Free Association Thread 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
For some, it's not a "fake diamond," to them, it's an "imitation diamond." I did note that some consider "fake news" to be a useful term. Others would consider it an insult to the language. I wouldn't argue it myself, since language is what the speakers make of it, not the academicians. I was merely trying to answer your query, not about "fake news," but about what HP meant by calling it "a slur on the language!"

"Semantics," you say? So casually used to dismiss an interpretation, but give it some thought. "Semantics" refers to the meaning of what we write or utter; to dismiss things as being "semantics" is, perhaps, to declare that meaning is meaningless. Some would consider this use of the term "semantics" as an abuse, a slur on the language.

You're welcome, latecomer.

I don't tend to thank people with arrogant, condescending attitudes. Twice, you have volunteered what are called in common usage, 'snotty' remarks when none were warranted, obviously tacked on at the end of an otherwise civil conversation, apparently only for the purpose of insult.

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/Submit
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"
 
I don't tend to thank people with arrogant, condescending attitudes. Twice, you have volunteered what are called in common usage, 'snotty' remarks when none were warranted, obviously tacked on at the end of an otherwise civil conversation, apparently only for the purpose of insult.

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/Submit
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

Was I wrong to detect a touch of arrogance and condescension in your original post?
 
Was I wrong to detect a touch of arrogance and condescension in your original post?

That question, aside from being ridiculously stated (are you wrong in thinking I was arrogant? How does one answer that?) I think that like most narcissists you feel you're never wrong, and you will endeavor to keep this argument going by deflecting (as in your prior post on the matter), changing the subject and trying to bring about a never-ending 'circular' argument. That will not happen, because I've already wasted too much time dealing with your ridiculous crusade. Now I expect you will go through this message and highlight certain words or phrase, or maybe you'll sink so low as to find an example of errant punctuation to nitpick about, trying to find some little 'wins' (for want of a better word) that will make you feel a little more self-satisfied. Frankly, I don't care what you say, because I have lost whatever respect I may have been forming for you through seeing you in these threads.

Here is the chain of threads, leaving off before you jumped in with your confrontational attitude.


Alternative Facts

Is that the same as Fake News?

So far, this is playing the Free Association Game (Is this the arrogant and condescending post you meant? Because after my innocent reply to the Game post, it wasn't even you that replied to mine, but the following - exclaiming at me

That's a slur on the language !

My response to that strange outburst was to question it AND the reason for exclaiming (yelling, but without using Upper Case letters) at me about it. My curiosity was 'Why are you yelling at me, and what in the world are you yelling ABOUT?

I'm sure you will find some way to identify arrogance and condescension in this reply to the harsh post directed at me before it:

Okay, I'll bite: WHAT is a slur on the language (stated with an exclamation point, no less)?

Of course, Handley Page disappears, and this is where YOU jump in out of the blue (Are you his great protector or what?). By the way, my post was in no way an attack on him) and begin the arrogance and condescension, basically picking a fight through your rudeness.

I'm sure you didn't read and/or try to comprehend any of the above. YOU decided you wanted to start something, YOU are arrogant, condescending, rude and sarcastic, and YOU can go on to write whatever deflecting, evasive, pedantic garbage you like, but I am done with you.
 
Last edited:
That question, aside from being ridiculously stated (are you wrong in thinking I was arrogant? How does one answer that?) I think that like most narcissists you feel you're never wrong, and you will endeavor to keep this argument going by deflecting (as in your prior post on the matter), changing the subject and trying to bring about a never-ending 'circular' argument. That will not happen, because I've already wasted too much time dealing with your ridiculous crusade. Now I expect you will go through this message and highlight certain words or phrase, or maybe you'll sink so low as to find an example of errant punctuation to nitpick about, trying to find some little 'wins' (for want of a better word) that will make you feel a little more self-satisfied. Frankly, I don't care what you say, because I have lost whatever respect I may have been forming for you through seeing you in these threads.

Here is the chain of threads, leaving off before you jumped in with your confrontational attitude.

So far, this is playing the Free Association Game (Is this the arrogant and condescending post you meant? Because after my innocent reply to the Game post, it wasn't even you that replied to mine, but the following - exclaiming at me



My response to that strange outburst was to question it AND the reason for exclaiming (yelling, but without using Upper Case letters) at me about it. My curiosity was 'Why are you yelling at me, and what in the world are you yelling ABOUT?

I'm sure you will find some way to identify arrogance and condescension in this reply to the harsh post directed at me before it:



Of course, Handley Page disappears, and this is where YOU jump in out of the blue (Are you his great protector or what?). By the way, my post was in no way an attack on him) and begin the arrogance and condescension, basically picking a fight through your rudeness.

I'm sure you didn't read and/or try to comprehend any of the above. YOU decided you wanted to start something, YOU are arrogant, condescending, rude and sarcastic, and YOU can go on to write whatever deflecting, evasive, pedantic garbage you like, but I am done with you.

Hey! What am I? Chopped liver? Or just invisible?
 
Hey! What am I? Chopped liver? Or just invisible?

No offense, Sam. Tio picked this fight, I didn't. Let's get this thread back to what it was supposed to be, before the intrusion. I apologize for my part in the previous detour.

A touch of arrogance makes me think, perhaps, rogan - rogan josh. Yum. :)

Rogan Josh: Lamb? I feel like I'm being led to the slaughter when people feed me lamb. Ugh.
 
A very interesting theory, but I think Smith gave too much hope for people having ethics in the future.

.

Some say there are too many problems with Smith's approach, such as relying too heavily on factors that can perhaps only be 'predicted' as an educated guess, such as ongoing consumer behavior: If the people of Smith's time looked at the buying behaviors of today, they would probably be appalled at the frivolous nature of the average consumer's buying patterns and motivations. That's not the only problem, either..
 
Some say there are too many problems with Smith's approach, such as relying too heavily on factors that can perhaps only be 'predicted' as an educated guess, such as ongoing consumer behavior: If the people of Smith's time looked at the buying behaviors of today, they would probably be appalled at the frivolous nature of the average consumer's buying patterns and motivations. That's not the only problem, either..

'I Shop Therefore I Am' - Barbara Kruger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top