Poly, Esprix, I think you’re being terribly mean to poor ol’ Theryan!
Look. Let me see if I can translate his position.
Having discriminating tastes is a good thing, right? I mean, you’d be flattered if someone said you had a discriminating palate when tasting wine.
So, really, what Theryan has said is that the kid who can’t bring his boyfriend to the Prom should be flattered!
I hope that clears it up.
Fenris
Paging matt_mcl … matt_mcl, please come to the white courtesy phone in room 5.
God, how I’ve missed you, Fenris. 
Esprix
Esprix brought up two issues (one was who it “effected” (yes, that’s right, momentary spelling lapses are “trodding on the English language with such abandon” :rolleyes:), the other what the intent was). I choose to address one of them, believing it futile to reason with him on the other. I really do not understand why you find it so shocking that when someone makes it quite clear that he has no intention of having a rational debate with me, I feel disinclined to answer his every question.
[quote]
Emphasis mine on definition 4.[/qutoe]
You had to ignore three definitions to find one to your liking?
This from someone who thinks that “argumentum ad absurdum” is an argument that’s absurd.
Polycarp: I already addressed that. I specifcally said that I didn’t think that that was what you meant. I was trying to show how a literal meaning of the term did not make sense, and thus we needed to figure out what we each meant by it.
That was my entire point: that I could not rely on a dictionary to provide an explanation of what you meant by “discrimination”, and I was therefore asking you what you meant.
That was supposed to be
yes, that’s right, momentary spelling lapses are “trodding on the English language with such abandon” :rolleyes: ), the other what the intent was)
and
You had to ignore three definitions to find one to your liking?
This from someone who thinks that “argumentum ad absurdum” is an argument that’s absurd.
I guess now that’s posted even more typos, I must be even more hypocritical, huh?
Cite?
You, you, you. That’s all you ever talk about. You. It aaaaaa-lways has to be about you, doesn’t it Esprix :rolleyes:
MODS!!!
Esprix just threatened me! I want him banned, readmitted, banned again, re-readmitted, adminstered a strong spanking by Uncle Beer then re-rebanned! If he’s not, then I shall Sue.[sup]*[/sup]
“missed” is defined as “the act of aiming incorrectly, usually with regards to bullets!” He admits to shooting at me, probably from a grassy gnoll[sup]**[/sup]!
“You” is defined as “me” unless it means you. But it doesn’t this time. Why the Hell can’t you all just use plain English like me (which could mean “you” but doesn’t.)
Cite?
Fenris
[sup]*[/sup] Some small minded people might think I mean "bring legal action against. However they’re missing the fact that “Sue” is a woman’s name and I’m not afraid to bring her onto the Board if I have to!
[sup]**[/sup] Some small minded people might think I meant “knoll”, but those small-minded people would be wrong. I mean “gnoll” as in Dungeons and Dragons. Esprix was sitting on his shoulders when he shot at me! And the Gnoll was grassy because he never washes. You could grow potatoes behind his ears. And the fact that Esprix would collude with such a creature to assassinate me just goes to show!
Ryan, I’ve got to say, that is hilarious!
Fenris…
Did I mention that it’s pleasing to have your sarcastically friendly presence on the boards again?
Will you marry me?
Now who is lying? We both know I gave you a definition that included the concept of extrapolating an argument to absurd lengths. I’ll thank you not to tell me what I think. I call upon all the mods, administrators, Uncle Cecil, Al Gore (inventor of the internet,) and the cast from Cats to ban you for this transgression.
Newsflash! Only the first definition is to be used from any dictionary entry. Look for the new Single Defintion OED, coming soon to a bookstore near you.
Could you make yourself look any more foolish? C’mon now, give it a try.
Well, Ryan,
You could just post three word rebuttals from now on.
You are wrong.
Since none of the best minds on the board seem to be able to understand your arguments, and you find their counter arguments entirely lacking in logical rigor, it would be pointless to do more. That way you would have fulfilled your own purpose, winning, and saved a great deal of time and effort. Nothing would be lost, since no one understands what you say, and you don’t like reading things that prove you wrong.
Hey, everyone, from now on, just tell Ryan he wins, and let it go at that. Think of the bandwidth, man! The interchanges between other posters need not be altered, of course, since the real point of a thread is of no interest to the Ryan, only the final score. He wins, we continue our pointless illogical ramblings. Everyone is happy!
I could be wrong, of course.
Do you (Ryan) have some other goal in mind besides winning, when you post? I wouldn’t want to interfere with your desire to actually communicate, but you do seem to have made it clear that being understood if of little interest. But then, I don’t understand you all that well.
Tris.
First jello and now spankings.
I need a cold shower.
Well done, Trisk
Esprix
Fair enough, TheRyan. With your comment to me on the original thread, I’ll attempt to rejoin the fray over there.
Given that it was your intent to get me to spell out a definition of “discrimination” and that I missed your point, perhaps you had a right to be offended by my bringing up the “other definition” issue here – I was not intentionally badgering but baffled by why you had even posted the “discriminating tastes” sense.
Triskadecamus, you are wrong.
So do you not think that “argumentum ad absurdum” is an argument that’s absurd?
I’m confused now. First you say only the fourth definition is to be used, then you say that only the first is to be used. Which is it?
I suppose if I paid more attention to you I might learn something in that area.
Well, you win!
Tris
Agreed. Ryan wins in his own special way. It took me a while, but I finally learned my cat has no aptitude for physics and quit discussing the topic with her. I’m thinking I’ve learned a similar lesson with the Ryan.
Pig. Singing.
Well, you get the picture.
Esprix
What a waste of your best pearls, Esprix…
[sub]I got the reference, right? Huh? I did, right? Right?[/sub]
Disingenuous and duplicitous. Nowhere did Waverly say “only the fourth definition is be used.” He/she pointed out one of the many definitions of the word in question (as you’re so fond of noting, TheRyan, words can have more than one meaning). To engage in this type of rebuttal is ridiculous in the extreme.