Misunderstanding and Correction or Misrepresentation and Deception

quote:

---

It would be in message 28, the direct reply, where it was clear that I interpreted her as indicating assent.

---

It wasn't clear at all since you did not answer that part of the post, as you admitted. Therefore it is NOT message 28.

quote:

---

And then, as if that wasn't clear enough, there was message 30, still on May 5th

---

Which is dealt with in my timeline. In message 30 you do not indicate which message you are referring to, let alone the specific text therefore that is not sufficiently clear either.

quote:

---

And then if that wasn't enough, when she tried to backpedal from her initial agreement on the issue, still on the 5th, I said:

---

The quote you offer comes from Message 39 which was NOT posted on the 5th as can easily be seen by anyone who bothers to look. It was posted on the 9th.

quote:

---

Four days later? What took so long if this was a "misunderstanding"? If it was a misunderstanding it certainly should have been clear on the 5th, when I directly told her how I was interpreting her remarks and which remarks I was interpreting.

---

Since the post you refer to was posted on the 9th NOT the 5th your argument here falls apart.So let us restate your case:1) In your initial response you ignored the text in question. You say that Purpledawn is supposed to have worked out your misinterpretation from that but don't seem clear on how.2) In a post made later the same day you insist that Purpledawn agreed with you somewhere, but fail to specify where. Again it is not clear how Purpledawn is supposed to know which post you were referring to.3) You finally made it clear in a post made on the 9th (by my timezone), which you claim you made on the 5th.So the only point in the actual timeline you deny is the date of your post Message 39. If I follow the link, the time and date I see is: (Your timezone may differ.)Here's the date and time of Purpledawn's reply Message 40
8 hours and 22 minutes - not 4 days. Less than 9 hours, just as my timeline says.

Which post? May 5th is the date that I saw on the post I was talking about. Up in the corner, right? I don't, but I'm seeing a post on the 5th replied to on the 9th.That's quite a long time to not notice a "misunderstanding." The problem is that you said what you said and then lied about having said it, and now you've opened this thread to talk about the least interesting subject it's possible to talk about - what words mean. All you need to do is admit that you said what you said. Since it's up there in the print record I fail to see why that's such an enormous issue for you. Old-person stubbornness, perhaps. I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion on the basis of whatever position you currently claim to hold; you just need to stop making false claims about the positions you clearly adopted in the discussion. I won't hold it against you if you want to move on, and I have no problem when people change their minds during discussions. That's sort of the point, isn't it? To try to convince each other? I just expect that people follow the forum guidelines and not engage in misrepresentation.

It's abundantly clear that message 28 is a reply to message 27 given that it says "Reply to: Message 27 by PurpleDawn" right up at the top. Again, this is a falsehood - Message 30 says "Reply to: Message 29 by purpledawn" right up at the top. Because my posts are clear that I'm interpreting her comment as one of agreement. There's nothing she has to "work out", she would just have had to notice that I interpreted her as agreeing with me. And if that wasn't clear from my replies the fact that I told her that she had agreed with me should have indicated, as well.How explicit should I have been, given that I thought there was no ambiguity at all, here, about who was agreeing with who? Am I constantly required to provide my interpretation of a conversation-state in literally every post? I doubt Percy would appreciate that.And when I genuinely misunderstand people I admit it and ask for clarification. Most people seem to think it's some kind of ruse when I do, of course, but that's because of a popular misconception that I'm some kind of troll. A misconception that PD herself has been instrumental in spreading. (And I see you're starting to do your part.) Then that's clearly an issue, here, because there's no post that I made at 4 in the morning. If your timeline is based on different times and dates than things actually happened at, it's useless.

Against my better judgement, I'm gonna try one more time to explain this to you. No, its not. Maybe colors will help: The red line is a response to the red line and the yellow line is a response to the yellow lines.Get it? It is obvious to everyone but you that you are the one who made the error in your interpretation of what PD wrote.You thought that her line in red was a reply to your lines in yellow, but it wasn't. I think she has a decent point and that its not idiotic. Its that "worshiping a false god" meant something specific to the hebrews, i.e. actually performing legitamate worship of a god, rather than the loosely defined way its used today where it can even just mean "loving money". She goes further to point out that this modern interpretation is a dilution of what it is supposed to mean to "worship". If you follow through the context with KB: To which you reply: and her: What doesn't make sense is why you would think that she is agreeing to something that is the exact opposite of what her whole point has been the whole time.But I realize that its more important for you to "score points" and "win", so you'll use any tactic to get there.You go ahead and assume that she's agreeing to a point that goes directly against her whole point in the thread so that you can later use that in a "Gotcha" moment where you point out the contradiction.You purposefully twist your opponents words so that they work better for you. I mean, here you are doing it right here: Everybody know thats I meant it was obvious that she intended to disagree with you, but you turn that around on me so that it agrees with you.That's because you're palying a game here. You try too hard to make your opponent be wrong that it gets in the way of you understanding them properly.I mean, take this: You're more interested in "boxing her in" and "catching a contradiction" than actually understanding her and having a discussion.I don't even believe you that you think that she really intended to agree with you on the narrow way to interpret it. You're just holding onto that to save face. Because this time you fucked it up and everybody can see it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's abundantly clear that message 28 is a reply to message 27 given that it says "Reply to: Message 27 by PurpleDawn" right up at the top.

---

It is also abundantly clear that it ignores the text in question, just as I said.

quote:

---

Again, this is a falsehood - Message 30 says "Reply to: Message 29 by purpledawn" right up at the top.

---

So you now claim the alleged agreement you mention in message 30 refers to message 29, not message 27. If so message 30 is not relevant to your misinterpretation of message 27.

quote:

---

Because my posts are clear that I'm interpreting her comment as one of agreement.

---

Not in message 28 or message 30. Message 28 says nothing about it, message 30 doesn't specify which post it it is talking about and you now say that it meant message 29 anyway.

quote:

---

How explicit should I have been, given that I thought there was no ambiguity at all, here, about who was agreeing with who? Am I constantly required to provide my interpretation of a conversation-state in literally every post? I doubt Percy would appreciate that.

---

Since my interpretation agrees with the one Purpledawn says is correct your impression was at least mistaken. And nobody is saying that you MUST be clear, only that you were not clear until the 9th, and therefore the 9th is when the clock must start.

quote:

---

Then that's clearly an issue, here, because there's no post that I made at 4 in the morning.

---

Well duh! So there's a timezone difference. That can't make a difference of more than one day and it will not affect the time BETWEEN posts at all. So your 4 days is, in reality, less than 9 hours.

quote:

---

If your timeline is based on different times and dates than things actually happened at, it's useless.

---

It isn't. It is based on the times and dates that they happened in my timezone.Looks like you aren't as willing to admit your errors as you would have us believe. Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

Maybe, but I can do the same thing and prove the opposite: There, see? The quoted line is a response to the material last quoted, like it is every other time PD has replied to me. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Who cares what it meant to the Hebrews? We're not Hebrew. We're the people who, in the year 2011, are saying that caring only about material wealth is a form of "false god worship", as evidenced by the fact that the phrase "worshipping Mammon" was created specifically to allow that interpretation. Why would they make up the phrase - make up the god Mammon - if an obsession with material wealth couldn't actually be a form of false god worship? But that's not the exchange as it happened. What happened is that I said:

quote:

---

That's the reason that the passage in Jeremiah is interpreted, in modern theology, to refer to not letting shallow material concerns, like wealth, power, prestige, or influence, supersede more important spiritual concerns.

---

and then she replied [quote]I think it is an appropriate way to construe it.There are plenty of teachings concerning spiritual concerns without turning money into a false god.[/qs]which clearly indicates agreement with the quoted material. I was construing a passage, and she agreed that I was doing so appropriately. If she'd been responding to the "red question" then she only would have quoted the red question. If the "yellow paragraph" was irrelevant, as your interpretation suggests that it would have to be, then she wouldn't have quoted it. You're right that everybody knows that, and your own post is right before mine, so how could I possibly "twist" anything? What I'm doing here is nothing more than creative poetic license - I'm disagreeing with you, contradicting you, with a kind of poetic conceit - like a kind of sarcasm - that we're in agreement.It's not a twist, it's a metaphor. It's poetic license because it's boring to say "No you're wrong" every time I want to disagree with you. It's a verbal flourish. Wouldn't I be the worst liar in the world to try to mislead people that way, since I both link to your post and it's on the same page as mine? All they would have to do is read your post to see through the lie. So for it to actually be a lie I would have to be the stupidest person in the world.Is that your impression of me? That I'm the stupidest person in the world, so stupid that I would try to lie to people who could immediately see that I was lying? Obviously not.You've simply misinterpreted the passage in question to serve your own ends. It doesn't speak highly of your honesty, frankly. That doesn't seem to be possible, specially since my "misinterpretation" of PD's remarks makes her more right. Rather than misconstruing her passage to "make her wrong", as you claim, I was interpreting her to agree with me. (Because she clearly was.) And I don't think I'm wrong, obviously, so clearly I can't be doing what you claim I'm doing, here. Hopefully you can see that you're completely wrong about this.If I did truly make an error than it was an error of being too charitable to PD, in that I erred in assuming she was more reasonable than she was. That's exactly the opposite of the error you accuse me here.

Obviously it doesn't ignore it, it clearly and implicitly accepts the agreement that was offered. No, you're misrepresenting my claims. (Will you admit it?) My claim was a rebuttal of your claim that Message 30 indicates no reply to message 29. But that's false - the post is marked that it's a reply to message 29. Message 30 does specify what post it is talking about, because it says "Reply to: Message 29 by PurpleDawn" right up at the top as well as at the bottom. Whether or not you agree with PD is no guide to which of us is mistaken, as I've explained. She's in no particular seat of authority when it comes to interpreting what she said. How could 4 days be less than 9 hours? We weren't having a conversation in your timezone.

quote:

---

It's not a twist, it's a metaphor. It's poetic license because it's boring to say "No you're wrong" every time I want to disagree with you. It's a verbal flourish.

---

A change from the same old way of saying things. Which is what I was trying to do when I responded to the question by using the same language as the question to disagree with you. I wanted to disagree in a different way.

quote:

---

Whether or not you agree with PD is no guide to which of us is mistaken, as I've explained. She's in no particular seat of authority when it comes to interpreting what she said.

---

I don't have to interpret. I know what I was responding to.

quote:

---

We weren't having a conversation in your timezone.

---

You're only an hour behind me and 8 hours is 8 hours no matter the timezone.

You didn't communicate disagreement, though.Here you seem to be admitting that you caused confusion by changing the way you indicate meaning in your posts. So I accept your explanation that you miscommunicated your meaning and misunderstood me when I responded to you as though you had agreed with me.

You two need to get a room and grudge this out.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

You didn't communicate disagreement, though.

---

Come on Major English. By stressing that my interpretation was appropriate, I was disagreeing with your statement that my interpretation was narrow.

quote:

---

Here you seem to be admitting that you caused confusion by changing the way you indicate meaning in your posts. So I accept your explanation that you miscommunicated your meaning and misunderstood me when I responded to you as though you had agreed with me.

---

Way to accept correction.

quote:

---

Obviously it doesn't ignore it, it clearly and implicitly accepts the agreement that was offered.

---

It doesn't quote it, acknowledge it or refer to it in any way. That looks like ignoring it to me. There isn't even any text in message 28 that can even be taken as implicitly referring to the portion of message 27 in question.

quote:

---

No, you're misrepresenting my claims. (Will you admit it?) My claim was a rebuttal of your claim that Message 30 indicates no reply to message 29. But that's false - the post is marked that it's a reply to message 29.

---

MY claim was that message 30 did not clearly indicate that it was referring to the disputed text in message 27.In fact these are my exact words: So clearly when you said that message 30 referred to message 29, you must have meant that the agreement referred to in your message 30 was to be found in message 29. That is the whole point of talking about message 30 at all.

quote:

---

Message 30 does specify what post it is talking about, because it says "Reply to: Message 29 by PurpleDawn" right up at the top as well as at the bottom.

---

The point at issue is whether or not it clearly refers to the text in message 27. If it does not clearly do so, we may discard message 30 from consideration.

quote:

---

Whether or not you agree with PD is no guide to which of us is mistaken, as I've explained. She's in no particular seat of authority when it comes to interpreting what she said.

---

Once again you evade my point. My point was to call into question your idea that Purpledawn's text obviously agreed with you. Since a number of us independently disagree we have evidence that you were wrong.

quote:

---

How could 4 days be less than 9 hours?

---

You are making a poor show of reading comprehension here (rather a mistake when you want to push your interpretation of someone else's writing as authoritative). I mean of course that the period that you claim as four days is in reality less than 9 hours, as shown by the forum timestamps.

quote:

---

We weren't having a conversation in your timezone.

---

Irrelevant. I have proven that your claim that you posted message 39 on the 5th of May is contradicted by the forum timestamps, since the date they show cannot possibly be any earlier than the 8th, even in YOUR timezone. I have proven that the timestamps also show a gap between your message 39 and Purpledawn's message 40 of less than 9 hours, and not the 4 days that you claimed, because the timezone makes no difference to that.Are you ready to admit that you got the date of message 39 wrong yet ?

This is our room, please don't slam the door on the way out.
Room service sucks though. Really I was looking for a consensus from the membership. I already knew Crash wasn't going to admit to a mistake on his part.Obviously that doesn't mean I can read his mind, but his behavior is pretty consistent. That's why I stopped as soon as he misconstrued my position. Just as when dealing with some fundamentalists, the discussion becomes a very tangled web of misdirection to avoid or hide the original mistake.He claims to be able to take correction. I wanted to see if he really could. The science people keep telling me that when facts are presented the opposing side should be able to adjust because the facts are there for all to see.Well the facts are there for all to see and Crash didn't adjust. So I don't see this behavior as only coming from creationists or fundamentalist. A religion-free science person can ignore facts just as easily and just as ridiculously.Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle Change

I think the facts have been thrashed about. The questions from Message 1.1. In the snapshot in Message 1, did I agree that worshiping false gods doesn't mean temples and prostrate worship and that it means putting material concerns ahead of spiritual ones as my opponent contends in Message 30 and Message 39?or2. Did I respond to the question as I contend in my explanation in Message 40?