View previous topic | View next topic

Moon Starer is an Anugram, not an Aptagram.

Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

PDR
1159833.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:33 am Reply with quote

Wordsmythologic wrote:
Then you've lost any right to respond to it.


As you wish.

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159842.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:13 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
As you wish.

No, that is not as I wish. It's just common sense. And if it were, and enacted, you'd not have written even that. Adding that last line was really not necessary, and I get the impression, now, that it's possible you may want the final word here, because if you actually believed what you just wrote, you'd have left it at that without needing to add anything more. What I do wish is that you hadn't turned this thread meant to be about cool anagrams into a debate about your literal interpretation of the words relevant to one anugram. But if you're not willing to intake the information I provide, simply because it's too daunting, you, by default, have forfeited any right to respond to it, if not for evident sense, then because you'll end up saying things, as you already have, that are embarrassing due to my already having provided information relevant to them which you decided not to read. I am willing to read your replies and I am willing to respond to all of it, no matter how intrusive or impolite it gets, because I am within my right to defend a claim as simple as "the phrase 'moon starer' is more an anugram of 'astronomer' than an aptagram of it" from linguistic dogmatism. Personally, I believe that language is flexible and that words can convey more than their dissected components, and that there's a quintessence to language that lends itself to language being able to refer to a thing without using its strictly defined name. You, evidently, do not believe so. That is an opinion, and as such, is not subject to refutation. But I do disagree, and I maintain that "astronomer" and "moon starer" both convey an underlying, quintessential notion of cosmological observation that, by its existence, and by the definition of anugrams, qualifies them as an anugram set. I still invite you to provide a counterargument, something which you've yet to do, but only if you're willing to go about it without resorting to insult, and only if you're actually willing to read the viewpoint that opposes yours, because if you're not, it demonstrates that you are the party guilty of obstinate denial of fact.

So, again, if you actually do accept you've no right to respond anymore, then don't. Otherwise, wedging in another needless final word like that would not do you any favours in presenting yourself as genuinely conceding.

 
PDR
1159846.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:39 am Reply with quote

407 words in response to that - you really do need an editor (or perhaps a psychiatrist)!

Quote:

if you actually do accept you've no right to respond anymore


It is not up to some dribble-mouthed anagram abuser to dictate who does and does not have any rights or wrongs around here, old fruit. Your attitude is rather depressing and your inability to express your thoughts concisely is tedious in the extreme, which isn't really the route to encouraging people to debate with you.

Whilst we enjoy pedantry around here, we're very much of the "equal pedantry for all" pursuasion and we despise those of the "Differential Pedantry Party" (splitters!).

Your focus on others reluctance to "intake the information you provide" shows that you don't actually wish to debate or discuss anything at all - you're just looking for fawning acolytes at your altar of general ignorance. I suspect you may find this is not a place where such as they are easily found. Have a look in the David Icke forums, or the comentary contributions of the Daily Mail (or even the BBC "have Your Say" pages) and you may find the acolytes you so clearly seek.

Or perhaps not.

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159861.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:52 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
407 words in response to that - you really do need an editor (or perhaps a psychiatrist)!

Actually, that is incorrect. I do not need an editor, if not for the reason I've stated in the message you've refused to read, then because everything I've written has been grammatically correct and perfectly intelligible, except, apparently, to you. And insinuating I need a psychiatrist is, again, ad hominem, and you're turning this into an attack on me as a person and not actually saying anything meaningful or relevant.

PDR wrote:
It is not up to some dribble-mouthed anagram abuser to dictate who does and does not have any rights or wrongs around here, old fruit.

This is true. Fortunately, as it stands, no anagram abusers are present, nor anyone dribble-mouthed. It is odd, now that I think about it, that you even brought those things up. But, it is perfectly reasonable for me, especially as the person who created this forum topic to begin with, to tell you that you've lost the right to reply to me when you refuse to read what I write. Not only that, but, as I've shown, it embarrasses you when you say things without the awareness of that with which I have already responded to it. And, for the record, "old fruit" is a pretty bewildering addendum to have added. If you don't mind, could you explain the thought process behind that phrase?

PDR wrote:
Your attitude is rather depressing

If you're depressed by an attitude of wanting to stay on point and outline facts, you have my condolences.

PDR wrote:
and your inability to express your thoughts concisely is tedious in the extreme

Again, this is something I've addressed, and you reiterating this opinion, after how I've already responded to it, is embarrassing. I do not possess an inability to express my thoughts concisely. I have already tried to, but you've interpreted it as "I'm right and you're wrong", so I've taken to explaining things more fully. If you don't like it, that's okie dokie, but you not wanting to read more than one page's worth of text doesn't weigh into the equation of the "moon starer" anugram.

PDR wrote:
which isn't really the route to encouraging people to debate with you.

Actually, that's exactly what encourages debate. I am responding to each thing you've said with counterarguments. That is how a healthy debate happens. You're responding with insult and an unwillingness to listen to the view in opposition of your opinion. Those, more than anything I've done, discourage debate.

PDR wrote:
Whilst we enjoy pedantry around here, we're very much of the "equal pedantry for all" pursuasion and we despise those of the "Differential Pedantry Party" (splitters!).

Well, then it's a good thing I'm not promoting differential pedantry. But you wouldn't know, having not read that bit of my prior reply.

PDR wrote:
Your focus on others reluctance to "intake the information you provide" shows that you don't actually wish to debate or discuss anything at all

No, it shows that I'm aware of how debate is actually supposed to work. You're supposed to listen to the opposing side and respond to it. That's what I'm doing. All I'm doing by pointing out your unwillingness to intake the information I've provided is pointing out your willful ignorance and your own refusal to actually debate or discuss the matter at hand. I keep trying to actually talk about anugrams, but here you're trying to attack me instead of staying on topic. You'd make a great politician, now that I think about it. It's a genuine skill to be able to respond to something without actually addressing what was said, and have it seem logically connected. I'm addressing all your points. You're refusing to read. I'm engaging in response. You're engaging in ad hominem. Debate is a two-way street. I'm continually opening the road by responding to everything you say. You're not debating. You're voicing your opinion without allowing for any response. As I've said, I will respond to whatever you write. That's debate. What you're doing isn't.

PDR wrote:
you're just looking for fawning acolytes at your altar of general ignorance.

Well no, actually. But really now? All that I am doing is responding to what you have said on the topic I posted. You expressed disbelief at what I've said, and refuted it without, as I've demonstrated in a reply you choose not to read, a viable argument. So, as is perfectly within reason, I defend my stance. You, however, are making it very difficult to actually stay on topic.

PDR wrote:
I suspect you may find this is not a place where such as they are easily found. Have a look in the David Icke forums, or the comentary contributions of the Daily Mail (or even the BBC "have Your Say" pages) and you may find the acolytes you so clearly seek.

See, the thing about that is, it isn't clear that I seek any acolytes. Primarily because I'm not seeking any acolytes. I'm seeking to share knowledge of the difference of two types of anagrams. The purpose of my post was to share some facts about wordplay.

I keep trying to bring this back to the actual topic, but you persist in pulling it into petulance by insulting me, my word choice, my mental health, and by taking any degree of opposition to your preferred pedantry to be obstinate, no mater how clearly I explain your flawed logic.

As I've already said, though you didn't read it, I've conceded several points you've made. I've even supplied you with arguments that, unlike your own, do hold up to a modicum of scrutiny. So, if I can be allowed to bring things out of the pit of pettiness, here's my argument:

"Moon starer" conveys the idea of a person who observes the cosmos.
"Astronomer" conveys the idea of a person who observes the cosmos.
This, by definition, makes them an anugram set.

"Moon starer", like the phrase "stargazer" can mean more then the sum of its parts, because, for example, stargazers look at more than only stars. "Astronomer", like many other occupational titles can mean more than exclusively professionals, and can include novices and hobbyists. It is a word which can simply indicate a person who observes the cosmos, as can "moon starer".

If you have a problem with those facts, refute them. Don't devolve into ad hominem.

 
PDR
1159866.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:17 pm Reply with quote

874 words - is this a new record?

Surely in Bob in his small-hours posting phases wouldn't have matched that!

PDR

 
PDR
1159867.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:24 pm Reply with quote

But on a point of information - it may be different in other places, but in *this* place the custom is that threads are not owned by the initiator, and no one has any right to say whether (or in deed what) others may post to a thread. The only controlling influence here is that of the moderating team who will delete offensive or illegal material and potentially delete users' access rights where they transgress sufficiently to need that sanction (although you really have to work at it to achieve that here).

So when you say:

"But, it is perfectly reasonable for me, especially as the person who created this forum topic to begin with, to tell you that you've lost the right to reply to me when you refuse to read what I write."

...I must advise you that this is not a custom, practice or by-law in this place.

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159868.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:24 pm Reply with quote

Perhaps it bears repeating the last part of that message:

If you have a problem with those facts, refute them. Don't devolve into ad hominem.

 
Wordsmythologic
1159870.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:33 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
But on a point of information - it may be different in other places, but in *this* place the custom is that threads are not owned by the initiator, and no one has any right to say whether (or in deed what) others may post to a thread. The only controlling influence here is that of the moderating team who will delete offensive or illegal material and potentially delete users' access rights where they transgress sufficiently to need that sanction (although you really have to work at it to achieve that here).

...I must advise you that this is not a custom, practice or by-law in this place.

By saying that no one has the right to say whether others may post on a thread, you're imposing a rule yourself as to what may or may not be said. The purpose of this topic is to share information regarding wordplay. Your input has, thus far, amounted to attacking me personally and derailing the conversation altogether, so it is a more than reasonable thing to insist that you not continue to do so further. I keep trying to get back on topic, but here, yet again, you insist on arguing about the words with which I express a point. The point therein was simply that if you continue to comment as you are, that being with insult and derailing commentary, like this, you would be doing a disservice to the topic, and to ask that that sort of commentary not continue is within reason, and as somebody who, despite your best efforts, wishes to veer things back to anugrams, my insistence stands.

 
PDR
1159871.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:38 pm Reply with quote

Never let it be said that I declined a request for information

Quote:
And, for the record, "old fruit" is a pretty bewildering addendum to have added. If you don't mind, could you explain the thought process behind that phrase?


It is a legal practice when refuting matters of fact or depending on facts which are not in evidence, to indicate such by addressing the asserter in this manner, mostly based on the practices of the acknowledged leader in this field (Horrace Rumpole LLB).

PDR

 
PDR
1159872.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:40 pm Reply with quote

Wordsmythologic wrote:

By saying that no one has the right to say whether others may post on a thread, you're imposing a rule yourself as to what may or may not be said.


Well that's probably a variation on the Library Paradox - is the practice of not having rules in itself a rule? [rhetorical]

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159873.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:41 pm Reply with quote

Ah, I see. Clever.

 
Wordsmythologic
1159874.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:43 pm Reply with quote

And yes, it probably does qualify as a library paradox, so perhaps it would be best simply to rephrase my intent, not as a right to make an imperative, but as a request I believe is reasonable, as a consequence of the direction the topic has gone.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1159875.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:46 pm Reply with quote

Wordsmythologic wrote:
PDR wrote:
407 words in response to that - you really do need an editor (or perhaps a psychiatrist)!

Actually, that is incorrect. I do not need an editor, if not for the reason I've stated in the message you've refused to read, then because everything I've written has been grammatically correct and perfectly intelligible, except, apparently, to you. And insinuating I need a psychiatrist is, again, ad hominem, and you're turning this into an attack on me as a person and not actually saying anything meaningful or relevant.


While you do have a point here, you're not winning many adherents with the verbose approach.

 
PDR
1159876.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:54 pm Reply with quote

Well adherents aren't always attractive or desirable, as any piece of bogroll would testify (if it was sentient and capable of communicating).

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159880.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:10 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
While you do have a point here, you're not winning many adherents with the verbose approach.

So I've been told, but it is rather difficult to convey the more detailed ideas regarding linguistic semantics for example, that necessitate expanded explanation to convey accurately, in fewer words, as well as it's sometimes difficult to get across intent and tone in text alone without needing to clarify, and so I tend toward reiteration and additional clauses to colour the message properly. And, even if it means expanded response, I am trying to respond to all points made, in a sort of tabulated fashion, which is, I think, the primary reason my replies are as long as they are. Plus, I'm really not trying to win over adherents; I'm mostly just trying to refocus the discussion toward anagrams, rather than the less-than-desirable tangents that have come up.

 

Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group