Is there a God?

[Zeta-Flux]

Hey! I liked Tremors 4!

[flouran]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Are you saying you haven't seen the Sci-fi Original Movie: Drying Alien Dung Mounds - Killer Droppings from Outer Space?

I guess so
I shall watch it tonight ;-P

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Are you saying that after my clarification you are not willing to interpret the words the way I explained that I intended them?

No, I'm saying:

your statement in post #105 did not have the "clear" meaning that you claimed in #169, but instead could reasonably be read, without any torturing of words, as meaning the opposite of what you intended,

that's not to say that a proper interpretation of #105 was as straightforward as a simple three-word declarative sentence, but that my interpretation of #105 was a good-faith effort to honestly discern what you intended to convey,

any statement is open to misinterpretation,

you had not explicitly said, before now, that your post #169 was to be regarded as a clarification rather than as a claim that #105 was clear enough without any clarification,

it seems now that you do want your post #169 to be regarded as a clarification, so

in light of your #169 clarification of #105, I withdraw my statement in post #107 ("That's what a study does") because it was based on a different interpretation than the #169 clarification, and

I propose that we mutually agree that all statements arising from "That's what a study does" made since then are null and void.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Larry

No, I'm saying:

your statement in post #105 did not have the "clear" meaning that you claimed in #169, but instead could reasonably be read as meaning the opposite of what you intended,

Originally Posted by Moe

you had not explicitly said, before now, that your post #169 was to be regarded as a clarification rather than as a claim that #105 was clear enough without any clarification,

it seems now that you do want your post #169 to be regarded as a clarification, so

Originally Posted by Curly

in light of your #169 clarification of #105, I withdraw my statement in post #107 ("That's what a study does") because it was based on a different interpretation than the #169 clarification, and

I propose that we mutually agree that all statements arising from "That's what a study does" made since then are null and void.

Priceless.

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead,

I appreciate the *sigh* in your edit bar. :)

I agree that any statement can be misinterpreted.

People can even honestly disagree about whether a given statement is clear. (Or what "clear" means. Or...)

I believe that when that happens it is perfectly acceptable for the statement originator to state that the original meaning was clear (in his/her opinion) but then provide as much further clarification as necessary for the other party to understand.

I am willing, and do, believe you gave a good-faith effort in understanding.

I am gratified that we seem to understand each other on this one point, and that you retracted your statement.

I am willing to reciprocate, and agree to your proposal.

If this post is acceptable, I will go to the next topic you brought up but I have not responded to yet.

[axn]

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-...te-advice.html

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by flouran

cheesehead (or anyone who decides to name their head after food).

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dict...hings&letter=C

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/icon...eeseheads.html

[flouran]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dict...hings&letter=C

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/icon...eeseheads.html

Well, obviously, I had inferred that since Wisconsin is well-known for its cheese (and your profile says you live in Wisconsin), then naturally "cheesehead" was an informal name for a resident of Wisconsin...
But thanks for the links! They were pretty interesting. If you want to know the truth, when I was a kid I was obsessed with cheese. I'd always want to put it on something I ate. Then one day my mom gave me carrot juice...that didn't go down too well

[Zeta-Flux]

You mean ... when I answered "I find none" when you asked for the article's definition of prosperity?

That's passing over? What was I supposed to do -- scream and yell and shout?

I said the definition of prosperity was missing! How, exactly, did that seem to pass over the question about definition of prosperity?

I didn't say you passed over the questions. I said you seemingly passed over the problems that your answers to the questions presented.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Stan

I didn't say you passed over the questions. I said you seemingly passed over the problems that your answers to the questions presented.

Originally Posted by Ollie

Will you please specify/list the problems that my answers presented, to which you refer?

(I wouldn't trust my attempt to extract what you mean.)

.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I said you seemingly passed over the problems that your answers to the questions presented.

Will you please specify/list just what problems that my answers presented, to which you refer?

I thought you clearly specified one of those in a previous posting, only to find now that again you seem to be claiming that one of your previous statements does not mean what my plain straightforward reading found as the statement's meaning.

When I interpreted your statements:

Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, how does the author define prosperity?

... it seemed clear to me that your second sentence, beginning with "For example", was intended to present an example of the category you had just mentioned in the first sentence: "some of the glaring problems [ I ] uncovered in the article".

If that's not what you intended, then what in the world DID you intend by (my uppercase):

"FOR EXAMPLE, how does the author define prosperity?"

?

---

Thinking that your "For example" sentence had a clear meaning, I treated "how does the author define prosperity?" as though it were your example of a glaring problem I uncovered in the article.

Apparently, you are now claiming that that was not what you intended to say.

Can you find a way to say what you mean more clearly, (or teach me how to interpret your words in the seemingly nonstandard way that is necessary), so that you do not have to issue denials of my interpretations so often, and I do not have to accuse you of after-the-fact repurposings?

(Or could you have a friend write an alternative way of expressing what you write, then include that as a footnote?)