![Why do atheists care. [rhet]](/img/uisvg/forum-heading/spirituality.svg){kind=icon}
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
Originally posted by twhiteheadForget it. Lumping me in with that lot won't move me one inch.
Not a chance. Be man enough you admit you are wrong or forever join the flat earthers club. (freaky, sonship, robbie and a few more that would rather look utter fools than admit they are wrong about something.).
Communicate better. Pop down the hall to the English classes maybe?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterIt's difficult to communicate well with someone determined to misunderstand what you write, and doesn't understand the meaning of the words you use.
Suit yourself. If i thought that I would have back out immediately.
You generalised in your OP, you've defended it poorly with miscommunication (as you've just admitted to), poor examples like "humans frequently write stories" and you lack the humility to admit you are wrong.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou just admitted that you mis-communicated your post about "many" which added to the confusion. It's not my fault that you can't construct sentences in such a way that they are not open to misinterpretation. At least you have calmed down after a nights sleep and are not CAPITALISING to make yourself more coherent and calling people who disagree with you an "idiot".
It's difficult to communicate well with someone determined to misunderstand what you write, and doesn't understand the meaning of the words you use.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see, you misunderstand what "generalisation" means, fail to correct yourself coherently and I'm a liar because of it. You seem to lack even the intellectual honestly I used to credit you with.
Blatant lies will get you nowhere and only expose the fact that you know you are wrong. I admitted no such thing and you know it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI didn't call you an idiot, I said you were acting like one, which anyone can do from time to time.
You just admitted that you mis-communicated your post about "many" which added to the confusion. It's not my fault that you can't construct sentences in such a way that they are not open to misinterpretation. At least you have calmed down after a nights sleep and are not CAPITALISING to make yourself more coherent and calling people who disagree with you an "idiot".
Acting like one on an ongoing basis is however grounds for an upgrade from 'acting like'
to simply 'idiot'. We haven't 'quite' got there yet.
And I didn't admit to miscommunication, I admitted to being misunderstood.
The difference being who I regard as being at fault.
Guess which one of us I think that is. 😀
And I capitalise for emphasis, as opposed to increased 'coherence'. Which is generally why people capitalise stuff.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI understood what he said perfectly with no problems at all.
I see, you misunderstand what "generalisation" means, fail to correct yourself coherently and I'm a liar because of it. You seem to lack even the intellectual honestly I used to credit you with.
This suggests that what he said was not unclear.
You are just in too high dudgeon to read things properly.
Originally posted by divegeesterYou seem to lack any intellectual honesty at all. Do you now admit that I did not admit to what you claimed I admitted to. Withdraw the claim and admit you didn't read my post very carefully and I will withdraw the accusation of lying. Instead what I see is you trying to pin your failure to read on me. What was incoherent about my correction? Which sentence did you not understand?
I see, you misunderstand what "generalisation" means, fail to correct yourself coherently and I'm a liar because of it. You seem to lack even the intellectual honestly I used to credit you with.
Originally posted by divegeesterTry answering the questions I asked:
Shall we take it from the top. What are you monkeys going to try next - the original Greek?
Lets go through this again. Read this carefully and answer all questions honestly. If I say 'reporters frequently use catchy headlines to gain viewers'. Am I or am I not claiming that all reporters do so? In my opinion, clearly the sentence is ambiguous but it is reasonable to assume that not all reporters are implied.
Secondly, if I then say 'as an example of this, reporter A used catchy headline B'. Am I or am I not saying that:
1. my example proves the claim.
2. my claim is based solely on the example.
3. my claim is a generalization based on the example.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not responsible for your inability to understand what the word generalise means nor your subsequent posts defending your misunderstanding. if you want to clarify what you meant, go back copy all the posts, my replies, your replies to my replies and at each juncture explain where you went wrong, how I misinterpreted your misunderstanding and them we can start again. Bring a dictionary this time. And underline any word you are not sure about.
You seem to lack any intellectual honesty at all. Do you now admit that I did not admit to what you claimed I admitted to. Withdraw the claim and admit you didn't read my post very carefully and I will withdraw the accusation of lying. Instead what I see is you trying to pin your failure to read on me. What was incoherent about my correction? Which sentence did you not understand?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. The OP carries the sentence in question. It is a generalisation.
Try answering the questions I asked:
Lets go through this again. Read this carefully and answer all questions honestly. If I say 'reporters frequently use catchy headlines to gain viewers'. Am I or am I not claiming that all reporters do so? In my opinion, clearly the sentence is ambiguous but it is reasonable to assume that not all reporters are impli ...[text shortened]... my claim is based solely on the example.
3. my claim is a generalization based on the example.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou said you made a poor job of you post about "mean", which you did. It's no biggie though, the main one you made a poor job of was you OP. 😉
I didn't call you an idiot, I said you were acting like one, which anyone can do from time to time.
Acting like one on an ongoing basis is however grounds for an upgrade from 'acting like'
to simply 'idiot'. We haven't 'quite' got there yet.
And I didn't admit to miscommunication, I admitted to being misunderstood.
The difference being who I regar ...[text shortened]... r emphasis, as opposed to increased 'coherence'. Which is generally why people capitalise stuff.
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd I have admitted my mistake and not asked you to take responsibility for it. That you are stating that you are not responsible here suggests either you are attempting a time wasting tactic or you misunderstood my post (something you seem extremely good at to the point of it seeming deliberate)
I'm not responsible for your inability to understand what the word generalise means nor your subsequent posts defending your misunderstanding.
if you want to clarify what you meant, go back copy all the posts, my replies, your replies to my replies and at each juncture explain where you went wrong, how I misinterpreted your misunderstanding and them we can start again. Bring a dictionary this time. And underline any word you are not sure about.
I have no need to clarify. You claimed I was incoherent in my admission that I misunderstood the word and used that as an excuse for your false accusation that I had agreed that you were correct from the beginning. If you claim I was incoherent it is up to you to explain where i was incoherent, not up to me to go back through the whole thread. Again, I suspect time wasting tactics.