# The Ryan, Master of Semantics **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 27, 2002, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923 "2002-04-27T06:18:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/41 "2002-05-01T21:46:39Z")
_{runs}_ Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/42 "2002-05-01T21:48:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Ryan: Your position was that it wasn’t acceptable in **any** context. You would presume to tell me what my position was? This has to be the most hackneyed, deceitful tack taken in a debate in quite some time. You are more than a nitpicker, Ryan, you lack integrity. To wit: > [@](#): > > Waverly: Did you or did you not attempt to draw a parallel between the two contexts in an effort to advance an idiotic notion that what is acceptable in one context is acceptable in another? Yeah, those words are easily misconstrued to mean I believe a word is appropriate in any context :rolleyes: Got any other tricks, liar-boy? Jodi: Oh, I don’t expect him to acquiesce. I’m satisfied seeing him showcase his dishonest debating style for any who stumble into this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/43 "2002-05-01T23:13:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I have already stated what my reasoning for that is. You could ask for a clarification of that. Or… you could post in a Pit Thread complaining about how you can’t understand what I’m saying. Your choice. Did the first, in several threads. In the one occasioning this thread, the “clarification” was no help. Briefly stated a premise, asked for a similarly briefly stated response highlighting where we differ. Thought I understood the result, attempted debating on it. Back to “it ain’t proven” again – on a point that was all but spelled out as given in the OP. So I did the second. From henceforth, **TheRyan** , I don’t _care_ what you have to say – because you get offended when people ask _you_ for clarifications while you act churlish towards them for not using their terms clearly enough. I don’t have the time or patience to parse out what it is that you think you’re saying and try to come up with a reasoned response ensuring that I make no assumptions not shared by you as to what the words in it mean. I regret this; when you’re going good, you can bring an interesting perspective to a topic by looking at it in a way nobody else does. Unfortunately, those posts are few and far between lately. It’s remotely possible that all of us are wrong and you are right, in some objective sense. But on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance and communicating clearly, the fact that a wide variety of people are accusing you of **not** communicating clearly and hijacking threads to make nitpicky points that are not germane to the question at hand is something that, if I were you, would give me pause and cause me to question how well **I’m** communicating. But it’s your choice. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/44 "2002-05-02T01:37:33Z")
Ryan, if anyone _did_ agree with you, don’t you think they would have contributed by now? [sub]I don’t know why I bother…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/45 "2002-05-02T16:04:32Z")
I just wish he’d answer my fucking question - **who is this rule intended to hurt, heterosexuals or homosexuals?** This is where “any reasonable person” ( :rolleyes: ) would see the discrimination we’re talking about. Of course, his answer will be a long, rambling diatribe of, “I never said that,” “your _claim_ is not logical,” “I already said that,” _ad nauseum_. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/46 "2002-05-02T16:38:34Z")
Dealing with The Ryan is like trying to deal with a mentally retarded version of Spock, on hallucinogens, in the middle of Pong-Far. Still no sunglasses, either. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/47 "2002-05-02T17:16:58Z")
Fascinating… Esprix ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/48 "2002-05-02T17:46:46Z")
Some day I hope to argue against **The Ryan** , just to see what you guys are talking about. I almost always seem to understand what he’s trying to say, and actually think that many people read a hell of a lot into his statements… much more than is there, and much more than is warranted. Some day, someone will simply ask **TheRyan** directly what his stance is instead of asking oblique questions, telling him what he means, and then getting upset when he disagrees. Some day, **The Ryan** will stop nitpicking terminology, but this seems like a petty point to make. I still remember, fondly, the debate about whether or not the draft was constitutional, and how the draft compared to being compelled to attend primary school. Ryan and I were agreeing on that one, and I thought we had some interesting things to say. Fun debate, and until I notice some statement that is obviously inflammatory then I’m going to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Carry on with the roasting, I suppose… he’ll probably stick around like he always has, trying to get you to point out exactly where you think he said all the things you say he says (and, much to my surprise, usually come up empty-handed, though I do seem to remember **Jodi** levelling a devestating attack once :)) until everyone gets exasperated and the thread dies. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/49 "2002-05-02T18:38:20Z")
**eris** , truth be told, we all understand his points. Problem is, his points are on such a semantical irrelevant tangent to whatever the topic being discussed is. While discussing pedophila, he makes a point that, under the strictest definition of the word “homosexual,” homosexuality constitutes _any_ sexual activity between any two male humans - therefore, some pedophila can be considered “homosexual” in nature, _by that definition_. However, when the rest of the universe talks about homosexuality, they’re talking about relationships between two male consenting adults, not the rape of a minor by an adult. The two cannot compare, and yet **The Ryan** will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on trying to hammer home his point - _which has nothing to do with the topic at hand_ - that some pedophila can be considered, under his definition, “homosexual activity.” Can you see how insulting this is to gay people, anyone arguing the topic, anyone who reads the thread, anyone on this message board, and any person with an I.Q. greater than three? Similarly, the thread about the guy taking his date to the prom - it’s about a Canadian publicly-funded institution denying one of its students the right to choose who he can take to the prom, but all **The Ryan** seems able to argue is that, in effect, no one - gay or straight - is allowed to take a date _of the same gender_ to the prom, so it’s not _technically_ any kind of discrimination against gay people _per se_. WTF? Why is he arguing this nit-picky semantical point? Everyone understands (even him, as he has admitted) that the decision is anti-gay (and intended to be so), so why - _God in Heaven, why?!?!_ - is he arguing this point on and on and on and on and on and on and on? Oh, wait, I know - he’s a grade-A jackass, that’s why. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/50 "2002-05-02T18:52:02Z")
And let’s not even get started on his holier-than-thou condescending tone… (Oh, no, wait - let’s!) Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/51 "2002-05-02T19:35:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > I just wish he’d answer my fucking question - **who is this rule intended to hurt, heterosexuals or homosexuals?** He seems to avoid any questions to which the answer might be damaging to his case. Or at least, trys to find some flaw in the wording to answer it differently, instead of the intended question. I had to bring back some questions and quotes from -other- posters that he’d skipped over, because I wanted to see his answer to those, too. Doubt I’ll get it, though. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/52 "2002-05-02T19:48:12Z")
Well, **Esprix** , I guess I can’t argue with that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/53 "2002-05-02T22:09:14Z")
He’s already said outright that being right is the whole point of his arguing, and that he won’t accept being wrong (sees it as some kind of character flaw or something equally ridiculous), so getting him to say he’s wrong will be self-evidently impossible. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/54 "2002-05-02T22:15:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Some day I hope to argue against The Ryan, just to see what you guys are talking about. _I almost always seem to understand what he’s trying to say_… I did a doubletake on this, **erislover** , and then took your screenname into account! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/55 "2002-05-03T00:29:03Z")
Yeah, **Esprix** , I actually remember that comment. Heh. **Poly** : 😃 😃 ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/56 "2002-05-03T01:16:34Z")
Okay, could you all explain to me what his SN means? Because I’m a lowly MPSIMSer and I’m confoosed…☹ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/57 "2002-05-03T02:11:41Z")
Esprix, your absolute lack of ability to see things from other people’s point of view is astounding. Here’s an exercise I want you to try: Imagine that you are in a debate with someone. Are you there? You are using a word according to what you believe is its normal, everyday usage. Someone else challenges it, and says that the word means something completely different. You say that no, it means what you think it means. You present a cite to back yourself up. The other person continues to insist that it means something completely different, but presents absolutely no support for his position. Just “this is what I think the word means, so you have to accept it”. You continue to insist that it means what you, and the dictionary, says it means. He says that since you refuse to automatically accept whatever he says the definition is, you’re “nitpicking”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > He’s already said outright that being right is the whole point of his arguing, Cite? > [@](#): > > and that he won’t accept being wrong (sees it as some kind of character flaw or something equally ridiculous), Cite? Iamapunha: [http://www.templeoferis.org](http://www.templeoferis.org) ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/58 "2002-05-03T02:29:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > Esprix, your absolute lack of ability to see things from other people’s point of view is astounding. I object to the term _absolute_ here. [Absolute](http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=absolute) a state of unqualified completeness, and I think it can be shown that Exprix does indeed have some amount of ability. There is also no proof that Esprix _lacks_ this ability in any quantity, as opposed to possessing it but choosing not to exercise it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/59 "2002-05-03T03:26:40Z")
oooooooooooo ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/60 "2002-05-03T06:15:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **The Ryan** _ > > Imagine that you are in a debate with someone. Are you there? You are using a word according to what you believe is its normal, everyday usage. Someone else challenges it, and says that the word means something completely different. You say that no, it means what you think it means. You present a cite to back yourself up. The other person continues to insist that it means something completely different, but presents absolutely no support for his position. Just “this is what I think the word means, so you have to accept it”. You continue to insist that it means what you, and the dictionary, says it means. He says that since you refuse to automatically accept whatever he says the definition is, you’re “nitpicking”. Very good, **Ryan**! This isn’t a difficult situation to imagine at all, because if you simply replace the word “you” with “everyone in the world,” and the words “someone,” “someone else,” “the other person” and “he” with “ **The Ryan** ” and you’re finally beginning to grasp all the bullshit we’ve been putting up with from you! Progress is difficult, I know, but I’m so proud of you… Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923.md?page=4)