# 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:** 7
**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 8, 2002, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/121 "2002-05-08T16:28:57Z")
**Sauron** , you’re not suggestion - oh, how I cringe at the thought! - that **The Ryan** might have - _gasp!_ - misquoted and mis-stated **Waverly** ’s position about using “only” the fourth definition, are you? Because that would mean **The Ryan** is making up lies about other posters, and we all _know_ he would never do _that_. Gee, I’d hate to see him banned for that… :rolleyes: Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/122 "2002-05-08T18:23:35Z")
Actually, **The Ryan** appears to be engaging in (dare I say it?) _argumentum ad absurdum_, by intentionally misstating and oversimplifying **Waverly** ’s point. To avoid any confusion, I’m using the definition of _argumentum ad absurdum_ as found [here](http://www.geocities.com/~stilicho/phrases-law.html): “an argument based on the absurdity (of an opponent’s argument).” **Waverly** , to my knowledge, never insisted that the fourth definition of the word was the ‘only’ definition. By so stating, and then indicating confusion over which definition (first or fourth) should be used, **The Ryan** is being intentionally obtuse (in my opinion) and is using that ploy to engage in _argumentum ad absurdum_. Since he previously attempted to impugn **Waverly** ’s intelligence by claiming **Waverly** didn’t know the definition of _argumentum ad absurdum_, I must assume **The Ryan** is familiar with that definition and the overall debating tactic. To have such knowledge and still use the tactic is dishonest, in my opinion. I am not a seasoned debater, but I believe this tactic is frowned upon, in much the same way an _ad hominem_ attack is discouraged. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/123 "2002-05-08T19:04:54Z")
Sauron, I do maintain (though to be clear it is just my subjective opinion) that Ryan intentionally misunderstands, derails debates, and nitpicks for pleasure. I’ve pointed it out, and though it seems you would agree, it is unfortunately not going to change his behavior one iota. The irony of the Ryan himself attempting to nullify valid definitions is not lost on me, nor is his irritation at being accused of argumentum ad absurdum even as he utilizes the fallacy yet again. ---
**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 8, 2002, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/124 "2002-05-08T19:22:31Z")
And one can only wonder if **The Ryan** will learn anything from this exchange. [sub]Prolly not.[/sub] Esprix ---
**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 8, 2002, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/125 "2002-05-08T22:55:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > Disingenuous and duplicitous. Nowhere did **Waverly** say “only the fourth definition is be used.” It was clearly implied. Look, we all know the phrase “intend to hurt” implies malice. For Waverly to say that it doesn’t is just another example of the extremes he’ll go to not admit that I’m right. ---
**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 8, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/126 "2002-05-08T23:40:50Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **The Ryan** _ > > It was clearly implied. Anybody who ever had any doubts about your bullshit factor should be assuaged by those four words - “It was clearly implied.” Since when, you mountainous pile of horseshit, did you _EVER_ accept _ANYTHING_ written on this message board that was “clearly implied?” You will happily take up _FOUR PAGES OF A THREAD_ to debate _ONE SINGLE MEANING_ of _ONE SINGLE WORD_, and you have the _ **FUCKING BALLS** _ to justify your illogical, ill-conceived and unwelcome hijacks with, “It was clearly implied?” You are a troll of the highest order. I think it’s time to start checking IP addresses, 'cause I’m sensing some serious “OCD-related” posting styles here… Esprix ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/127 "2002-05-09T00:03:06Z")
**Ryan** posts ‘it was clearly implied’?? You do **not** get to tell any of us that anything you post is ‘clearly implied’ when you spend hours, days, bandwidth enough to fill the motherfuckingocean in excrutiating detail that when you posted the word ‘homosexual’ you meant exactly the [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) definition and nothing more and certainly nothing less. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/128 "2002-05-09T00:04:37Z")
Esprix: You’re right. He’s wrong. The horse has died, been dragged to the rendering plant, turned into dog food, eaten by Fido, crapped out, stepped on by the neighbor’s kids. Scraped off a shoe with a stick and thrown into the woods where it fertilized a tree which produced a great big stick, which you sawed down, turned into a club, and whacked **The Ryan** in the rhetorical skull with, spilling his metaphorical brains and ceasing the life functions of his credibility. You are now running the risk of becoming a two-trick pony. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/129 "2002-05-09T00:51:47Z")
Here’s a little thought experiment. Consider the phrase: “The loss of Larry “Crudeshoes” Johanson is going to **hurt** the Idaho Meatpuppets bid for the Uberbowl.” Who is guilty of malice in this woeful tale? Is this an incorrect usage of ‘hurt’ despite not being definition number one? Remember when I asked you if you could make yourself look any more foolish, Ryan? Way to rise to the challenge. ---
**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 9, 2002, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/130 "2002-05-09T00:59:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > \*\*Here’s a little thought experiment. Consider the phrase: > “The loss of Larry “Crudeshoes” Johanson is going to **hurt** the Idaho Meatpuppets bid for the Uberbowl.” > > Who is guilty of malice in this woeful tale? I said that **intending** to hurt implies malice. But it’s so much easier to argue against what I **didn’t** say, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/131 "2002-05-09T01:30:24Z")
Pot, kettle, black. SCORE!! Boy, this debate stuff is fun. Do you guys come here often? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/132 "2002-05-09T01:40:55Z")
**The Ryan** is clearly circumcised. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/133 "2002-05-09T02:20:39Z")
Ah, so _actually_ hurting, in the usage given, does not imply malice; but should you _intend_ to hurt (keeping that same usage) then malice is a given. So if our hero, Larry “Cruelshoes” Johanson intends to hurt his chances for a quick recovery by smoking kelp, then he must be doing so with malice. Gotcha ya. He’s not so much circumcised, as he is a foreskin of a human being, punha. And here he is trying to hijack Eprix’s thread with more nitpicking. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what an annoying prick the Ryan is, not let him showcase yet more of his semantic blathering. Ryan, if you have nothing to share with us on the subject of what a mud sucking, slack-jawed cretin you are, then I humbly suggest you are off topic. ---
**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 9, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/134 "2002-05-09T02:53:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > Ah, so _actually_ hurting, in the usage given, does not imply malice; but should you _intend_ to hurt (keeping that same usage) then malice is a given. So if our hero, Larry “Cruelshoes” Johanson intends to hurt his chances for a quick recovery by smoking kelp, then he must be doing so with malice. Gotcha ya It’s strange how you go from one mispresentation of my position to another. I said that it implies malice. You know “imply” as in “usually means”. Not “in every conceivable instance, even the contrived hypotheticals that Waverly invents. means”.’ What is the next word that you will misinterpret? “If”? “phrase”? “malice”? maybe we should start a pool. If Esprix really didn’t mean what his words clearly implied, he has had ample time to set the record straight. Instead he has simply allowed you to continue your semantic quibbles. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/135 "2002-05-09T03:11:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > You know “imply” as in “usually means” [No, I don’t know.](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=imply) That word means to infer indirectly, it has nothing to do with ‘usually means.’ Esprix is welcome to restate his question if he so wishes, but based on your continued avoidance, one can hardly blame him for giving up. I took the liberty of rephrasing to satisfy my own curiosity, but you didn’t answer me either. And there is ‘clearly implied’ again. Since when does Ryan, patron saint of linguistic exactitude, allow anyone to ‘imply’ anything? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/136 "2002-05-09T03:22:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > > If Esprix really didn’t mean what his words clearly implied, he has had ample time to set the record straight. Instead he has simply allowed you to continue your semantic quibbles. \*\* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! _cough_ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a fucking funny man!!! The semantic line is so funny, I think it made me incontinent!!! _clears tears from eyes_ Oh… you were serious. Telling others they are having semantic quibbles is ludicrous coming from you. There is a thread going on about what radioactive thing that people would like to be bitten by. Were you bitten by a radioactive hypocrite? ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/137 "2002-05-09T04:35:10Z")
I feel I should come to Ryan’s defense, here. Several posters have come quite close to accusing him of pretending to misunderstand every word of the English language, for nefarious reasons. I think it is only fair to consider that sincerity is a possible explanation. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Jabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@Jabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jabba)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/138 "2002-05-09T12:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waverly \* > That word [imply] means to infer indirectly Imply does not mean the same as infer. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/139 "2002-05-09T12:57:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jabba \* > \*\* > > Imply does not mean the same as infer. \*\* I take it you did not follow my link? I’m sure you are thinking of ‘Imply’ as suggesting indirectly and ‘Infer’ as drawing conclusions from such suggestions, but you will note that ‘Inference’ is clearly used in the definition of ‘Imply’ and when you look up ‘Infer’ you will find that it not only carries the meaning of _drawing_ conclusions, but also _suggesting_. I admit I could have chosen less ambiguous words, and hope this explains more satisfactorily. [infer](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=infer) [imply](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?imply) ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923/140 "2002-05-09T15:21:45Z")
**The Ryan** , a few yes/no questions for you: 1. Do you agree that words can have multiple meanings? 2. Do you agree that you’ve pointed this out in the past? 3. Do you agree that Waverly pointed out that the word “hurt” had multiple meanings? 4. Do you agree that he never claimed the fourth definition of the word “hurt” must be used to the exclusion of all others? 5. Do you agree that pretending you were confused by this is an example (or at least a precursor) of employing _argumentum ad absurdum_? If you answer “no” to any of these questions, please explain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-master-of-semantics/105923.md?page=8)