Landscape

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Perhaps you should have used a smiley or something to convey that your
claim was not to be taken seriously.

I don't do smileys. If you need roadsigns, then I'm not your man.

If you don't want to be taken literally, you need to add qualifiers.

No, I don't.

A bit of Alice in Wonderland? Your writing style
doesn't need adjustment just people can't understand it!

You are such a pleasure to read, Floyd. You complain about the
writing style of others in a run-on sentence.

You missed what the error was! It isn't a run-on
sentence at all, but it does contain an editing error,
where the single word "because" was inadvertently
removed. It should have read

"[...] just because people can't"

It's hard to tell exactly what causes your errors, Floyd. The broken
sentence can be repaired by adding a word or by making it two
sentences and adding words. As is, it's a run-on sentence.

yet you don't say a thing about peter's numerous typos and other
errors. in fact, his writing is so bad that it's sometimes difficult to
figure out what he's trying to say.

if all you can find wrong is floyd's writing, then what he's saying is
on target and you're just making a bigger fool out of yourself than you
already have, which is quite the feat.

*All* run-on sentences are editing errors if you consider editing to
be a part of the writing process and not just a review for any needed
corrections.

maybe so, but it doesn't change the meaning conveyed. if you're too
stupid to figure it out, then it's you who is the illiterate.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It's hard to tell exactly what causes your errors, Floyd. The broken
sentence can be repaired by adding a word or by making it two
sentences and adding words. As is, it's a run-on sentence.

yet you don't say a thing about peter's numerous typos and other
errors. in fact, his writing is so bad that it's sometimes difficult to
figure out what he's trying to say.

I just posted a comment about that within the last week ("fat
fingers") You think I should do a recap of all previous posts and
comments in each post?

the difference here is you're trying to discredit floyd by saying he
can't write.

You are the one who whines continually about "this subject is
about..." when anyone drifts off what aspect *you* want to discuss.
Yet, you want me to bring in Peter's typos in a reply to Floyd on a
subject that has nothing to do with Peter?

if you're going to bitch about floyd making a minor mistake, you have
to also bitch about peter's horrible typing.

not doing so makes you a hypocrite, but we knew that already

if all you can find wrong is floyd's writing, then what he's saying is
on target and you're just making a bigger fool out of yourself than you
already have, which is quite the feat.

*All* run-on sentences are editing errors if you consider editing to
be a part of the writing process and not just a review for any needed
corrections.

maybe so, but it doesn't change the meaning conveyed. if you're too
stupid to figure it out, then it's you who is the illiterate.

I can "figure out" Peter's meaning in every post he makes. It seems,
by your comments here, that you are the one having problems. The
conclusion to be drawn, then, is that you've been caught holding the
petard too long.

twist twist twist. i never said i couldn't figure it out, nor do you
have any idea how many people have trouble with what he writes.

I can also figure out Floyd's meaning.

so your bitching is just to be a pest. got it.

if you knew what floyd meant and the only thing you could find wrong
was his writing, then that means he's correct and you're not.

I keep a ready list of words
to insert in his sentences so they make a modicum of sense. What I
find amusing is his use of "literacy" in posts that would make a high
school dropout blush.

what i find amusing is the sheer hypocrisy and feeble attempts to
pretend what you do is perfectly ok, like a child who just got caught
doing something wrong and desperately trying to justify his actions
with any excuse he can think of.

On 6/26/2013 3:37 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Neither of which amounts to him actually lying, which is what I was in
reference to above.

I don't think nospam's a liar. Not at all. He weasels around when he
is challenged about something he said earlier and claims he didn't
mean what whatever he wrote was taken to mean, but he doesn't lie.

So why did you say this:

"He might even say "no" if you were on the right road."

Swedes don't do sarcasm? Irony? Satire?

Perhaps you should have used a smiley or something to convey that your
claim was not to be taken seriously.

He has never been helpful to others, though. He'll say something is
not right, but make no effort to provide the answer that is right.

I do that sometimes too.

You are sometimes never helpful to others?

Are you playing a semantic game? You made a claim about he never being
something. I responded with me sometimes being that as well.

Well, for what it's worth, in this instance I do agree that some
"twisting" did occur. I.e. words were put in his mouth.

Words in his mouth?

Yes.

You think that I was really recounting an
instance of nospam asked for directions?

No, I was in reference to actual events in this thread prior to me
joining it. This specifically:

paraphrased
PeterN: process for removing color cast
nospam: there are easier and better ways to remove a cast
PeterN: Then use it, my method works for me.
nospam: your way is just one of many
PeterN: I have not seen one from you
nospam: You're not interested in it.
/paraphrased

PeterN: Oh. It's a secret process

The last line is clearly putting words into nospam's mouth. And nospam
aptly responds with:

nospam: twist twist twis

Which I agree with. nospam never said the process was secret, just that
PeterN wasn't interested in it (which he may be, so nospam could at
worst have been mistaken).

Your comment shows that your sarcasm meter has lost someting in the
translation from english to Swedish.


You never did understand Jonathan Swift, did you?

That's a pretty ironic question






--
PeterN

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Contains no irony as far as I can determine. Could you please explain
what the ironic statement is?

I don't think I can explain it...to you, anyway.

My, you're quite the asshole, aren't you? I haven't been rude to you at
any point.

You seem to have crossed that bridge with some alacrity.

Echoes in the forest.

I have politely asked you to explain to me how I could have
interpreted what you wrote differently, and you respond with this?
Seriously?

There are some things that cannot be explained to certain people. It's
not a problem with the person's overall intellectual capacity, but a
blind spot in their perception. I can't explain why a "Dilbert" or
"Get Fuzzy" cartoon panel is funny if you don't see the humor on your
own. You can't explain to me why you think the "The Three Stooges"
are funny (if you do) because that kind of humor is my blind spot.

You sure spend a lot of time being rude and making claims about other
peoples capacity to understand what you claim would explain what they
have asked you politely to explain. All that time could have been spent
on either just explain it and not care whether I would understand it or
not, or spent less time than you currently have being obnoxious
explaining it in a way where I would have understood it.

Why do you keep choosing the obtuse way?

You can't explain it, period. There was no irony and thus no sarcasm in
the words you wrote. It was devoid of irony.

If you intended for it to contain irony, you failed. Claiming it
contains irony and that my intelligence level prohibits you from
pointing it out makes you an asshole that would rather insult others
than admit that you were incorrect.

You want me to explain something to be different from your perception
when you are doggedly insisting that I can't explain it?

I am insisting that your claim that the sentence you wrote contains no
irony according to the definition of the word "irony". This is where you
either triumph over me by explaining how and why I am incorrect (which
I've asked you kindly to do now for several days) or continue to claim
that the irony is there, you just can't explain it to me - further
proving that I am 100% correct in that you refuse to admit your mistake
and would rather alienate a perfectly reasonable person whose perception
of your cognitive skills is diminishing by the minute?

I can't begin to understand the amount of pride you must have invested
in this online persona of yours to choose the latter over the former.

I deal with tons of trolls. mind you, in other groups. I have no problem
pulling their legs and being obtuse towards them, nor do I mind their
presence, but you're just trolling for the sake of trolling here. There
is seemingly no other purpose to your behavior other than me not
agreeing with you, which seems to have prompted this overly rude,
insulting and poor reasoning skills from you.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

paraphrased
PeterN: process for removing color cast
nospam: there are easier and better ways to remove a cast
PeterN: Then use it, my method works for me.
nospam: your way is just one of many
PeterN: I have not seen one from you
nospam: You're not interested in it.
/paraphrased

PeterN: Oh. It's a secret process

The last line is clearly putting words into nospam's mouth. And nospam
aptly responds with:

nospam: twist twist twis

Which I agree with. nospam never said the process was secret, just that
PeterN wasn't interested in it (which he may be, so nospam could at
worst have been mistaken).

Your comment shows that your sarcasm meter has lost someting in the
translation from english to Swedish.

Why? I am perfectly able to identify the sarcasm you used when you
twisted nospam's words. I am not talking about whether you were being
sarcastic or not (you clearly were), but whether or not you were
twisting nospam's words, which you absolutely were.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

I am insisting that your claim that the sentence you wrote contains no
irony according to the definition of the word "irony".

And I, in turn, insist that you don't understand the definition of
irony.

When did you insist this?

Sentence in question:

"He might even say "no" if you were on the right road."

Definition of "irony" from Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary*:

[begin quote] 1 [noncount] : the use of words that mean the opposite
of what you really think especially in order to be funny

So what you meant was that nospam would never lie about the direction to
the ER, he would point the person in the correct direction if he knew
the way, and thus be helpful towards strangers? Because that's the
opposite of what you wrote.

Which, of course, begs the question whether you were being ironic in the
other part of your post:

Nospam is the type of person who, if asked if you were on the right
road to the hospital ER, would say "no" but wouldn't provide usable
directions.

Because if the "sentence in question" above is "obviously" ironic, then
there is nothing less "obviously ironic" about this sentence either. Did
you mean to make a post where you would use irony to highlight that
nospam is a helpful person that would gladly inform users that they're
on the wrong road to the ER and then provide useful information on how
to remedy that?

If this was your intention, then yes - I totally missed that and you can
obviously chalk that up to me not "understanding" sarcasm if you will,
and I'll gladly admit to my mistake and ask your forgiveness.

Your historically rather blatant animosity towards nospam made me, the
reader, interprete the post in question as an analogy of what you think
is nospam's negative behavior, but it seems that you now want to make
the claim that it is not in fact an analogy, but rather an ironic
statement made to underscore a very positive side of nospam.

Or, you're claiming that the first part of the paragraph was an analogy
of his supposedly negative behavior and the latter part was an ironic
statement to underscore his positive and helpful behavior? Then I'm
afraid that we're back to square one, where there is nothing in your
post to signify this change of intent between the two.

So, in conclusion, they are either both ironic, or you missed to add
qualifier to signify why one should be interpreted differently than the
other, and proceeded to blame the reader for not understanding why one
part of the paragraph is disparaging nospam's behavior while another is
praising it.

Now, you have to make a decision. Did I think, when writing that,
that nospam might deliberately misdirect someone on the way to the
hospital, or did I write something that is the opposite of what I
think to be true as a form of irony?

No "decision" on my part is needed. I have already explained how and why
I *interpreted* it as I did - which is why I posted in this thread to
begin with.

And while I congratulate you on actually trying to explain the supposed
irony to me (it only took some three days), you still haven't made a
cogent argument to further your position.

Basically, you cut and pasted the definition of "irony" and then just
repeated that you meant it ironically, while at the same time failing to
describe how your quote fits the very definition you used.




--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-06-28 00:10:36 -0700, Sandman said:

So what you meant was that nospam would never lie about the direction to
the ER, he would point the person in the correct direction if he knew
the way, and thus be helpful towards strangers? Because that's the
opposite of what you wrote.

Which, of course, begs the question whether you were being ironic in the
other part of your post:

Since you are discussing proper use of language, it seems your use of
"begs the question" was made in ignorance. I believe what you intended
to say was "raises the question". They are two very different things.

"Begs the question" or "the begging question" is a fallacy in logic
where an implied premise would directly entail the conclusion. It is a
classic form of circular reasoning going back to Aristotle.
For example, the fallacy of "begging the question, is committed when a
proposition which requires proof, is assumed without proof. It can also
refer to an argument in which an unstated premise is essential to, but
not identical to the conclusion.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013062800453419336-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So what you meant was that nospam would never lie about the direction to
the ER, he would point the person in the correct direction if he knew
the way, and thus be helpful towards strangers? Because that's the
opposite of what you wrote.

Which, of course, begs the question whether you were being ironic in the
other part of your post:

Since you are discussing proper use of language, it seems your use of
"begs the question" was made in ignorance. I believe what you intended
to say was "raises the question". They are two very different things.

Oh? That may very well be! I freely admit not to know the exact origin
of "begs the question", and apologize for any confusion.

"Begs the question" or "the begging question" is a fallacy in logic
where an implied premise would directly entail the conclusion. It is a
classic form of circular reasoning going back to Aristotle.

For example, the fallacy of "begging the question, is committed when a
proposition which requires proof, is assumed without proof. It can also
refer to an argument in which an unstated premise is essential to, but
not identical to the conclusion.

I visited the wikipedia article, and coupled with your summary (lifted
presumably from it) I take it that "begging the question" is an action
performed by Tony in this case, where he claims that X = Y without
providing proof for that? And my mistake was that I labeled *my* action
as "begs the question" in reference to a question I had to him?

If so, then I have it confused. I will try to remember this in the
future. I think "begs the question" is rather misused, since it was my
impression (which I suspect comes from observed usage) that it's just a
way to say that "X opens up a possibility that leaves something
unanswered", i.e. warrants a question, or leads to a question that needs
to be answered before X can be accepted.







--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-06-28 02:09:05 -0700, Sandman said:

In article 2013062800453419336-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So what you meant was that nospam would never lie about the direction to
the ER, he would point the person in the correct direction if he knew
the way, and thus be helpful towards strangers? Because that's the
opposite of what you wrote.

Which, of course, begs the question whether you were being ironic in the
other part of your post:

Since you are discussing proper use of language, it seems your use of
"begs the question" was made in ignorance. I believe what you intended
to say was "raises the question". They are two very different things.

Oh? That may very well be! I freely admit not to know the exact origin
of "begs the question", and apologize for any confusion.

"Begs the question" or "the begging question" is a fallacy in logic
where an implied premise would directly entail the conclusion. It is a
classic form of circular reasoning going back to Aristotle.

For example, the fallacy of "begging the question, is committed when a
proposition which requires proof, is assumed without proof. It can also
refer to an argument in which an unstated premise is essential to, but
not identical to the conclusion.

I visited the wikipedia article, and coupled with your summary (lifted
presumably from it) I take it that "begging the question" is an action
performed by Tony in this case, where he claims that X = Y without
providing proof for that? And my mistake was that I labeled *my* action
as "begs the question" in reference to a question I had to him?

Actually it is more a case of X=(X+1), therefore (X+1)=X, where X is
the premise (or the "question") and (X+1) is the false conclusion on
which the premise is based. Thus a circular argument.

If so, then I have it confused. I will try to remember this in the
future. I think "begs the question" is rather misused, since it was my
impression (which I suspect comes from observed usage) that it's just a
way to say that "X opens up a possibility that leaves something
unanswered", i.e. warrants a question, or leads to a question that needs
to be answered before X can be accepted.

"Raises the question" would be the best way to express that.
The misused "begs" comes from a lack of understanding, even among
English speakers, especially among English speakers, who in their
ignorance believe it conveys their intent. For the most part it does,
since the listener is almost certainly also ignorant of the correct
usage.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/26/2013 5:59 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , peternew
wrote:

He might even say "no" if you were on the right road.

This, on the other hand, seems false to me. nospam may be *wrong* at
times, and perhaps he's even too proud/stubborn to admit it, but as far
as I can tell, he's not outright lying about things to begin with.

As you hang around you may change your conclusion.

Well, I've been in this group since 1998... How much longer will it
take?

That's a lot longer than I've been here.
I don't recall nospam even try to make a practical solution, make a
positive comment, or even show an image.

then your memory is poor to non-existent, or you're lying.

Well prove me wrong. I will be happy to admit it. Let's restrict it to a
three month period.


plus, none of those things affects whether something i say is correct
or not.

huh!


--
PeterN