This just makes no sense, canada is a giant country too so wouldnt it STILL not make sense to have one little country among all these giants???
As you can see, my opinions on what a giant country is obviously differ from notty's opinions of a giant country as per my graph. Notty is thinking more geographically when I'm thinking more politically. In this post you can see me trying to explain that while it's larger then Ireland, it's less significant or "small" compared to the others.I mean little in the grand scheme of things. In previous posts I have said that Canada has greater international and political importance than Ireland but I would still consider it a "little" country in these terms. Perhaps little was the wrong word.
I mean, it's up to the person but I don't consider Canada a political giant at all. I don't see how it makes no sense?
Right here is a perfect example of notty misinterpreting when I am comparing stuff. This is why I accused her of deliberately taking stuff out of context, because she did this repeatedly.I think you're just making stuff up at this point, in what world is canada insignificant in politics but australia somehow is? You slipped admit it
I called Canada insignificant compared to the other three, not that it's completely insignificant. I said previously that is larger and more significant then Ireland, not that it's completely insignificant. I have already tried to explain why I think Australia is more important then Canada and to be honest, I don't see how it's relevant.
Yes, it makes sense. It makes sense for Ireland to be in it if Canada is in it as then there would be another comparatively "smaller" country with only one player. I know Canada isn't a little country and I said that I may have used the wrong word, but how is it a total 180. If anything, I'd be sticking to my tracks if I said it was small and then I said it was insignificant. I acknowledged the used of a wrong word but notty is / was trying to weave it to make me seem like scum. And then to justify accusing me of a 180 she goes on about numbers of significant politicians from the countries. I fail to see how this is relevant, once again, notty trying to make me look bad.First you go on to say ireland is a little country and it wouldn't make sense to have it in the game but it suddenly does make sense if canada is in it. I call you out saying that canada isn't a little country and all of a sudden you're doing a 180 and claiming canada isn't politically significant even though im pretty sure most people know exactly 1 canadian politician and 0 australian politicians(atleast thats my case). You claiming to somehow talk about another meaning of 'little' is you trying to cover the fact that you're just making things up.
Of course I'm talking about a different meaning of little. Two types of little in this case. Little with no comparative i.e. Ireland is little and little in the comparative, Canada is more little then the other countries. This is not making anything up and it's not trying to cover my trail in anyway.
I then tried to explain to notty how knowledge of politicians doesn't necessarily warrant more political significance and try to justify why I think Australia is more important then Canada.Yes, to be honest I don't know a single Aussie politician and I know about Justin but that doesn't mean a country is more politically important then another. I don't claim to be an expert on politics and we could argue until the cows come home about why I consider Australia to be more influential then Canada. It would be a combination of Australia being the political hub of their region whereas Canada is above America and even going into stereotypes about Canadians not being assertive etc.
Then there was this which accompanied the map post explaining why I chose Canada. I think it's pretty easy to understand.I used Canada as an example as it is more significant then Ireland. I was pointing out that my theory would be flawed if there was a Canadian role. I chose Canada over New Zealand and Guyana as it is much more influential. While I used Canada, my theory still would've been flawed if there had been a New Zealand(ish?) politician or a Guyanian(?) one. My point was why include a small country like Ireland if you are not going to include a more significant country like Canada.
Out of three options to pick (Canada,Guyana,New Zealand), Canada being by far the most significant, why is it weird that I mentioned Canada?
Then came the post of notty quoting two words of mine with absolutely zero context, "small" and "significant" with a large HHHhmmmmmmm. When I asked for context, none was given. At this stage I began to think that notty was just tunnel visioning me, remember, she voted me out of the blue at the start of the day when using her lines of reasoning, there were better targets.
I hope this explains my "shift" in opinion. Honestly, I don't believe I have had one and hopefully others will believe that too after reading my post. I think that's everything to mention...