I thought you were satisfied enough to leave the conversation, but apparently, you still want to talk instead of doing things that are more "worth" your time...

It looks like we have different interpretations of "altogether". When you say "altogether", I saw it as "all" formula racing tournaments. As a result, I interpreted your comment as "grid girls are unnecessary for all formula racing tournaments". You could have said instead what you typed with the bolded and italicized as it would have limited the amount of misunderstanding.

So while we cleared that up, you are still wrong because you concluded your refutation before with and I quote, "This, once again, does not contradict my point - grid girls aren't a necessity". IIRC, you have also said the italicized multiple times prior to that. Because you did not offer a distinction, I have to interpret it as grid girls aren't a necessity at all. However, you ended up refuting your own conclusion with the comment that I am quoting now. You have acknowledged the fact that grid girls are necessary for certain racing tournaments.

I would also like to point to another previous comment here where you switched stances: "Once again - I haven't said that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. (I also never claimed that WEC scrapped grid girls due to declining revenue - I never said anything to suggest that). They probably do provide some financial benefit (though neither of us has any data on that). But I have shown that the possible financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. It's an option, but not absolutely necessary. Wether financial contributions from grid girls were declining or increasing doesn't change that fact."

You claimed that the WEC example proved that the financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. Again, you didn't provide a distinction, so I had to interpret that your statement applied to all cases, not just WEC's. Later in the conversation, you acknowledged the NASCAR and Formula E still employ grid girls because they deemed them necessary to their businesses.

Jessica Niggeri?

If your entire disagreement was based on the fact that you thought I was talking about absolutely all formula racing tournaments, then we can put this discussion to rest - I was never talking about absolutely all of them (or even most of them). It seems like it's just a misunderstanding. Are we good then?

I was satisfied. Now, I'm even more satisfied, as it seems as we've cleared up the misunderstanding that was (part of) the core to our disagreement.

Though upon review of the earlier stages of our conversation, you had a different stance about grid girls and over time, I managed to change it even if just so slightly. IIRC, you said "Grid girls are not absolutely necessary for a formula racing tournament". No distinction. Just "a formula racing tournament". Or if you were arguing the entire time that you were not talking about absolutely all formula racing tournaments, then you made a critical error in not making that distinction earlier. In fact, you had several occasions to do that. You have this issue of lack of specificity on other arguments, too.

Cover all the bases. Rather than using an indefinite article, perhaps you should use a word like "certain" instead.

I didn't really change my stance, but maybe you got a clearer picture of what my stance actually was, which would make sense given we've written like 5A4 pages explaining to each other.

As it stands, the statement "grid girls are not absolutely necessary for a formula racing tournament" is valid because it uses an indefinite article. No more distinction is necessary. You shouldn't have assumed it went further than what was actually written. Not necessary for a formula racing tournament does not imply not necessary for any formula racing tournament, hence that was an unsound assumption of you to make.

Sorry for the delayed response, but my "unsound" assumption isn't exactly unfounded when you tend to do stuff like this: "I've demonstrated that there exists tournaments that don't have grid girls. That alone proves that grid girls aren't necessary. It's not complicated. Formula racing tournaments that don't have grid girls exist. Thus Grid girls aren't necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. You can try and spin all you like, but that's a fact."

The bolded and underlined may have similar meanings, but the bolded lacked the indefinite article. "Grid girls aren't necessary" =/= "Grid girls aren't necessary to have a formula 1 tournament". The former implies that grid girls aren't necessary in all tournaments.

And to bring up another example I already showed earlier: "Once again - I haven't said that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. (I also never claimed that WEC scrapped grid girls due to declining revenue - I never said anything to suggest that). They probably do provide some financial benefit (though neither of us has any data on that). But I have shown that the possible financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. It's an option, but not absolutely necessary. Wether financial contributions from grid girls were declining or increasing doesn't change that fact."

The underlined is a rather different tune from what we have agreed on. It would be a different story if you added "in a formula 1 tournament" at the end of the sentence, but you didn't. Your statement afterwards, particularly "whether financial contributions from grid girls were declining or increasing doesn't change that fact" also led me to believe that you concluded that the financial benefit is not a necessity in any case since it didn't matter if their financial contributions are going up or down. Even if they do go up, they are still not a necessity by your standards. Fast forward to now, you admit that Formula E and NASCAR employ grid girls because they deem them necessary business-wise, which would make their financial contributions necessary.

And I wouldn't be surprised if I am able to find more instances like these two if I were to review our conversation in its entirety.

Anyways, whether you want to admit it or not, I did manage to change your opinion throughout your conversation even if I did make a handful of mistakes. That was more of my tertiary goal, but hey, I won't complain. Also, it's pretty funny that I initially pointed out that there would potentially be less grid girl positions and here we are. You took the conversation in a whole other direction and I decided to go down the rabbit hole for the amusement. Needless to say, I was definitely not disappointed. Since you seem to be itching to have the last word, go right on ahead.

No. From the start our mission statement was to fight for women to have the choice to be objectified, don't get it twisted. We will free these women, if of course they want, from their clothing...you know, for the good of women.

I didn't really change my stance, but maybe you got a clearer picture of what my stance actually was, which would make sense given we've written like 5A4 pages explaining to each other.

As it stands, the statement "grid girls are not absolutely necessary for a formula racing tournament" is valid because it uses an indefinite article. No more distinction is necessary. You shouldn't have assumed it went further than what was actually written. Not necessary for a formula racing tournament does not imply not necessary for any formula racing tournament, hence that was an unsound assumption of you to make.