The Death of Are

51 Replies, 7003 Views

(2017-09-25, 04:03 PM)tim Wrote: I didn't say it was. Now you're trying the old Chuck shuffle to try and extricate yourself as usual.

You said:
Quote:Kamarling is from England and the word ignorant is an insult (now). It has morphed in the same way that the term hot dog now means a sausage on a bun instead of a dog that's been overdoing the sunbathing. Hot head is a similar term, Chuck !!!
I may have mis-interpreted you.
(2017-09-25, 03:58 PM)chuck Wrote: It is only those who insist that I am using the word incorrectly who are stupid, Tim. You may or may not count yourself in that camp as you choose.

I think this has gone far enough TBH. Do you think it's acceptable to keep 'chucking' out insults ? I don't dislike you but you appear to have some kind of blind spot (we all have to some degree).

If I walked into a bar where you lived and called you a 'red neck'.... would you just smile and say, I know you didn't mean anything by it, you're from  little 'old' England and you just mean to say I got myself a red neck, right ?  (Too much sun, John Bull)

No, I don't think you would, you might well (attempt to anyway)  knock me through the swing doors and I would deserve it. Don't you think it might have been smarter just to say something like ...okay I used the wrong word and leave it at that ?
(2017-09-25, 03:52 PM)chuck Wrote: Well. I can't possibly express the entirety of the meaning I wish to share within one post. As you can see in that thread and now this one I have continued to clarify and expand my original thought. 

Along with copying and pasting inconstancies from one particular user into a single post in order to display those inconsistencies, pointing out one single post in a long series of posts and then characterizing the meaning using that one post instead of the entirety is a kind of forum behavior that can be fun, but also can be irritating.

I've already conceded the fact that people may be put off by the initial use of the word. 

You said that I didn't make a clear qualification, when that is exactly what I have been doing all morning. I have been defining and qualifying exactly what I mean when I use the word ignorant. I have gone so far as to say that I myself am ignorant of almost everything. I would even qualify myself as an ignoramus in the true meaning of the word.

Then I not only said that the act of advertising a particular users inconsistencies could arise from unkindness or ignorance, but also probably 10,000 other motives. Many of which could be altruistic.

I have always personally used the word ignorant in the manner which I explained. I am perfectly fine being ignorant. We all are. Ignorance can be remedied with knowledge. Stupidity is a much more debilitating
It was more about the context in which the word was used. If one needs a series of posts to explain what one means by the use of a word, it probably suggests it was the wrong word Smile

One could always invest in a suitable qualification in the subject (I’ve always loved this website, mainly for their motto). http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/index.html

[url=http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/index.html][/url]At one point it was possible to become a Master of Ignorance. Sadly I missed the opportunity and am having to do it through work experience.
(This post was last modified: 2017-09-25, 04:20 PM by Obiwan.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Obiwan's post:
  • tim
(2017-09-25, 04:18 PM)tim Wrote: I think this has gone far enough TBH. Do you think it's acceptable to keep 'chucking' out insults ? I don't dislike you but you appear to have some kind of blind spot (we all have to some degree).

If I walked into a bar where you lived and called you a 'red neck'.... would you just smile and say, I know you didn't mean anything by it, you're from  little 'old' England and you just mean to say I got myself a red neck, right ?  (Too much sun, John Bull)

No, I don't think you would, you might well (attempt to anyway)  knock me through the swing doors and I would deserve it. Don't you think it might have been smarter just to say something like ...okay I used the wrong word and leave it at that ?
I noticed that you have a real problem on the forum with people who try to use language in an exact way. And when they  try to further define why they have used words in that way, you become increasingly frustrated because they fail to adhere to your idea of how language should be used. It's a pattern.
(2017-09-25, 04:20 PM)chuck Wrote: I noticed that you have a real problem on the forum with people who try to use language in an exact way. And when they  try to further define why they have used words in that way, you become increasingly frustrated because they fail to adhere to your idea of how language should be used. It's a pattern.

Can you supply an example of that ?
(2017-09-25, 04:21 PM)tim Wrote: Can you supply an example of that ?
Maybe review discussions you have had with MAX_B or Linda.
(2017-09-25, 04:23 PM)chuck Wrote: Maybe review discussions you have had with MAX_B or Linda.

Chuck said > I noticed that you have a real problem on the forum with people who try to use language in an exact way. And when they  try to further define why they have used words in that way, you become increasingly frustrated because they fail to adhere to your idea of how language should be used. It's a pattern.

That demonstrates to me that you don't understand, then. Linda uses the technique of 'obfuscation'.....exactly the opposite of (as you say) using language in an exact way.

I don't have a problem with Max's language or argumentation, only his theory.
[-] The following 1 user Likes tim's post:
  • stephenw
(2017-09-25, 04:33 PM)tim Wrote: Chuck said > I noticed that you have a real problem on the forum with people who try to use language in an exact way. And when they  try to further define why they have used words in that way, you become increasingly frustrated because they fail to adhere to your idea of how language should be used. It's a pattern.

That demonstrates to me that you don't understand, then. Linda uses the technique of 'obfuscation'.....exactly the opposite of (as you say) using language in an exact way.

I don't have a problem with Max's language or argumentation, only his theory.

Sounds good.
(2017-09-25, 04:34 PM)chuck Wrote: Sounds good.

Yes, there you go doing the old chuck shuffle out of it. There was no need for all those shenanigans IMHO.
(2017-09-25, 04:38 PM)tim Wrote: Yes, there you go doing the old chuck shuffle out of it. There was no need for all those shenanigans IMHO.

I'm honestly not trying to shuffle out of anything. I'm attempting to be an honest and open as I can.

  • View a Printable Version


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)