 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Well, I don't use actual red colored font now, do I? My English is just that bad. Red lettering is figure of speech for unnecessary beautification of one's wording to make it look more fancy/funky. I tend to do that a lot, being a rhetoric scholar. And me noting it just so you have easier time adjusting to/expecting it from me and thus adapting to my manner of speaking.
>>> When I read words like that my idea from those words involved me thinking that you think I think that math "itself is" "a pre-existing idea in reality," which I is not my idea, so my question then is to ask if I am correct in thinking that you think that I think that math exists before it was an idea, or some other thought, in other words, along those lines, which are thoughts I do not think.
Same as I said before - I'm too impatient to write around these obvious failures of English as a language (meaning contextual dependence). I see these particular response of yours as a good example of binary logic conditioning to see in 'as opposed' manner where it's not directly implied. How exactly me stating that math is not a pre-existing idea says something about what you think/say/feel in actuality or the way I perceive it? Nohow. It's a binary logic assumption that this statement as opposition to something. And by the way - this is partially due to a reason of English being as it is - designed along the lines of what I told about language control. Now contextual dependence is annoying to work around thus I opt to inspire (or wait/expect) people to rise up in their abilities over it. My English is not good enough to make those workarounds to have enough integrity to hold the flawed language structural loops. So, hopefully, I've made this whole 'me reading your thoughts' shebang somewhat clearer.
>>> I am not an effective inventor of English symbol arrangements.
Ahem... Between you and me you are superior at that, because you are educated AND a native speaker. So there is not much use telling that to me - I'd be a second fiddle at best anyways.
>>> I don't think that deceptive use of statistics is trivial. Have you heard about personality tests, and "mass marketing"?
Sure. Yet it is still trivial as compared to direct manipulations that are done through music. Sure enough, for mainstream it's just a dulling noise that degrades one's entity and body, but there are other inventions in this regard, more suited to be called a weapon. As for statistics manipulation - try looking at it from a perspective of information control. It's completely 1-dimensional, with only limiting factor being available computing power. Gather as much data as you can get your hands on and the hold crucial parts to speculate opinions. Gentle approach is necessary - true - but it's just a matter of calculus in the end. And I mean low-end calculus at that. So it is trivial as compared to music. It's not trivial on it's own, but neither is it sophisticated.
>>> I don't know if my arrangements of symbols works, and I may never know.
Sure, you may not, if you condition yourself not to as willfully as this statement seem to indicate.
>>> I've actually heard a person claim that they are doing their victim a favor by stealing from the victim, something along the lines of helping the victim realize how vulnerable the victim is in fact.
Typical example of confusion between virtues and vices.
>>> I can work at it. I ran into this type of help with bear, since too often in the past, and still too often now, my replies were seen by her as attacks, and so I can work on improving my inventions of arrangements of symbols when asking for help.
Oh, those religious people... All I was asking is that you try and narrow things thematically (whatever the holding point). I realize that it's hard to dissect whole topics into little pieces, but I just have too much to say about it as a whole, so I will be forced to make explanations of explanations of explanations... And I really wish to avoid doing that this way.
>>> Biting the hand that feeds me, is an old saying, along the lines of The Wisdom of Crowds at work, which may or may not work in this case
I'd say one should work on becoming self-sustainable, not to eat from someone's hands or lick someone's boots.
>>> Why is that funny? I did not write words that say "claim your thoughts," or "know them."
It not only funny - it's hilarious. No matter how many time I say that my English is at the level of neanderthal and that I don't mean to suggest that I know what you think and don't put any intention to express that I in any way think that I know it - you continue to poke me with "you say that I think, while I do not" and blah-blah-blah. My skull is of a decent quality and I know better than to ram it into the stone wall, so would you please stop directing me at that wall? Red lettering here heavily.
>>> Your words are not your claims, obviously, and measurably, so that is why I chose "your word," and that is why I did not say "your thoughts."
Addressed above.
>>> Again, here is a case in point, I did not write, in words, that "I can read your mind..."
No case present. Specifically for that I used the word 'whatnot'. This word shatters specificity of the sentence - much to my desire to do so. That means that any word used there can be substituted with a certain synonym. You constantly complain about me misinterpreting what you say and whatnot, about me putting words in your mouth and whatnot. Yet me stating VERY CLEARLY that I DON'T DO ANY OF THAT is not enough to balance things out. And after 69 mentions about how terrible my English is I refuse to listen to same broken vinyl yet again. My wording in English is not going to improve just like that, though I appreciate the effort to make it better. Maybe the reason is that I'm no longer in line with the language design flaws (both intentional and unforeseen).
>>> Your words, your words, your words, often inspire in me the idea that you think you know what I think, in this case your words appear to suggest to me that you think that I feel as if you can read my mind, and that is opposite of what I actually think.
Case in point. Now can we get to an actual discussion?
>>> How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words?
It's ignorant to say/think/assume/whatever that words is the best/only/whatever way of communication. And - _NO_ - not in any way/shape/form/whatever do I indicate/say/suggest/whatever that you say/think/assume/whatever that words is the best/only/whatever way of communication. Now - doesn't it feel disgusting to read this kind of explaining sentence between every other. And - believe me - I can make them even more crunchy. That would make a wonderful reading experience now, wouldn't it? Everything is articulated in the most boring unmemorable way so one has a hard time nitpicking every single word. Again - in no way/shape/form/whatever do I indicate/say/suggest/whatever that you are nitpicking my every single word. Someone kill me, please...
I personally am incapable to convey an accurate meaning of any worthwhile complexity in any way. So I adjust for that fact and deal with it. Instead of getting stuck on it - I account for it and move forward. And for the last time - I do not suggest that you do stuck on it, no matter whether you think/say/whatever I do or not.
>>> I am not guilty, I know I am not guilty, so that is a case in point.
You're not guilty. Here, here... Now back on track - no case present. Addressed above.
>>> I am guilty of failing to find the right word choices.
If you're guilty of anything - then it's getting a tad bit overly meticulous and expecting the same from me. But then again - what do I know...
>>> Those words suggest to me that someone, somewhere, is guilty of feeling as if someone can read someone's mind, and that is certainly a false claim, but I don't feel that I can read someone's mind, so I am not guilty as charged in those words aimed at me.
Pretty much your whole reply consists of what I marked under 'when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot'. I don't feel the need to specify exactly - hence the 'whatnot'. I told ya that my English doesn't work, didn't I? Now let's get over it already, we've spent 69 times more time on face-palming over this trivial matter that it's worth. Just know that I never in any way pretend/say/suggest/whatever that I have an accurate grasp on what you tell me including assessment of you thinking/whatever, no matter what my writing may appear to suggest. When it comes to important bits - I DO NOT use red lettering - I just flat out TELL IT. And if my mood wasn't as good as it was - I wouldn't go through the mind pain to say all this stuff yet again and now in such a great undeserving detail. It's like a toilet plunger encrusted with diamonds. For my sanity's sake, let's not do this ever again (at least until one of us actually learns telepathy).