EnviroLink Forum

The rule is context, which has been indicated repeatedly ......

context
A noun
1 context, linguistic context, context of use

discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation

Maybe this site will help you:

http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/SITES/ELEM ... direct.htm




You have no argument but you try to make one every chance you get.



AGAIN? No, if you cannot keep things straight while trying to twist the truth it is your problem.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

To be up front, I joined FMB on 24-March 04 and my last post was on 19-Apr 04 during which time I posted 111 posts.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I ask for the rule that says an adjective can't have two different meanings within the same sentence...and you give me a rule supporting that it can!

That's right, Wayne. Context. Like when an adjective is used to modify two different nouns, that can very well be a change in context.

Main Entry: tasty
Pronunciation: 'tA-stE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): tast·i·er; -est
1 a : having a marked and appetizing flavor b : strikingly attractive or interesting

"She was a tasty woman, and she cooked a tasty waffle."

Check out that the context of the adjective changes, as the noun it is used to modify changes.

Give it up Wayne. Your odd notion is entirely refuted, and even by your own evidence.

Nice Wayne. I ask for clarification of your unreferenced statement...you refuse....and that is somehow related to me being dishonest?

I suppose if I just pick out a sentence somewhere and assume that is the one you were talking about...then that will be further proof of my dishonesty.

You're surely struggling.

Is it quite painful to be on the ropes at the hand of a DACW?

Really? "Nothing" sounds like "a marginal handful of people endlessly rehashing the same old AR vs anti-AR arguments"?

Heh...xveganxphantomuk really wasn't much of a group in the first place, was it? Besides...there might be something to what he said. After all, the time of his leaving coincided with the arrival of the Superheroes. So we picked up the slack. I can tell you that when I arrived, there wasn't a whole lot going on except a big and continuous blow up with Phantomuk.

Now...just for giggles...I want you to imagine Wayne playing Andy Griffith's part in No Time for Sergeants....

"This is the best gol-dang board in the whole gol-dang INTERNET!!

Sorry Wayne...that goes in the section for "Strange, Rare, and Unusual Phenomena."

Unreferenced? I have referenced the sentence numerous times and it is in the FIRST post on the thread if you had done anything except think of ways to divert the discussion.



Yes, it would since I have copied the sentence in posts to you before and noted where the comment originated. You were too busy with your agenda to deal with the facts or the truth.



Right, and you are the one arguing over a post you do not know where it exists much less the context. Of course, your big thing in any discussion is to ignore the context first.



Given you are no longer even in the ring what are you speaking of?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Now that this thread has come full circle with RF beginning to argue the definition of "stupid" was possibly different in the beginning of the sentence than in the end, which would be by anyone's definition a lack of clarity, I see no point in wasting more time responding to this level of dishonest posting.

To be clear that we have come full circle, please go back and read the first few posts on the thread. You will see Josh pointing out the lack of clarity in the post by Capitalisswine. You will see Donnie and Wijim defending that original post as is expected. You will read my connection afterward considering the post to be clear (as was so defended) and using the same logic for other posts.

You will NOT see anyone from the group taking the position on either side, but you see them defending the posters rather than dealing with the posts. That is the truth of the matter as anyone who wishes to do so can see. All of the changing of definitions, ignorance of context, logical fallacy use, references to suspected prior bad acts, unfounded opinions, suspicions, and plain old dishonesty cannot change what was written and the order in which it was so written. That is something everyone can and should review for themselves and make their own decision. If they disagree or not it is of no consequence to this thread but it may to other threads on the board. The only way to handle such a situation is to point it out each and every time it occurs and show that it is not acceptable in this forum.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Cept that you have decided to declare unilaterally and without acknowledgement that you have presented your clarification as if it is the only correct application. You are not that much of a clarvoyent Wayne although you seem to think you are.. You ,yourself have provided some different opinion on what you thought was meant and Festus certainly provided more things to ponder in his post then what could be precieved in the word stupid. The implication you also offer is one governed by your dictatorial merits.. Excuse me if I offer, that does not a debate make, but unilateral hog wash as governed by you. You have hounded the FMB folk with your rather questionable intent because you claim to have suddenly found some greater principles which under the micrscope are tenious claims at best and vindictive insights at the worst level. It saddens me to see you go this route because it means that you suddenly precieve yourself as some Don Quixote jousting with FMB hay stacks cause they don't conform to your idealogy.


You made claims that insinuate that FMB folk are like a pack of dogs and here in this thread you act like a dictatorial lead dog trying to nip everyone in the slot you pegged them for. That doesn't make you appear all that honest Wayne ,though you claim others are dishonest. Throughout this thread you willingly ignored the meat of what Sianblooz represents because you would need to see Festus made claims about Sianblooz misrepresentations (he historically knows how Sianblooz will build those misrepresentations and quote them as if Festus said them at a later date ,just as she did with Wiijim. Thankfull Grace pointed out Sianblooz was not being honest with Wiijim , because of the date lines.) Festus tried to nip that approsach in the bud here.



You wish to ignor those Sianblooz twists of words which indicate what she wants readers here to think, Festus said. You fixated on the word stupid like a dog on a bone pretending you are the only one who could decipher what Festus made of the word and then call others dishonest for noting what they think Festus meant. You turned this into a pissing contest over a pretense that this is about Sianblooz being more honest then what Festus called her on and he did apply more then one example but you need to play with the word stupid to discredit everyone who noted the levels of dishonesty within the posts noted by Festus and he truely did not make the claims she stated he had made. I had no trouble with Festus clarity issue even though I admit the conoctation Festus used on Stupid could have been more clear , I did know what he was driving at with Sianblooz because I saw her do the same things before. She even reinforced Festus's claim when she pretended that Wiijim had hidden the point that he killed his cat, when in fact he made specific reference to killing his cat as a moral choice. Let it suffer longer or get the kill of a dying animal done quickly with least amount of suffering. For your entire linkage of posts on this thread to carry substance you need to place Stupid in a catagory of your making . RF is quite honest ,sincere and forthright in pointing out that is how you dictatorialy arrived at this point. Don't let the total meaning of the word and its' context deter you though. Ccause like ,that would put your desire to be right over ride the desire to admit that others might be right. This is not about a double standard despite all you wordy attempts . It is about one poster trying to nip Sianblooz putting words in someone elses mouth and a certain faction knowing that this is only the beginning of such a game by Sianblooz. Others noted what those inferences by Sianblooz would lead to would be, " you said this" ,when in fact they hadn't. Much as you and I have supported each other in the past Wayne, on your interpetation here, I worry at your desire to allow petty vindictive dictatorial applications by you, to taint what was a fairly straight forward post by Festus. He could have phrased the application of Stupid better but his opening remarks pretty while noted that smart folk can do stupid things upon occassion. However the greater deal is Sianblooz made several statement indicting Festus stated things in a way which he had not. She did the same to Wiijim but why bother seeing that point,. It could make Festus's point more obvious ??? Wouldn't that be awful and might even make the FMB folk look like they had reasons greater then the sum and total off you guys at FMB ,pissed of Wayne.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

Donnie, do you even realize you are arguing both sides of that same issue as being correct when they are mutually exclusive? This goes so far to show the support for the people or in some cases against the people is the real issue and not what was said.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Were you talking about this sentence, Wayne?



Seems to me you could have simply referenced it, were you really interested in clarity.

That happens to be Festus's explanation for why he was misrepresented. In the context, it seems pretty obvious that he uses two definitions for "stupid" in that sentence. Nothing irrational about that, even though that was your claim.



Wayne, YOUR position was that there was some "connection" between my post and Festus's, such that Festus's post MUST be either misrepresented or not by comparison with my post. That is simply not so, and your attempt through these pages to try and prove it has been a miserable failure. So I can see why you would want to utterly abandon it at this time.

You claimed that context proved your claim...though you never explained just how that worked. Not surprising, if we really pay attention to the context.



A stupid action doesn't equate to a stupid person. Not THAT hard to understand.

A tasty woman doesn't equate to a tasty waffle. Even easier to understand.

An adjective that has different meanings when used to modify different nouns...well...the more irrational position would be that it MUST have the same meaning no matter the context. Like it or not, the noun that the adjective modifies, IS a large part of the context.

Seems to me that Festus was indeed misrepresented, though it may not have been intentional on Sianblooz's part. But remember...this was his explanation for how he was misrepresented...and seeing how it is entirely credible....I note that instead of accepting his explanation, you set about to deny it as even being rational or logical.

And now, instead of conceding that Festus's explanation makes sense on its own terms...and that your argument intended to show that it MUST have one meaning or another according to YOUR terms is such a train wreck.... you rant and spew about people's dishonesty. You seem to have great difficulty accepting responsibility for your own actions. At this point, after having failed to fix responsibility on Festus, you even attempt to hand it off to Josh.



Let's get it straight. Your "connection" completely failed. It was so weak it was doomed to fail from the start. Don't feel so bad...you gave it, if not a good try..at least a lengthy try. You might have even pulled it off through sheer bombast, had it not been myself on the other end of your nonsense.

But in the end, we are left with this. You agree I didn't misrepresent Sianblooz. And you haven't been able to go on to show that Festus wasn't misrepresented, in light of "the sentence" which you claimed as criteria....though your claim was that MUST be so. In fact, it is entirely credible that Festus was misrepresented...it being completely rational to use different meanings for the same adjective when it is used to modify different nouns.

So quit speaking as if the "connection" was clear...it is neither clear nor credible.

You shouldn't grouse about clarity anyway, Wayne. Your posts are so often filled with improper useage, context shifts, apparent irrelevancies, and just plain garbage sentence structure that a great deal of effort must be expended just to seek clarity from you. And at any time during that quest for clarity, you are apt to puff yourself up and start pompously exclaiming that attempts to move you to clarify your vague assertions are dishonest or ignorant...or even dishonest and ignorant.



That's nothing but misrepresentative spin. Your argument fails on its own lack of merit when objectively held to the contents of the posts in question. The only time you have a chance is when you return to your characterizations of this "group" as some sort of cohesive entity that supports one another at any cost....but all that is nothing but your naked, subjective assertion....not to mention that it is pretty damn vague on just who is in this group. In fact, upon examination, it appears to be a categorical error on your part.

It does pose an interesting dilemma though, as Origam hit upon.

First, let's remember that this "group" is not clearly defined. You label it, but you don't define it.

So someone makes a good point, someone else supports the point...but you happen to disagree with them....

Why...then you just declare that the posters in question are part of this marginalized "group"...and so YOUR disagreement is supported. That's fallacious at so many levels. It's circumstantial ad hominem. It begs the question. It's possibly categorical error.

What's one to do? Someone who circumstantially posts at FMB makes a good point, that point happens to be in opposition to you or someone outside of FMB, and anyone supporting that point who also posts at FMB is at risk of being the object of this fallacious attack.

Is it so beyond the pale that the FMB group happens to be composed of generally competent individuals who make good points more often than not...and so will be often forced into agreement by virtue of their sheer quality?

*I* am one of the FMB group you so attempt to marginalize. It is not a bleating collection of sheep nor a baying pack of wolves. Its apparent exclusiveness is due to high standards, not arbitrary labeling...and that is not a bad thing. It is a group of individuals that may differ at times, but are almost paradoxically united by their individuality.... and I am proud to be able to count myself among these fine individuals, despite your bigoted rants.

But she is.



Go for it.



Correct.