Reply
Sun 8 Jan, 2006 12:47 pm
I have noticed with a few posters, that there is a lack of defining one's terms, in combination with subtle criticism, an air of dismissiveness and an obstinacy to at the least entertain potentially merited precepts they do not already agree with. Kind'a spoils the fun a bit, but people are people I guess and there are others more energized.
Rant off boss
What do you mean by "lack of defining one's terms...?"
In ANY argument, you must be extremely careful to define any notation and terminology that you use.
You must understand what it is that words denote, in order that by reference to this we may be in a position to test opinions, inquiries, or problems, so that our proofs may not run on untested ad infinitum, nor the terms we use be empty of meaning.
It's no good telling c.i. that Chumly.He,as his post suggests,doesn't know what defining terms means.
I often cite dictionary definitions, from either dictionary.com or perhaps Webster's New World Dictionary, in my posts.
There are various applications and also effects from that which we call 'semantics.' Clearing the semantic slate with a common and 'accepted' definition from established dictionaries is beneficial to productive discussion, IMO.
Of course, there are always those stubborn few who insist on mis-defining according to personal semantics--possibly an obscure form of 'denial,' because, in doing such, there is an ability to forge on ahead wrapped in false ideologies which protect the complex matrix of comfort attachments on this inside of the mind.
spendi has an ego problem - attacking me on threads that has nothing to do with other issues in which we disagree.
As for "lack of defining one's terms," all one need to do is ask for clarification when needed. Is that so difficult? As queen annie stated, some people on these threads are stubborn enough to mis-define terms according to personal semantics.
Okay then c.i.
What does "stupid" mean when it is asserted about another person.
spendi, Look in the dictionary.
I'll look cop-out up instead.
Man, somtimes I think the best I have gotten from these thread is extra laughs, you people are funny!
I should add also some seem to unearth emotional undercurrents that did not exist in with the original writer, that combined with a lack of defining one's terms makes for quite a roller coaster. Makes me wonder how many vauge interpretations take place in the written word, versus the face to face spoken.
queen annie wrote:I often cite dictionary definitions, from either dictionary.com or perhaps Webster's New World Dictionary, in my posts.
There are various applications and also effects from that which we call 'semantics.' Clearing the semantic slate with a common and 'accepted' definition from established dictionaries is beneficial to productive discussion, IMO.
Of course, there are always those stubborn few who insist on mis-defining according to personal semantics--possibly an obscure form of 'denial,' because, in doing such, there is an ability to forge on ahead wrapped in false ideologies which protect the complex matrix of comfort attachments on this inside of the mind.
Well said queen annie, although it did take me a while to respond