You, my friend, are totally drunk, trashed, smashed. You stumble through the door, slamming it behind you. “Shit!” you exclaim, angrily and long, somehow managing to slur even the simplest of words
( Read more... )
I was aware of the meaning of logorrhœa well before I used it. (You, on the other hand, have had to lurch to Wikipedia after failing to find support in credible authorities.) Not only did the word not apply to what I was saying - because I was expressing my thoughts efficiently, however much you might not want them expressed, but you were also well aware, despite your posturings, to what I was referring, rather that to what you pretended to think I might be referring.
The professional writers whom I know are sticklers for rules in their workshops. People who repeatedly break central rules are expelled. The 69-word rule in this community isn't an oh-by-the-way recommendation; it is the central distinction between this community and some to which you would be better suited. (Perhaps a few more students of writing would achieve professional status if the graduate workshop environment that you insinuate that you attended was similarly run; or perhaps this is merely another thing that you've misrepresented.)
because I was expressing my thoughts efficiently, however much you might not want them expressed, but you were also well aware, despite your posturings, to what I was referring, rather that to what you pretended to think I might be referring.efficiently? Wow. You really don't get Ockhams's razor, do you
( ... )
efficiently? Wow. You really don't get Ockhams's razor, do you. A bald sneer requires little refutation.blind adherence to rules, for the sake of rules, is copy editing. No, as yet another point of logic, it isn't. Further, better writers value what copy editors do.
More relevantly here, no one here is pushing rules-for-the-sake-of-rules. The 69-word rule is part of the very essence of this community. It is rules-for-the-sake-of-mission. And, at this stage, you're simply trying to subvert the mission to save face.For your own sake, you might examine the difference between copy editing, and genuine critique. Again, you drop the ball of logic, confusing necessity with sufficiency. No one here has claimed that meeting the 69-word limit is sufficient to do good work. No one here has claimed that because one unmet condition was a necessity, there was nothing of value in the wreckage.I will be watching you on this forum, friend, and if you continue to pedantically and robotically comment on silly word counts, I will hound you like a dog. I
( ... )
Don't attempt to straw man me, nominalist. Calling my critique sophistry, and inadherent to the laws of logical discourse further condemns your defense of the circuitous and snide vomits you have afflicted this forum with since you joined
( ... )
Don't attempt to straw man me, nominalist. Calling my critique sophistry, and inadherent to the laws of logical discourse further condemns your defense of the circuitous and snide vomits you have afflicted this forum with since you joined. There was no straw man involved. I identified actual logical lapses specifically made by you. In my prior entry, it is easy to see which remarks I was citing in such cases. Again, there has been nothing circuitous about my blunt assessments, which is why you're using expressions such as snide vomits, which make you sound more like a high-school social failure than the professional writer you represent yourself to be.I will tirelessly and reletlessly refute you. Okay. You will be like the occasional gnat who rides-in on a banana.I will encourage others to join. Well, yes; of course. One gnat would not be adequate to inflict much annoyance.priggish adherence to robotic and logorrheaic You are echoing. Over-use of the same terms blunts their effectiveness.Your participation in this *writing* forum
( ... )
"There was no straw man involved. I identified actual logical lapses specifically made by you. In my prior entry, it is easy to see which remarks I was citing in such cases. Again, there has been nothing circuitous about my blunt assessments, which is why you're using expressions such as snide vomits, which make you sound more like a high-school social failure than the professional writer you represent yourself to be."
Well, first you cited a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea. Hence a straw man. Get an education. A real one.
Secondly calling me a "high school social reject" in NO WAY helps your cause. Even the most pedestrian blog debate readers can easily and quickly identify an ad hominem.
a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea A false misrepresentation would be something that purported to be a misrepresentation but was not.you cited a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea Nor did I cite anything but your own words. I not sure what to guess that you are trying to say, but it seems to be that I misrepresented your use of logorrhoea. In fact, your first use in these comments was thus:Logorrhoea refers to a type of mania or obsession with pedantic or overwrought prose - usually pertaining to verbose abstract terms contained within an academic paper. In other words, exactly the use supported by the Wikipedia BBS but not by the OED or Merriam-Webster.Secondly calling me a high school social reject in NO WAY helps your cause. I didn't call you a high school social reject, I said that you sounded like one. A term such as snide vomits has exactly such feel to it. The point not even being that once you were (for how would I know?), but that your behavior has been speaking to your upset and consequent impaired
( ... )
However, nominalist, when have you EVER *critiqued* an entry on this site? Yes. (My participation in this community significantly predates yours.)Are you capable of critique? The answer to that is logically contained in the answer to the prior question.You did not comment once on calyne's use of second person. Likewise, if this were a community for Greek prose composition, and he'd submitted the above piece, I wouldn't have commented on his use of second-person (until-and-unless he got it into Greek).Can you compute second person? My! You threaten to harass me into departure, yet all your fulmination suggests that the emotional strain of your effort will take a mighty toll on you.By responding to calyne's work with can you count? - what have you accomplished? Increase in observable pressure to conform the the distinctive requirement of this community. (And notice that my comment was a mere 3 words. Even by the standards of a 69-word community, that is hardly logorrhœa.)Have you illuminated anything other than a creative violation of a
( ... )
Daniel, just keep rambling, maybe somehow you'll get it. Nominalists, such as yourself, continuously belabor a slanted notion of logic as the paragon and means of all assertion
( ... )
Indeed, you hypocritically grasp for the last word.Daniel, just keep rambling, maybe somehow you'll get it. We both get it; you're just trying to hide it from the rest of the audience.Nominalists, such as yourself, continuously belabor a slanted notion of logic as the paragon and means of all assertion. Hand-waving denials are a poor response to my having pointed to specific errors of logic on your part.Your drivel is becoming more and more tiresome. Once again: A sneer merits little refutation.However, I take a certain schauenfreude in watching you hang yr-self. As mentioned, I will relentlessly refute you. An odd combination of obsession and denial. Hand-waving, bald sneering, bad logic, and presumptions contrary to easily provided fact don't constitute refutation.You have no eye or ear, because, as of yet on this forum, you have not DEMONSTRATED an eye or ear. Such a claim is made by you in desperation; it is a principle neither of deductive nor empirical logic.See nominalist, it all comes back to realism. No. Neither a typical realist
( ... )
you still haven't refuted anything Haha! What, what disputed claim on your part hasn't been refuted?
We've got you conceeding that the 69-word limit is demanded by the rules.
We've got your arguments of my lack of abilities exploded and abandoned.
Your original argument that I engaged in logorrhoea hung upon a definition of logorrhoea found neither in the OED nor in M-W (the dictionary used in American courts-of-law).
And attacking my metaphors as illogical condemns you to the mechanical nobody you apparently are. In a way, attacking metaphor as illogical is yet another straw man (metaphorically speaking, of course). Metaphors transcend logical norms. That's why computers don't understand irony.
Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet?
"Ah, you describe your motives as those of a troll" - similar to bandying about words such as logorrhea, sophism, and eristic?
"That glyph isn't functioning as an umlaut, oaf; it's functioning as a diæresis. Apparently, you will illustrate that you are a sophomore as well as sophist." To what end does a diaresis prove? What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea? Again, who, or what are you impressing? Ego fed pedantry will be your downfall. Sophistry, anyone?
Metaphors transcend logical norms. No, you don't have a royal road to truth by way of metaphor. A metaphor maps to a similie, and captures an analogy. That analogy is either valid or invalid.That's why computers don't understand irony. No, computers don't understand irony because what they do, while isomorphic to real logic in important ways, isn't real logic.Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet? Earlier you denied that I have an ear. Elsewhere you denounce ad hominem. Do you really think that you can produce a sufficient imitation of reason with a ball of contradictions?To what end does a diaresis prove?What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea? It's purely an æsthetic gesture.Again, who, or what are you impressing? No one. I would find it silly of anyone to be impressed by a diæresis or a ligature, just as I would find it silly for them to be impressed by a u in colour. Meanwhile, I would find it pathological for anyone presuming that I play with orthography to impress anyone
( ... )
A friend drew my attention to the fact that I had missed the when in yourHowever, nominalist, when have you EVER *critiqued* an entry on this site? Some of my critiques were deleted as people placed revisions in new postings. But, for example, you can still see one stage of my critique of a story by
( ... )
Reply
The professional writers whom I know are sticklers for rules in their workshops. People who repeatedly break central rules are expelled. The 69-word rule in this community isn't an oh-by-the-way recommendation; it is the central distinction between this community and some to which you would be better suited. (Perhaps a few more students of writing would achieve professional status if the graduate workshop environment that you insinuate that you attended was similarly run; or perhaps this is merely another thing that you've misrepresented.)
And, if you knew the meaning ( ... )
Reply
Reply
A bald sneer requires little refutation.blind adherence to rules, for the sake of rules, is copy editing.
No, as yet another point of logic, it isn't. Further, better writers value what copy editors do.
More relevantly here, no one here is pushing rules-for-the-sake-of-rules. The 69-word rule is part of the very essence of this community. It is rules-for-the-sake-of-mission. And, at this stage, you're simply trying to subvert the mission to save face.For your own sake, you might examine the difference between copy editing, and genuine critique.
Again, you drop the ball of logic, confusing necessity with sufficiency. No one here has claimed that meeting the 69-word limit is sufficient to do good work. No one here has claimed that because one unmet condition was a necessity, there was nothing of value in the wreckage.I will be watching you on this forum, friend, and if you continue to pedantically and robotically comment on silly word counts, I will hound you like a dog.
I ( ... )
Reply
Reply
There was no straw man involved. I identified actual logical lapses specifically made by you. In my prior entry, it is easy to see which remarks I was citing in such cases. Again, there has been nothing circuitous about my blunt assessments, which is why you're using expressions such as snide vomits, which make you sound more like a high-school social failure than the professional writer you represent yourself to be.I will tirelessly and reletlessly refute you.
Okay. You will be like the occasional gnat who rides-in on a banana.I will encourage others to join.
Well, yes; of course. One gnat would not be adequate to inflict much annoyance.priggish adherence to robotic and logorrheaic
You are echoing. Over-use of the same terms blunts their effectiveness.Your participation in this *writing* forum ( ... )
Reply
Well, first you cited a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea. Hence a straw man. Get an education. A real one.
Secondly calling me a "high school social reject" in NO WAY helps your cause. Even the most pedestrian blog debate readers can easily and quickly identify an ad hominem.
Reply
A false misrepresentation would be something that purported to be a misrepresentation but was not.you cited a false misrepresentation of my use of logorrhea
Nor did I cite anything but your own words. I not sure what to guess that you are trying to say, but it seems to be that I misrepresented your use of logorrhoea. In fact, your first use in these comments was thus:Logorrhoea refers to a type of mania or obsession with pedantic or overwrought prose - usually pertaining to verbose abstract terms contained within an academic paper.
In other words, exactly the use supported by the Wikipedia BBS but not by the OED or Merriam-Webster.Secondly calling me a high school social reject in NO WAY helps your cause.
I didn't call you a high school social reject, I said that you sounded like one. A term such as snide vomits has exactly such feel to it. The point not even being that once you were (for how would I know?), but that your behavior has been speaking to your upset and consequent impaired ( ... )
Reply
Yes. (My participation in this community significantly predates yours.)Are you capable of critique?
The answer to that is logically contained in the answer to the prior question.You did not comment once on calyne's use of second person.
Likewise, if this were a community for Greek prose composition, and he'd submitted the above piece, I wouldn't have commented on his use of second-person (until-and-unless he got it into Greek).Can you compute second person?
My! You threaten to harass me into departure, yet all your fulmination suggests that the emotional strain of your effort will take a mighty toll on you.By responding to calyne's work with can you count? - what have you accomplished?
Increase in observable pressure to conform the the distinctive requirement of this community. (And notice that my comment was a mere 3 words. Even by the standards of a 69-word community, that is hardly logorrhœa.)Have you illuminated anything other than a creative violation of a ( ... )
Reply
Reply
We both get it; you're just trying to hide it from the rest of the audience.Nominalists, such as yourself, continuously belabor a slanted notion of logic as the paragon and means of all assertion.
Hand-waving denials are a poor response to my having pointed to specific errors of logic on your part.Your drivel is becoming more and more tiresome.
Once again: A sneer merits little refutation.However, I take a certain schauenfreude in watching you hang yr-self. As mentioned, I will relentlessly refute you.
An odd combination of obsession and denial. Hand-waving, bald sneering, bad logic, and presumptions contrary to easily provided fact don't constitute refutation.You have no eye or ear, because, as of yet on this forum, you have not DEMONSTRATED an eye or ear.
Such a claim is made by you in desperation; it is a principle neither of deductive nor empirical logic.See nominalist, it all comes back to realism.
No. Neither a typical realist ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Haha! What, what disputed claim on your part hasn't been refuted?
Reply
Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet?
"Ah, you describe your motives as those of a troll" - similar to bandying about words such as logorrhea, sophism, and eristic?
"That glyph isn't functioning as an umlaut, oaf; it's functioning as a diæresis. Apparently, you will illustrate that you are a sophomore as well as sophist."
To what end does a diaresis prove? What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea? Again, who, or what are you impressing? Ego fed pedantry will be your downfall. Sophistry, anyone?
Reply
No, you don't have a royal road to truth by way of metaphor. A metaphor maps to a similie, and captures an analogy. That analogy is either valid or invalid.That's why computers don't understand irony.
No, computers don't understand irony because what they do, while isomorphic to real logic in important ways, isn't real logic.Is smoke coming out of yr. robotic ears yet?
Earlier you denied that I have an ear. Elsewhere you denounce ad hominem. Do you really think that you can produce a sufficient imitation of reason with a ball of contradictions?To what end does a diaresis prove?What is the telos of you weilding an umlaut or diaresis or spelling logorrhea as logorrhoea?
It's purely an æsthetic gesture.Again, who, or what are you impressing?
No one. I would find it silly of anyone to be impressed by a diæresis or a ligature, just as I would find it silly for them to be impressed by a u in colour. Meanwhile, I would find it pathological for anyone presuming that I play with orthography to impress anyone ( ... )
Reply
Some of my critiques were deleted as people placed revisions in new postings. But, for example, you can still see one stage of my critique of a story by ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment