@iDanSimpson 'Shat upon' does seem unlikely to mean 'expressed some reservations abt/have some points of disagreement with.'
Think that kind of conversation works best on comparing arguments. In this case, it cld be pragmatics vs principles. Not sure.
-
-
Imo a Hillary vote is pragmatic but not merely so. Also very principled to directly oppose dangerous threat to U S.
-
I am absolutely not discussing US politics. It gets me into trouble every time. :-p
-
I understand. I thought it was relevant based on the original argument between them.
-
Absolutely. I'm more interested in talking about talking tho! Researching book on this right now.
-
Only to say that it doesn't seem to have to be pragmatic vs. principle if you're being pragmatic out of principle.
-
I know what you mean. I got held up here for ages disagreeing with ppl who opposed them.
-
But decided this a semantic issue. Had this epiphany today!https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/795335545639596032 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If so, both ppl cld argue why their approach is best overall or find that they don't actually disagree at all in process.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.