|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Just a question... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
nator,
Suppose, just prior to the paint strokes occurring (as described in the previous example), you had been prompted (say, by a "still, small voice") to answer the question, "What is your favorite portrait?" and you had answered unequivocally, "the Mona Lisa...THAT is my favorite portrait!" and then, suddenly, the Mona Lisa portrait mysteriously appeared only hours later, what would you say? Would you describe THAT as self-centered? Edited by itrownot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
rahvin,
the contradiction is only apparent. You and ringo are insisting that I conform to your closely guarded glossary of terms, not for the sake of good communication, as you claim, but rather to pretend that others are unable to communicate, and perhaps are bit addle-brained in our thinking as well. You've over-restricted the broader meanings one normally associates with certain words and you demand that all others must abide by your rules, and that's it, take it or leave it. You and your like-minded associates out-number me, by my count so far, by at least 10 to 1 on this thread, so of course you'll insist that I'm not using words as they're defined, and of course your like-minded associates will heartily agree. Gotcha. Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity Edited by itrownot, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
well, ringo, if we're not done yet, we must be closing fast on it. You're sounding a bit snippier now...that's good, I must have finally worn out my unwelcomed appearance with you. Please read my reply to your associate rahvin for my comments regarding the quality of "communications" on this thread.
Oh, PS: You said: "The rest of us on this thread seem to be communicating with each other pretty well. The secret to that, I think, is that we don't each make up our own secret vocabularies." Well, I think the secret to that, rather, is that you have a running pack and the running pack mentality that goes with it. Edited by itrownot, : PS added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
omg, it's jar, right on cue. "Rosencrans & Gildenstern are dead, right, jar? lol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
haha sneering from my cross...that's a pretty funny image.
Are you aware of how wolves fight and kill each other, ringo? It's pretty much the same in your pack, too, i see... And don't confuse your running pack mentality with concensus, either. Edited by itrownot, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
noseyned,
I'll just take the day off tomorrow, ok? that sounds good to me, and that'll save on some bits I guess, since I won't be fighting off the pack all day--yeah, I'll be sneering from my cross all day being disrespectful to no one. thanks for the suggestion...& a pleasant goodnight to you all. Edited by itrownot, : improved for consumption
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, rahvin, that's bull. People here like to dish it out, but they can't seem to read something for its content rather that nitpicking it for "scientific correctness" at every turn, even though the poster has made efforts to qualify his statements. THAT is disrespectful. Why should anyone spend their time trying to communicate with you if you're going to confront them with this scientific correctness "gotcha" factor? The one exception to this was iceage, who seemed genuinely interested in the content of my posting. He was thoughtful enough to get beyond the issue of "scientific correctness"--at least long enough to hear me out, then he was considerate in his reply. Iceage has proven my point--dialogue can happen without freaking over the terminology all the time. The rest of you just kept "snapping and snarling and hurling insults" in the demand for "scientific correctness" at the expense of any conversation. This IS the coffee house, afterall. What a misnomer that is! This was my second thread, and I suppose it will be my last. I didn't even intend to participate in the "Just a question..." debate in the first place...I had only asked a simple, albeit "scientifically incorrect" question of jar, and offered what I thought was a respectful explanation as to why I was asking--then all hell broke loose at the coffee bar. But that doesn't matter, I'm just "whining" and "sneering down from my cross" at trhis point. Now noseyned has stepped in it too with a warning for me to stop being disrespectful and wasting his precious little bits. He says I need to reread the rules. Do the rules themselves protect "scientific correctness" on this forum? If so, then YOU are the ones "doomed to stagnation", I'm afraid. If not, then why can't people be more respectful of a post they don't understand. You yourself are accusing me of "lying" when I had in good faith insisted that putting quotation marks around a word DOES change the word by signalling to a reader your intention of employing the word in an altered sense of it, or in some other way perhaps. If this is not a time honored convention of usage in the English language, then I am wrong, but I'm NOT a liar. But of course I am NOT wrong about this, only frustrated that others apparently would rather fight ad nauseum about it than accept a difference of opinion and move on for discussion purposes. Oh, but I'm whining again, aren't I?
Well, yes, I guess I am. But then again, so are you all, too, if you care to admit it. Edited by itrownot, : Reply to Message 141, not as listed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
Forget it, crashfrog. It's pointless to discuss this thing any further when I have already stated repeatedly that I wasn't trying to convince anyone, didn't intend to debate in the first place, and was only replying to inquiries made to me, which I thought fair to do. Yet you ignore this inconvenient truth to engage in a little ad hominem with me, what with noseyned worrying about the bitcount being wasted here.
BTW, when you say, "That only makes it more likely that you would see that painting in an arrangement of random brushstrokes" I just have to laugh. Are you suggesting that I MUST be hallucinating? That the reality of such a painting would be unverifiable? You apparently didn't read the post very well anyway, or else you wouldn't have made such an obtuse comment about it as this. Please spare Ned the bits by not replying to me again, no offense intended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
hey, rahvin, I'll be brief, and just say I disagree with a few things still (and so what?). I can honestly say that I wasn't unaware that stricter ground rules do apply on this forum (including "proper" use of parentheses, I presume)--you are the first to have pointed that out to me directly. So, yeah, I needed to reread the rules, I guess.
It's really not a case of my not being able to take the heat, per se, that I will be curtailing future posts--one can become somewhat better conditioned to take heat, you know (particularly if & when one is properly acclimated to the rules of the kitchen!). It's rather more a case of limited availability of time for me, in combination with certain health concerns precluding any more late night posting sessions. I'll maybe try again sometime, though. See you later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote: "I'm suggesting that the easiest person to fool is always yourself."
crashfrog, I don't think you meant to say "always"---this is hyperbole, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
ALWAYS easier?
perhaps you're missing my point, sidelined... but actually, I'd be more interested to hear from crashfrog as to what he meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote:
"I'm suggesting that the easiest person to fool is always yourself. Look, we know that's a fact from psychology." crashfrog...seriously, I get your point, it's just that your above statement is more "punny" than factual. Afterall, the word "fact" is a scientific term around here, just as, say, the word "empirical" is, so I'm just hoping you'll try to be more precise when using such terms. Otherwise, we're not going to understand what you're trying to say, know what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
crashfrog, I read about the Asch conformity experiments 35 years ago, and I still remember them. I also know that any good experiment can be misapplied to draw invalid conclusions from it. You are pulling your own leg here.
Experimentation is a wonderful tool for gaining knowledge, but the tendency of some to exaggerate the test results is not limited to the experimenters themselves--often others, particularly those outside the field, will use certain test results inappropriately, exaggerating the actual test results, whether knowingly or unknowingly, to suit their own prejudical purposes, and THAT IS a fact. We ought to guard ourselves against this, hence my query to you. Message 158 by nator is a good post to reread, as Feynmen's caution applies equally to crashfrog and itrownot alike. Feynmen's principle was clearly more formulated to offer some pretty good advice, it seems, than it was to delineate a scientifically rigorous statement of fact, much like a modern technical version of Shakespeare's "to thine own self be true." Why can't you just admit that, crashfrog? We all step over the line at times and say things imprecisely--or is that just me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
rahvin, please refer to my reply to crashfrog for my comments regarding crashfrog's use of the term "fact". On the contrary, crashfrog is applying the term loosely, if only because he's included the word "always" in his statement. If he has the evidence to back it up his original statement, he hasn't shown it--he's only trying to snow us over with the Asch conformity shuck & jive. It is NOT "always easier to fool yourself"--anyone who has fooled someone at some time or other knows that by simple inspection. Am I being a nitpicker? Of course--that's what we do here in order to understand one another.
Edited by itrownot, : Edited for clarity Edited by itrownot, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
sorry, crashfrog, but I do understand what you've written quite well. There's nothing personal about it in either direction, but whatever suits the goose, will suit the gander.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024