Then it’s a good thing I don’t try to sound “right” or “smart” then just because this hypergraphic individual tends to phrase things according to a different selection of words than the brute before me. None of what you describe is the same as there being a stable “odor signature”, or if it were possible, you would think dogs or perhaps forensic scientists could pull it off without any form of mistaken identity, unless there’s a number of citations pointing in the opposite viewpoint that this so-called “wannabe science” lacks.
Oooooh hypergraphic! Your pedantic semantics are enrapturing! No, someone who specifically came back to tell me I’m wrong with overconvoluted vocabulary and chauvinism wouldn’t be trying to prove either of those things.
Time magazine: the best source for up to date and accurate scientific information.
Except for the fact you’re far from the only questioner of this who has attempted to slam down on me for what you seem not to realize is an actual disorderly term even in response to citations, which the other side doesn’t give, though I fail to see how I imply chauvinism here.
Then it’s a good thing I don’t try to sound “right” or “smart” then just because this hypergraphic individual tends to phrase things according to a different selection of words than the brute before me. None of what you describe is the same as there being a stable “odor signature”, or if it were possible, you would think dogs or perhaps forensic scientists could pull it off without any form of mistaken identity, unless there’s a number of citations pointing in the opposite viewpoint that this so-called “wannabe science” lacks.
Oooooh hypergraphic! Your pedantic semantics are enrapturing! No, someone who specifically came back to tell me I’m wrong with overconvoluted vocabulary and chauvinism wouldn’t be trying to prove either of those things.
Time magazine: the best source for up to date and accurate scientific information.
Except for the fact you’re far from the only questioner of this who has attempted to slam down on me for what you seem not to realize is an actual disorderly term even in response to citations, which the other side doesn’t give, though I fail to see how I imply chauvinism here.