Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Brethern*, Adieu


Recommended Posts

Posted
20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah.

Read what I said again, carefully this time.

Then show me exactly how it differs from what you said.

I read it again - and carefully! - and you're still wrong. Scott is right on this one. You described an inference as being something the speaker wants you to think. Though this is an example of inference, it does not account for its definition entirely. You can infer something that I did or did not mean to imply at all. Now you might infer, therefore, that I am implying your command of the English language is lacking in this one instance though you ultimately don't know if I am implying it... ; ) 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I read it again - and carefully! - and you're still wrong. Scott is right on this one. You described an inference as being something the speaker wants you to think. Though this is an example of inference, it does not account for its definition entirely. You can infer something that I did or did not mean to imply at all. Now you might infer, therefore, that I am implying your command of the English language is lacking in this one instance though you ultimately don't know if I am implying it... ; ) 

That .... supports @mfbukowski's elucidations.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I read it again - and carefully! - and you're still wrong. Scott is right on this one. You described an inference as being something the speaker wants you to think. Though this is an example of inference, it does not account for its definition entirely. You can infer something that I did or did not mean to imply at all. Now you might infer, therefore, that I am implying your command of the English language is lacking in this one instance though you ultimately don't know if I am implying it... ; ) 

 

3 hours ago, Chum said:

That .... supports @mfbukowski's elucidations.

I agree with Vanguard that a listener’s or reader’s inference can be erroneous and thus inconsistent with what was stated or implied by a speaker or writer. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I agree with Vanguard that a listener’s or reader’s inference can be erroneous and thus inconsistent with what was stated or implied by a speaker or writer. 

Oh my gosh.

OF COURSE!!!!   SO WHAT???

Why was it IMPLIED????????????????

Preciesly because it was not said explicitly for a REASON  

ANY text can be "erroneously" interpreted.

ANYTHING can be misinterpreted.

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I agree with Vanguard that a listener’s or reader’s inference can be erroneous and thus inconsistent with what was stated or implied by speaker or writer. 

There is a branch of aesthetic theory in philosophy specifically dedicated to the analysis of the importance of the author's intentions, and something called the "Intentionalist Fallacy"

That is why I am so weird. 🙃

Sorry for being a jerk, but these views influence everything I read including the Book of Mormon,etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted

I have no idea why posters need to make such a dramatic exit. Usually, these poster are critics. I think that if one wants to leave the board one can be more modes t and subdued. Fair's exist is an example of drama, as if we would beg the poster to stay and continue their criticism of the church. I do wish the poster well now and in the future. It was good to have them here. But less drama.

Posted
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

OF COURSE!!!!   SO WHAT???

Why was it IMPLIED????????????????

Preciesly because it was not said explicitly for a REASON  

ANY text can be "erroneously" interpreted.

ANYTHING can be misinterpreted.

I agree with what you added to your post, that making an implication can be a form of passive-aggressive behavior by causing the receiver to infer what one declines to state explicitly. That is especially true when the sender seeks a position of plausible deniability by making a subtle as opposed to an overt expression. 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I like knowing when any poster is leaving.  It gives me a chance to say goodbye and not just wonder what every happened to them.  You know you don't have to read his thread.  It was pretty clear what the thread was about.

Exactly. Anyone remember ErayR? He just vanished. :( https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/12644-erayr/content/?type=forums_topic_post&change_section=1

 

Making a public post also can help make the break official for those that feel like they are spending too much time here...

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Anyone remember ErayR? He just vanished. :(

SometimesSaint as well. I think he had health issues, so I wonder if it wasn’t just a loss of interest. 

Edited by Calm
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, california boy said:

I like knowing when any poster is leaving.  It gives me a chance to say goodbye and not just wonder what every happened to them.  You know you don't have to read his thread.  It was pretty clear what the thread was about.

I read his post. I felt that it was rather dramatic. And I wondered why when critics leave the board they need to be so dramatic. One can just write that they are leaving and thank the board and its members in clear and simple English. No need for flair or Shakespeare churchy language.

Edited by why me
Posted
12 hours ago, why me said:

I read his post. I felt that it was rather dramatic. And I wondered why when critics leave the board they need to be so dramatic. One can just write that they are leaving and thank the board and its members in clear and simple English. No need for flair or Shakespeare churchy language.

He was going for a parody of Book of Mormon text. Not a bad effort, actually.

 

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...