“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. ”
The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be.
In other words does a review saying that an individual backstabs or pga's make them a PGA'er or backstabber? Or is that merely the feeble attempts of a lame ass player with anger management problems on a 100pt table to begrudge a classy player? I'll let you decide.
OH NO F1reFox has frozen! I will brb soon...
