>>41477
If you said 'X company normalized Y product' when I know that X hasn't ever sold Y, then it wouldn't be retarded to say 'X company doesn't sell Y, so how could that be?'. Perhaps you've been going through life assuming those around you are retarded when, in fact, you are just failing to state your claims completely?
>>41479
I understand your confusion. When I say 'looking to contradict', I mean that contradicting you was not a motivation I have when I post. Yes, your point is contradicted by the definition, but I'd argue that your post was contradicted by the dictionary, not me.
Another flaw in your reasoning is that there are plenty of statements that can start with 'no' that don't contradict the post they're responding to. For instance, if someone asks a question and the reply starts with no, that's not a contradiction, it's an answer.
If you all want to keep this discussion going, I'm more than happy to. Linguistics and Semantics are a couple of my favorite topics, but I get the feeling you're just responding because you somehow feel lesser for not having people agree with you. That's a perfectly valid way for you to feel, but it's pretty self destructive. You probably have more enjoyable things to do, don't you?