(11-29-2023 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (11-29-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Enough to lecture people on the issue.
This is an internet forum, not a classroom or courthouse. You are under no obligation to read one single word that you don't want to.... you must make the choice yourself to do so.
I do find it funny though that you seem intent on lecturing me about lecturing you.
I am glad to know from the bolded that I am not required to read words here. I believe that I will continue to read the ones I wish, and not to the others. Thank you for the reminder.
By my count you are up to several thousand words telling us *how* 93 thought, and *what* 93 intended, and the big issue between characterizing the vast difference between 'a group having an article of faith', and 'the same group generally believing'.
In short, George's version is the one more problematic, as the issue of 'article of faith' tosses in the concept of 'all' that you seemingly venture into. In short, if one were to take it as a matter of pointed rhetoric, and how we should be more careful -- your comments should be aimed at George for using the 'all must have' connotation.
Instead you decide to aim your comments at 93.
Further, George's even more pointed and acerbic comment -- isnt even pointed and acerbic. Let alone 93's very toned down recharacterization. Neither of them are really worthy of such pointed concern that you seem to wish to make.
So yes, I do find your ongoing stuff rather 'Karen' in nature.
If George has an issue with the recharacterization, George is ably equipped to do so.
Quote:Quote:How dare the words 'in general' are used to rephrase the issue.
You use a key word here... You 'rephrase' things. You call internet conversations (especially ones that don't involve you) 'lectures' which of course gives an entirely different, much more negative tone to the conversation.
How does the term 'in general' connote a more negative tone than 'article of faith'?
In fact, the term 'in general' washes the pointedness of the original comment, whether done in a querying 'are you saying stuff that implies X', or whether done in a pure 'can you clarify' issue.
And again, none of the two is negative in any aspect. Let alone the more pointed comment by George that seems to be missing from your analysis.
To the boldeds (yes plural) Yes, I can choose not to read. Absolutely. I am not supposed to read *some* subthread? As to the second, yes, how dare I comment on an open to the public thread? I have seen interjections from every person on this board on topics that 'didnt involve them' (yes, you as well Ham, even here when you called down a George -- 93 interaction, funnily) -- now that is an issue? I think you are simply wildly off base in what you are denoting about the George-93 issue, and making a mountain of a molehill as well.
Quote:It seems self-evident that 'rephrasing' someone else's words opens the door to mischaracterizations.... often that reflect more about the reader than the writer.... and 'adding words' is one of the most obvious ways to do that.
And is entirely appropriate when introducing a counterexample. Or for clarification.
It seems inane to ask for clarification, or for denoting a counterexample, when using the requirement is to use the 'exact same words' as the original.
Quote:An obvious example might be...
OK vs OK, Asshat.
It is all dependent on the words introduced. The introduction of 'asshat' doesnt make any attempt to clarify, does it? Nor does it use other wording to find the bounds of an issue, does it?
Quote:The latter singular added word might accurately reflect the intention of the former, but because they didn't write it, it might not. If the Pope told you OK, I doubt you'd assume that he meant to add 'Asshat'... nor would you likely even seek confirmation... but I suspect there are people from whom you would expect that. It is this disconnect that I have suggested would key one in to making a different choice.
I think the example of "OK" vs "OK asshat" is wildly disingenuous as to the issue of the difference of rephrasing 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes'.