The Death of Are

Actually words like "hot dog" and "hot head" can more neatly be described as idioms. There is a difference between the connotative meanings of words and idioms.

You are one smart fella, Chuck

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

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.

I've gone back and looked at my original post which started this particular discussion. I said:

I think when people point out inconsistency it is unkind in general. Who, in their heart of hearts is consistent from moment to moment?

I do think it is "unkind in general" to point out another person's inconsistencies. That seems a fair enough statement to me.

Then there was a bit of back and forth. I was offline, so I couldn't respond right away to clarify. But on the whole it was felt that on a discussion forum pointing out another's inconsistencies isn't really such a big deal. I mean we are here to discuss. And I wholeheartedly agree with that. But I do feel that there is still a bit of unkindness in the act, at least sometimes. It's hard to know someone's motives for advertising someone else's inconsistencies. They could be across the board, but my guess is that in most cases it would involve a kind of one-up-man's-ship. 

So instead of unkind I clarified and I said:

I think I really meant ignorant, not unkind. I didn't have much time to post and I'd been working on a house all weekend.



I think it is ignorant when one expects consistency from human interaction, especially on an internet forum where people are using language to try and formulate ideas about the nature of reality. And also especially surrounding interactions with other people. As in the recent case, someone may espouse open-ness and inclusiveness at one hour and then the next go off on a rant about someone whose point of view is pissing them off. Those two ideas may be inconsistent relative to each other, but they certainly aren't inconsistent given the nature of human psychology.



I think it is a matter of let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Adding that I use ignorance in a value neutral manner.

And I think that is really quite a clear statement. I think it is ignorant to expect consistency from human interaction on an internet forum. I think it is specifically ignorant of human psychology. Who would be surprised when one of us on a forum says "I think on the whole people should display good manners on the forum" and then the next day they are blasting away at someone who has touched a nerve on their pet topic? It happens every single day. 

So really what is the point behind taking someone's posts that are wildly inconsistent and advertising them? What is the motivation behind such an action? Only Kamarling can answer that in this particular case. 

I can certainly see myself doing the exact same thing. But I would think when I did it that it was probably a little bit unkind, probably a little bit funny. There could be 1000's of reasons for doing it.

For me the forum is most interesting in the way that various folks deal with one another. My interest is in the psychology of the interactions on the forum. I've never hidden that fact. BUT I've made it a point to try very hard not to tease anyone any longer, or to troll or to purposely wind people up. (Probably Dave has to be excluded from that.)

I'm consciously trying to be as honest and open as I can be, and also to be as exacting in my language as is humanly possible. I will fail. But I will try. 

I've gone back and looked at my original post which started this particular discussion. I said:


I do think it is "unkind in general" to point out another person's inconsistencies. That seems a fair enough statement to me.

Then there was a bit of back and forth. I was offline, so I couldn't respond right away to clarify. But on the whole it was felt that on a discussion forum pointing out another's inconsistencies isn't really such a big deal. I mean we are here to discuss. And I wholeheartedly agree with that. But I do feel that there is still a bit of unkindness in the act, at least sometimes. It's hard to know someone's motives for advertising someone else's inconsistencies. They could be across the board, but my guess is that in most cases it would involve a kind of one-up-man's-ship. 

So instead of unkind I clarified and I said:


And I think that is really quite a clear statement. I think it is ignorant to expect consistency from human interaction on an internet forum. I think it is specifically ignorant of human psychology. Who would be surprised when one of us on a forum says "I think on the whole people should display good manners on the forum" and then the next day they are blasting away at someone who has touched a nerve on their pet topic? It happens every single day. 

So really what is the point behind taking someone's posts that are wildly inconsistent and advertising them? What is the motivation behind such an action? Only Kamarling can answer that in this particular case. 

I can certainly see myself doing the exact same thing. But I would think when I did it that it was probably a little bit unkind, probably a little bit funny. There could be 1000's of reasons for doing it.

For me the forum is most interesting in the way that various folks deal with one another. My interest is in the psychology of the interactions on the forum. I've never hidden that fact. BUT I've made it a point to try very hard not to tease anyone any longer, or to troll or to purposely wind people up. (Probably Dave has to be excluded from that.)

I'm consciously trying to be as honest and open as I can be, and also to be as exacting in my language as is humanly possible. I will fail. But I will try. 

As I said, you're doing the old Chuck shuffle, trying to shuffle your way out of something you shouldn't have said. Ignorant is an insult (now) whether you like it or not.  You need to think a bit more before you choose your words IMHO not least when you think nothing of labelling members ignorant and stupid (me) and trolls.

As I said, you're doing the old Chuck shuffle, trying to shuffle your way out of something you shouldn't have said. Ignorant is an insult (now) whether you like it or not.  You need to think a bit more before you choose your words IMHO not least when you think nothing of labelling members ignorant and stupid (me) and trolls.

I fail to see how I am shuffling my way out of it when I have just reiterated it. I have repeated the exact same sentiment and confirmed it. I stand directly by words, I am not shuffling away from them. I meant what I said and I said exactly what I meant. Zero shuffle. 

I'm sorry that you fail to recognize the sincerity in my expression. I'm sorry that I won't capitulate and simply agree with you for the sake of agreeing. I've written a considerable amount today that I think would convince any reasonable person that I meant no more harm by using the word "ignorant" than other members might cause harm by stringing together another member's inconsistencies and advertising them. It is what I have done and it is what I am. I won't apologize for it. It could be that my personal use of the word ignorant is an aberration, but that is how I've always used it. I've specifically taught my own children about the very meaning of ignorance and the great value that it can have in our lives.

I fail to see how I am shuffling my way out of it when I have just reiterated it. I have repeated the exact same sentiment and confirmed it. I stand directly by words, I am not shuffling away from them. I meant what I said and I said exactly what I meant. Zero shuffle. 

I'm sorry that you fail to recognize the sincerity in my expression. I'm sorry that I won't capitulate and simply agree with you for the sake of agreeing. I've written a considerable amount today that I think would convince any reasonable person that I meant no more harm by using the word "ignorant" than other members might cause harm by stringing together another member's inconsistencies and advertising them. It is what I have done and it is what I am. I won't apologize for it. It could be that my personal use of the word ignorant is an aberration, but that is how I've always used it. I've specifically taught my own children about the very meaning of ignorance and the great value that it can have in our lives.

I do find your reasoning a bit hard to follow, to be honest, Chuck. I'm not trying to make you capitulate. The point was originally and only about the word ignorant. You're shuffling out of it by bringing up red herrings that are beside the point.
 
You won't acknowledge that the word ignorant can also be an insult but I'm afraid it is. Test it out now. Have a walk outside and greet some of your fellow compatriots with .....Heh man how are you doing you ignorant so and so ! I'm sure they won't be insulted if what you say is true.

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.

I wonder if this pattern is idiopathic or pathological? I wonder if I'm ignorant, willfully  ignorant which or just being ignorant?

I do find your reasoning a bit hard to follow, to be honest, Chuck. I'm not trying to make you capitulate. The point was originally and only about the word ignorant. You're shuffling out of it by bringing up red herrings that are beside the point.
 
You won't acknowledge that the word ignorant can also be an insult but I'm afraid it is. Test it out now. Have a walk outside and greet some of your fellow compatriots with .....Heh man how are you doing you ignorant so and so ! I'm sure they won't be insulted if what you say is true.

OMG, Tim. I have agreed already that it can be an insult. The word ignorant CAN be an insult. When did I claim otherwise? I stated that the literal meaning is NOT an insult. The insulting meanings come from the connotations of the word. Wow. Is there any chance Mrs. Tim may refer to you as "stubborn" when among friends and family?

I wonder if this pattern is idiopathic or pathological? I wonder if I'm ignorant, willfully  ignorant which or just being ignorant?

You are probably all kinds of ignorant, Steve.

You are probably all kinds of ignorant, Steve.

You are probably all kinds of ignorant, Steve.

Don't feel too bad, Steve - he hasn't accused you of being unkind (yet).