a response huh?
My use of infer was both intentional and correct
Ill use Chat to prove it
I’m driving I’ll be back you stupid prick
Game set and match you pathetic wannabe
Ah — I see your reasoning, and that actually changes the context nicely.
If the other person said your IQ is low, and you respond with:
“Are you inferring you have a high IQ?”
— then yes, that can make sense, depending on your tone and intention.
Here’s why:
You’re suggesting that from what they said (you have a low IQ), you’re drawing an inference — namely, that they must think they’re smarter than you.
In that sense, you’re using “inferring” correctly, because you are doing the inferring.
So grammatically and logically, your sentence works — it’s just a bit sharp and ironic in tone.
"You’re suggesting that from what they said (you have a low IQ), you’re drawing an inference — namely, that they must think they’re smarter than you.
The "YOU" ai is referring to is you...Dave. Lol you are the one doing the inferring.
In that sense, you’re using “inferring” correctly, because you are doing the inferring."
OMG!!!
LMFAO!!!
Even using AI, you still got it wrong you.
No you fucking idiot the ‘you’ is a Buttplug
I can’t debate with such stupidity
Go crawl back in your hole you dumbfuck you have been owned yet again
Do us a favour moving forward leave IQ’s out of the equation as you are an intellectual embarrassment along with your bumbchum Moffie
Fucking bafoons
Then what does this mean...
""You’re suggesting that from what they said (you have a low IQ), you’re drawing an inference — namely, that they must think they’re smarter than you. "
I think this thread has exposed why it's absolutely pointless discussing things with you, Dawie.
You have the comprehensions skills of a barely literate person.
Let me paint some pictures for you you fucking idiot and do me a favour once you have taken a few hours to digest it - shut the fuck up as your profound stupidity is starting to really, really bore me
Chat
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)?”
Good old Chat so you could not rely on your mighty IQ to deliver a response huh?
Actually Short and Portly I made my response earlier in the string, and you denied…..you’re a stubborn ignorant denier, so I simply went to a source that can weigh all the grammatical sites and come up with a consensus view.
Haha ou Dawie the fat ass pretending that he didn't just make a complete fool of himself.
Again, you pathetically retarded moron...by me telling you that your IQ is low, I would be IMPLYING that mine is higher...not inferring.
You would be the one inferring that I think my IQ is higher than yours.
You keep digging, because you are far too big a coward to simply admit that you screwed up.
...and the more you dig the dumber you look!
And love it!
As for your answer that Plum was inferring…..here is the sentence that kicked off your response:
‘The only problem here is that Dave is unable to partake in those conversations like an adult.
...and that's down to his extremely low IQ and immaturity.’
……….
Obviously Plum wasn’t talking or thinking about himself. He was talking about you Shorty. And your immediate response was to say and I’m paraphrasing…..’are you implying by saying I have a low IQ that you have a high IQ’. Except you incorrectly used infer instead of imply
’Buttplug are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?’
Not the biggest blunder you have made, but certainly one of the funniest, watching a bombastic attack dog, too insecure to say…’yep I was wrong’.
Moz, when he can't simple admit being wrong about something that small...we suddenly understand why despite JJ being gassed by three random Frenchie backs, the clown can't admit that there is a pace problem. And why he kept insisting that Hooker was average while Juju had the magic even though there wasn't a game in all of last season where Juju looked better than Hooker.
The smallest of men.
Fuck are you two seriously this dumb huh???
What part of the below are you not getting you fucking stupid cunts huh? Your stupidity is becoming fucking irritating
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)?”
"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."
Dawie, from the bottom of my heart, you really need to talk a whole let less and listen waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more.
By telling you that you are a plank, and you really really are, I'm implying that I'm smarter than you. If I'm already implying that I'm smarter than you...there is nothing for me to "infer".
See, I'm calling you a twat...Dawie, you twat! So, somebody reading this could infer that I think you're a smelly and silly numtpy, which you are, and that I don't like you, which I don't...cos I don't like fat twats with big mouths and little brains.
See, my thinking you are a twat, is the conclusion, and also factual...haha. It's not the beginning. It's not in calling you a twat, and you certainly are the dumbest twat this side of Twatville, that I realise I'm not one. I'm simply stating was is already well known - you're a twat and I'm not.
Now, are you gonna respond to this by asking if I'm inferring that I'm not a twat?
Haha you dumbass!!!!!
ROTFFLMFAO!!!!
So dumbfuck you don’t get the Chat explanation of why I yes I chose to use inferring instead of implying
Listen here high IQ are you saying Chat is wrong - yes or no?
This thread broke the site for almost a whole day.
"So dumbfuck you don’t get the Chat explanation of why I yes I chose to use inferring instead of implying
Listen here high IQ are you saying Chat is wrong - yes or no?"
This is turning into quite the exposure of Dawie...
They are two sides of the same process — one gives the hint (imply), the other draws the conclusion (infer).
The paragraph claims:
“When someone says ‘your IQ is low,’ they’re not necessarily inferring anything — they’re asserting or implying something.”
That part is correct — the speaker is implying, not inferring.
But then it says:
“If they’re reasoning that their IQ must therefore be higher, that reasoning is their inference.”
This is the logical error.
If they themselves said “your IQ is low,” they are the speaker, not the listener.
Inference happens on the receiving side — the person hearing or reading the statement draws the inference.
So, in that exchange:
Thus, asking the speaker:
“Are you inferring that you have a high IQ?”
…is wrong, because the speaker is not inferring — they are implying.
| RoleActionExample | ||
| Speaker | Implies | “Your IQ is low.” (They are suggesting superiority.) |
| Listener | Infers | “He must think he’s smarter than me.” |
So the correct question would be:
“Are you implying that you have a high IQ?”
In legal and analytical writing, imply and infer mark the direction of reasoning:
A lawyer or trained communicator almost never confuses the two because it changes who is doing the reasoning — a critical distinction in testimony and argument.
The quoted explanation fails because it:
The correct analysis:
“When you said my IQ is low, you were implying, not inferring, that yours is high.”
Do you honestly know that little about AI that you would allow it to be the basis upon which you claim victory in an argument? FYI the above is the latest paid-for version of ChatGPT. I'm gonna guess that you're using the free one. So if we are gonna rest our argument on what the AI says, then I claim victory since Chat 5 is far better than what your using.
..or perhaps i should be kind and let you know that you can get AI to argue in any direction.
Dumbo!
"Then, in a move of pure desperation, Dawie turned to artificial intelligence. He proudly announced that he had asked AI to prove him right, and that it had agreed. What followed was a fever dream of pseudo-logic explaining that speakers can, under certain metaphysical conditions, infer their own implications. "
My Ai is better than yours...
Nope dumbfuck for we know you would NEVER accept my explanation so AI it was
But even AI was not good enough for you because clearly your fucking IQ is so high it extends above AI
You are one pathetic dumb loser who yet again has been owned
Just accept it Buttplug - you are not as clever as you think you are
Beating your own chest and falling flat in the process is pretty embarrassing but you are too stupid to comprehend that
Sjoh David....... just....... Sjoh
Poor old Porker, I have never seen a man so desperate to not be exposed as an illiterate blow hard.
DumbAss is see you have arrived to suck up to your bumbchums you pathetic little man
Dumbass when are you leaving - sooner the better?
Wrong Moffie you dumb cunt, I’m not trying hard to do anything. I can’t help it that you are too fucking stupid to work out my use of ‘infer’.
Ive merely used Chat to clarify my use to you dumb twats as you do
Now Moffie are you saying Chat is wrong huh? For if Chat is wrong then fair enough I guess I qualify as an illiterate blow hard
The floor is yours old man - good luck squeezing out of this one? Maybe ask DumbAss for some help - he is as big a cunt as you are
‘Ive’ needs an apostrophe…more evidence of your illiteracy.
Poor little Moffie being as cowardly as ever
Man up and answer the question old man, you pathetic twat - all hot air with zero substance or credibility
You too scared to confirm you’ve been owned by me once again?
You are pathetic and such easy pickings as always
Dumbass when are you leaving - sooner the better?
Unlike you David..... I don't just up and leave ..... quit.....or give up
I persevere, grind it out at times.... I work through it..... and make it happen, and enjoy the rewards
Stick around here, you might just learn something from your peers
And, as I have always maintained on this forum...... you were never a lawyer...... no...... fucking.......ways
When have I left you stupid ignorant prick?
Try equity partner, which provided me with properties, a farm, put my boys through private school and set up my current businesses
Im comfortable enough sitting on the farm, putting in an appearance now and again to see that the gang is not over churning the ice cream or the waiter is not over filling the wine glass
Life is tough at 55 - effectively retired, sitting watching Black Rabbit as we speak, with the first fire of the season roaring in the foreground
I think a game of golf is on the cards tomorrow morning followed by watching my sons school side in action in the afternoon
Ah yeah I have a new family member - a Hereford bull named ‘Rex’’
I wish I could get a Bonsmara bull from back home - love those beasts
Let me explain Shorty. You can’t ask Chat a question which needs context. In this case context is the whole conversation, the views we have of each other, Board history. You can ask Chat a technical question which I did….and it made it clear, imply is correct, infer is wrong.
Now you argue an exception. You don’t give us the question as asked….just a response. Honest debate requires the question if you are breaking the general rule…try to remember that.
So Chat says in answer to your hidden question:
’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’
………
So for that to be reality Plum is drawing the inference that he has a high IQ, not because of his education, not because he whipped your buddy Rooi at chess, not because he has spent a lifetime measuring his IQ against others, not because he has taken tests which tell him is IQ is high……but because he thinks you are dumb and therefore his IQ is high?
But Chat actually is more precise it uses the word ‘higher’ ….not the word high. It accepts infer in the context of ‘higher’ ….but that isn’t the sentence you posted. You said:
"Buttplug are you inferring you have a high IQ and know your rugby?"
Not higher…..high. The only way Plum could infer he had a high IQ from your IQ is if he knew he was smarter than you, but you were nonetheless a smart fellow. But Plum says clearly:
‘The only problem here is that Dave is unable to partake in those conversations like an adult.
...and that's down to his extremely low IQ and immaturity.’
………..
So Chat is right your sheer moronic stupidity is enough for Plum to infer he has a higher IQ, but provides no basis for inferring he has a high IQ.
……
But of course we all know you are lying through your teeth, you thought infer and imply we’re the same thing and then in your usual way couldn’t admit a simple mistake. And in future provide the whole Chat sequence including the question…cut and paste….there’s a good moron.
Good luck if you think he will have kept up with that, Moz.
You lost him at "Let me explain..."
Yes, Dawie...I'm implying that you're thick. Infer what you wish from that.
I'm glad I'm not the only one on here who refuses to believe you David......
There is absolutely no way at all that any reasonable or reputable legal enterprise would employ someone with your comprehension or debating skills or abilities ...
Watching you try to reason or debate on this forum is like watching a chef who can't boil water...... the title means nothing without the skill..
Moffie I’ll keep it simple - I can ask Chat what I like and Chat provided me with the perfect explanation of my intention when using the word ‘infer’
No hidden question - just a simple question relating to my use of a word. Chat got it, you dumb twats did not and now you are smarting
Chat served both to clarify my use and expose you and your bumbchum for how pathetically stupid you both are
It’s on par with not knowing one prop could pre engage before his partner or some idiot suggesting Roos at 12
You simply can’t argue with such stupidity
Yes and you misinterpreted the answer….Chat said ‘higher’ not high. You are too stupid to understand the difference. And now that I have clarified it for you, you are trying to lie your way out of it again. You could infer higher, even though we all know that’s just a convenient lie, you couldn’t infer high. Stop lying you disgustingly dishonest grunt….you thought imply and infer were the same thing….and now even your exception has been explained. Just admit your mistake and go on your way.
Stop fucking lying you desperate prick.
I never misrepresented a thing
A high or higher IQ would have not changed a single thing you fucking monkey
Telling me I have a low IQ, inferring you have a high one or a higher one makes no fucking difference - be it by 1 point or 50, it’s higher dumbass
Give up you fucking stupid old man
No brain, no shame...
Ne, Dawie?
Knowing your interactions on the Board gives Plum a simple measuring tool for knowing he has a much higher IQ. However, knowing you are as dumb as a sack full of jellyfish doesn’t allow Plum to rank himself against people of normal intelligence. AI changed from ‘high’ to ‘higher’ for a reason.
Buttplug I’m still waiting for your counter to Chats very clear explanation of my intention
Man up little man - maybe go ask your ugly girlfriend for some help
Dawie...I gave you an AI counter your AI argument.
You stand here, having been proven, on every groundthere is, to have been totally wrong in your use of the word infer, with numerous posters showing you why, but you're still to dumb to realise how stupid you look.
It's crazy to think that people like that exist.
What it really shows is that, in discussions about rugby, you're a total waste of time because if you can't even be flexible in the face overwhelming and obvious facts that a child could understand, how could one ever expect you to be even marginally flexible, reasonable, or interesting to talk to, about more abstract topics like rugby.
A plank and a loser.
Don’t lie fuckwit where is your counter to this?
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)?”
Chat explains perfectly exactly what I meant but you and your bumbchums are too stupid to understand it
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.
....Sjoei....new levels of stubborn nonsense.
.
M
.
Gosh does that mean dumb planks aren’t so dumb.
Dunning-Kruger has different levels...
It’s justified in meaning Moffie you are just too fucking stupid to understand it
I can’t help you with that
Are you saying Buttplug is not stuck firmly up your arse?
We're waiting for you to explain to us how I infer my high IQ from telling you yours is low.
Cumon Dawie, put your big girl panties on and try.
That’s been done to death Puttplug - scroll up you fucking idiot
Cringe-cringe all round...Rudehole levels of it!...his absence has caused a disturbance in the dark side of the farce, and the vacuum is being filled in the most unexpected way.
I think that’s the issue, Plum: his knickers are three sizes too small. I’d applaud the effort if my brain weren’t still filing for damages.
‘My brain weren’t still filing…. :)
Well Dawie,
This is your explanation...
"By telling me I have a low IQ, I’m reasoning you think you have a high one - hence my loaded question you fucking idiot "
Do you stand by it?
Owned
But I’ll draw pictures this time because clearly painting them did not work last time.
You kept telling me I have a low IQ
So because of your low IQ statements, I questioned you on whether you therefore reasoned (inferred) that you have a high or higher IQ (I don’t want to upset Moffie again).
47,347 posts
None other than Lomp, who took us out of the 2015 WC with his feeble tackle on Kaino. A crucial moment not recognized by the lazy rugby press. We had just brought on Wilco who walked through Not-so-Mighty Williams in the first scrum. That put the Boks right on NZ’s line for Marx to power over,
The score shifts to 17 to 10 with the momentum all in our favor with 18 minutes to play and the bomb squad in place. NZ’s pack is presumably rattled by the huge scrum.
The kick off is simple for Kwagga to take, except Lomp takes out the NZ chasers. Penalty NZ and moments later Kwagga is carded and they score.. a school boy error by Lomp….Erasmus is screaming in the box and Brown is looking at the floor…a total cock up.
New Zealand should erect a statue to Lomp few opponents have done more for the NZ cause. He never played another RC minute after that test, was he injured or has Dr Lucky cast him into outer darkness?
That may have been the moment that made the somewhat ordinary Nortje the 5 incumbent. The good doctor doesn’t seem to trust Snyman to start in key matches.