watch the golden compass go to hell

[Wilhelm-Scream]

[/size]
Unless I'm going around pulling Edward's signs out of the ground or some such thing, I'm not taking away his ability to campaign or rally his base. He's doing his campaigning, I'm doing mine. No one is undermining anyone. In the words of a famous football coach "It's not my job to coach your team".

If I'm effective in persuading someone to vote for Clinton I'm not undermining his efforts, he's undermining his own.

I frankly don't know what Edwards would say to me. Maybe he does think I'm trying to undermine his efforts, or doing the Devil's work. In honesty though I'm not. If I wanted to undermine him I would. But until you see my name attached to an attack ad, or find me attempting to sabotage his campaign headquarters I'm not doing anything of the sort.

Oh boy, here we go again with the "depends on how you look at the words" stuff.

If you look up the definition of undermine, it always has several definitions.
ONE of them has the really negative connotation..."to injure or destroy by insidious activity" etc. (that's your "taking down Edwards signs", etc.)

But you also have "To weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support." or "To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly" (as in, you have injured Edwards' chances at Presidency, by what degree? By one vote.)

I said, yeah, you're sort of right, but in another way, you're not, because of the either/or nature of a Presidential election.



You can't say, "Well, I think Clinton and Edwards are both great, so lemme vote for both."

If you are actively trying to get someone to vote for Clinton, it is necessarily a vote FOR Clinton, and AGAINST Edwards.
Edwards wants that vote, and you are talking them out of supporting him in his goal. You are working toward Edwards losing a vote if you actively want the person to vote for Clinton.

If they have to choose one, and you work to see that a specific one is chosen, then you are damaging, weakening, eroding the chances that the other one's goal will be met.




This reminds me of the totally ******ed "Bush votes for Clinton and Clinton votes for Bush, out of..."courtesy", or "humility" - bull****, lol.
If you can only choose one, and you say one is the one to choose, you are saying that the others should not be chosen.
They want to be chosen.
Therefore you're undermining them by saying, in a ONE or THE OTHER choice, they are NOT the one to choose.
They say that they are.


Can you see what I mean there?







-and with that, I gotta go. Have a groovy evening.

 

[raybia]

Oh boy, here we go again with the "depends on how you look at the words" stuff.

If you look up the definition of undermine, it always has several definitions.
ONE of them has the really negative connotation..."to injure or destroy by insidious activity" etc. (that's your "taking down Edwards signs", etc.)

But you also have "To weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support." or "To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly" (as in, you have injured Edwards' chances at Presidency, by what degree? By one vote.)

I said, yeah, you're sort of right, but in another way, you're not, because of the either/or nature of a Presidential election.



You can't say, "Well, I think Clinton and Edwards are both great, so lemme vote for both."

If you are actively trying to get someone to vote for Clinton, it is necessarily a vote FOR Clinton, and AGAINST Edwards.
Edwards wants that vote, and you are talking them out of supporting him in his goal. You are working toward Edwards losing a vote if you actively want the person to vote for Clinton.

If they have to choose one, and you work to see that a specific one is chosen, then you are damaging, weakening, eroding the chances that the other one's goal will be met.




This reminds me of the totally ******ed "Bush votes for Clinton and Clinton votes for Bush, out of..."courtesy", or "humility" - bull****, lol.
If you can only choose one, and you say one is the one to choose, you are saying that the others should not be chosen.
They want to be chosen.
Therefore you're undermining them by saying, in a ONE or THE OTHER choice, they are NOT the one to choose.
They say that they are.


Can you see what I mean there?







-and with that, I gotta go. Have a groovy evening.

Not that you care about my opinion of you but I like your style...but only on you.

You're a smooth operator!

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Oh boy, here we go again with the "depends on how you look at the words" stuff.

If you look up the definition of undermine, it always has several definitions.
ONE of them has the really negative connotation..."to injure or destroy by insidious activity" etc. (that's your "taking down Edwards signs", etc.)

But you also have "To weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support." or "To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly" (as in, you have injured Edwards' chances at Presidency, by what degree? By one vote.)

I said, yeah, you're sort of right, but in another way, you're not, because of the either/or nature of a Presidential election.



You can't say, "Well, I think Clinton and Edwards are both great, so lemme vote for both."

If you are actively trying to get someone to vote for Clinton, it is necessarily a vote FOR Clinton, and AGAINST Edwards.
Edwards wants that vote, and you are talking them out of supporting him in his goal. You are working toward Edwards losing a vote if you actively want the person to vote for Clinton.

If they have to choose one, and you work to see that a specific one is chosen, then you are damaging, weakening, eroding the chances that the other one's goal will be met.

But I'm not weakening Edwards at all. If he's a successful campaigner or the best candidate there is very little I can do persuade anyone to vote otherwise. And all the definitions you've given imply some sort of active goal to "impair" the otherside. Your concept of what it means to "undermine" something is about as flimsy as all those people who accuse the Patriots of "undermining" the league because they continue to stay undefeated. It's not my job to campaign for Edwards. If he loses, it's not because of me, it's because he is unsuccessful in his own efforts. If I were to, however, marginally disrupt his campaign say through trickery or by removing his advertising, then yes I would be "undermining his effort". Understand, you again, miss operative words.

I can't make people vote for Hillary, and even if I do convince them Edwards is capable, equally so, of doing the same. He has access to all the same resources we do.

You have a very bad habit of taking dictionary definitions and placing them up like they mean anything whatsoever. There is a difference between being able to understand the latin roots of a word and being able to understand it in practice and concept. You fall very short in the latter.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Why would you post if you didn't want people to read it?

I do lots of things and honestly don't care if people notice or not. You can post your opinion for other reasons than caring whether the general internet population reads it. In fact I'd say if you honestly want people on this website to notice you, that's a childish desire. People noticing you ought to be a sign of value, but far too often it ends up being a sign of spectacle -- I believe I've heard you echo similar sentiments in the past.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You have a very bad habit of taking dictionary definitions and placing them up like they mean anything whatsoever. There is a difference between being able to understand the latin roots of a word and being able to understand it in practice and concept. You fall very short in the latter.

No, you have a problem with understanding the complexities of a lot of words and how they're used. (and your idea that the accepted definitions have no meaning? LOL preposterous. It's the consensus and that's totally essential for verbal communication. But you've used that before, that we shouldn't think they have ANY worth, totally ridiculous. )
I look at the many uses, the different ways of looking at the meanings, and you dismiss any meaning but the one to which you are most accustomed.

I love words and enjoy learning all about them, every definition, not just one rigid definition like you use.

It's funny, because just last night, not long after I left the Hype, I was watching a show about the Bible on PBS, and the host actually used the word "undermines".
He said, "It's fascinating and fun when Christian scholars try to find scientific explanations for the Plagues that befell Egypt, it seems to make the story more believable...but I think it actually undermines the Bible as it distracts us from the whole point of the story."

That's a normal English speaking person, using "undermine" in the same way I used it, and the same way, apparently, everyone but you feels comfortable using it.

He's talking about people that are actually TRYING to support the Bible, but they accidentally undermine the Bible because they lose sight of it's purpose.
If you get someone to not vote for Edwards, you are definitely undermining his efforts toward getting their vote...if someone can unintentionally undermine something? You are intentionally trying to get someone to not vote for him.....again, solely because of the EITHER/OR nature of a Presidential election, which you oddly seem to be ignoring.

I do lots of things and honestly don't care if people notice or not.

Me too! !

You can post your opinion for other reasons than caring whether the general internet population reads it.

Um...more restating the obvious. Yeah, we've established that I post my opinion for other reasons than caring whether the general internet population reads it...so, yeah, well aware of that.



.

In fact I'd say if you honestly want people on this website to notice you, that's a childish desire. People noticing you ought to be a sign of value, but far too often it ends up being a sign of spectacle -- I believe I've heard you echo similar sentiments in the past.

You're not being careful enough with your words.
You have to make the distinction between, seeking attention for attention's sake, because you're attention starved......and....hoping someone hears the phone ring when you call them.

You can't write off all desire for attention as childish, at all. But you use the words "If you want people to notice you", which are very vague...

• if you want people to notice YOU

• if you want people to notice what you are SAYING

• if you want a SPECIFIC person to notice you (speaking) (as when one makes a private joke, just for the benefit of those in the know....or when one person has done something you like and you want to make sure they hear you when you compliment them or thank them)

• or, for enjoyment, you've made an observation and wonder if others agree, so you throw out an idea to no one in particular, and are interested to see what OTHERS have to say...

These are all times when the normal, natural, noble human desire to commune (as in "community"?), to communicate, would have you hoping you were noticed.


There is a magical connection of beings when you find someone who feels the same way you feel. It's enjoyable and there's nothing wrong with it (in fact I believe it's tied to the Meaning of Life)...and it happens, when people notice your post on the Hype. And it's interesting to clash with people who feel the opposite.

That's WHY the ultimate punishment on a message board is to be banned from posting stuff.
You can still read everyone else's posts. But you can't INTERACT, because you have to be noticed, heard, and seen before interraction can take place.

When you say

In fact I'd say if you honestly want people on this website to notice you, that's a childish desire. People noticing you ought to be a sign of value

There are so many problems there.

It sounds as if "wanting people to notice you", and "noticing because of value" ( )
are mutually exclusive, and they're not. And again, you make the blanket statement, If you want to be noticed, that's childish." and it's not.

You're just so terrible with words and so frequently wrongwrongwrong, and you have the added problem of being so personally bugged by me that you lose all sense of logic.
You're in the sad position where every single interraction with me must be an attack on what I'm saying....so if what I'm saying is true, you have to take, and defend, the wrong side.

Even Memphis Slim isn't that bad. We mostly disagree, but I said something he really agreed with and he gave it his "blue ribbon" for "post of the day"...because he can divorce the personal feelings from the intellectual points.

I'm really bugged by Matt, and I think he's said a lot of stupid things, but when he's right, I'm pleased to say, "Yep, Matt. You're absolutely right."
I don't just blindly thrash on a post because it was Matt speaking and I don't like Matt.

But that's what you do with me. I've seen it in Christianity threads...where you are saying something, later, I say the same thing, and suddenly you disagree.
It's really embarrassing, but luckily for me, it's still amusing.

 

[musclesforsupes]

If you watch the golden wilhelm you go to hell

 

[Zoken]

I stand with Willy on this one. I agree with his interpretation and research skills. And by the way Shadow: The Dictionary definition is the only definition that means anything. All others are either "slang" or improper uses.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It's bizarre. I would understand if he'd just say, "You can't just go by dictionary definitions. It's more complex than that, and too dependent on which source you use" or something, but several times I've seen him go out of his way to say they have NO value "WHATSOEVER", which is just, lol, LAUGHABLE.

I remember, when I was a kid, I'd be reading about cool musicians, or film directors, or writers....and I'd keep running into this word "iconoclast".

I had no idea what that meant.
Did it mean the person liked to diddle kids?
Did it mean he only ate fish and vegetables?
You couldn't tell from the context.
They'd just say "so-and-so was a REEAALLL icon-o-clast, man."


So, I got the dictionary, and it said:

ICONOCLAST:
1 : a person who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
2 : a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions


And NOW IT ALL MADE SENSE, because I finally had SOME clue as to what the conventionally agreed upon meaning of the word was.
And, that WAS in fact what the writers were trying to say.


But he always goes out of his way to say the dictionary definition has "NO" value "WHATSOEVER".


LOL, sad and weird.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

No, you have a problem with understanding the complexities of a lot of words and how they're used. (and your idea that the accepted definitions have no meaning? LOL preposterous. It's the consensus and that's totally essential for verbal communication. But you've used that before, that we shouldn't think they have ANY worth, totally ridiculous. )
I look at the many uses, the different ways of looking at the meanings, and you dismiss any meaning but the one to which you are most accustomed.

I love words and enjoy learning all about them, every definition, not just one rigid definition like you use.

It's funny, because just last night, not long after I left the Hype, I was watching a show about the Bible on PBS, and the host actually used the word "undermines".
He said, "It's fascinating and fun when Christian scholars try to find scientific explanations for the Plagues that befell Egypt, it seems to make the story more believable...but I think it actually undermines the Bible as it distracts us from the whole point of the story."

That's a normal English speaking person, using "undermine" in the same way I used it, and the same way, apparently, everyone but you feels comfortable using it.

I had a teacher once who asked us what "Justice" was and a student went a grabbed the dictionary, me, and started reading the definition of justice. I got at "F" for the day. Words rarely play out conceptually the way they are written in the dictionary. Knowing something implies a knowledge that encompasses knowing not only what "it" is, but everything that is not "it". For example, people through the word "good" around a lot, in fact I imagine it has quite a few definitions in the dictionary, but do you honestly think every use of that word warrants it?

That's why the dictionary means nothing. It only attempts to record the use of the word in the venacular, not how that word actually plays out in reality.

If the dictionary actually held meaning, or had any actual truth you wouldn't update it every year.

He's talking about people that are actually TRYING to support the Bible, but they accidentally undermine the Bible because they lose sight of it's purpose.

1) That's not even remotely close to the way you were trying to use it.
2) Because the television says it, it must be conceptually sound, right?
3) In the case you illustrated he's talking about people impairing their own effort to understand something by attempting to retroactively fit a post-enlightenment way of thinking onto a pre-enlightenment text. In this case, this would not be unlike Edwards campaigning by talking about the other candidates strengths instead of his own.

If you get someone to not vote for Edwards, you are definitely undermining his efforts toward getting their vote

Only if Edwards can't get that person to vote for him. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head and making them vote for Hillary, they choose. Just like if Edwards comes to their house after I was there, he has equal opportunity to influence their choice as well.

I hope you also realize when we make campaign calls we don't persuade, just record and identify supporters.

...if someone can unintentionally undermine something? You are intentionally trying to get someone to not vote for him.....again, solely because of the EITHER/OR nature of a Presidential election, which you oddly seem to be ignoring.

Either/Or makes no difference. We, both Edwards, Obama's and Clinton's campaign have the ability to do our best to campaign in this state. The only way I'd even see a point to your mindless ramblings is if you brought up that not giving candidates equal funds undermines their efforts.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

ICONOCLAST:
1 : a person who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
2 : a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions

"Destroys" how? "Attacks" how? Because by that definition I could justify everyone on the planet as being iconoclastic.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I had a teacher once who asked us what "Justice" was and a student went a grabbed the dictionary, me, and started reading the definition of justice. I got at "F" for the day.

Great story. Inapplicable here.
A professor is asking students to think, not to regurgitate.
If you're arguing semantics, it's totally valid to try to support the idea that there's a precedent for using a word in a certain way, to defend your similar use of it.

Words rarely play out conceptually the way they are written in the dictionary.

No, they don't always play out the same, but it's not rare that they do.
You should stop throwing baby with bathwater.

If the dictionary actually held meaning, or had any actual truth you wouldn't update it every year.

Nope. It has to be updated to ensure that it RETAINS it's value and meaning and relevance and worth.
...RETAINS what it formerly had.

1) That's not even remotely close to the way you were trying to use it.

Yes it is. Without actively, maliciously working against something, you are still weakening it. It's exactly what I was saying.
You aren't saying "Don't vote for Edwards.", but getting someone to NOT vote for him, is still weakening his chance at getting their vote.

The scholars are trying to help the Bible, not harm it, but they inadvertently weaken it's chances at effectively serving it's purpose.

2) Because the television says it, it must be conceptually sound, right?

Of course not. It was funny that we fought about "undermine" and right after that, a guy used it, and used it in the way I meant it.
It was just an example of the precedent for it's similar use.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

"Destroys" how? "Attacks" how? Because by that definition I could justify everyone on the planet as being iconoclastic.

Stop being a difficult 3 year old and understand for a second....you COULD be right if you talked about the definition's failings, and accurately said that the dictionary is not "enough", that it's a simplified take that doesn't serve so well in real life.
This is about the flawed nature of communication itself, without benefit of telepathy.

But it DOES give you an IDEA of what someone is TRYING to say when they use a word.
That is it's VALUE...but you foolishly try to say it has ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE WHATSOEVER, which is absurd.

You just have to calm down and speak more accurately.
If I say GAH is a glutton, and he's never heard the word "glutton", he can look it up and learn that I meant he is someone given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking......and now he better understands my statement....and that is the point of language.
So that definition has S.O.M.E. value and meaning.


I'm sorry, to say that it has "none" is the stupidest thing I've ever read on the Hype.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Great story. Inapplicable here.
A professor is asking students to think, not to regurgitate.
If you're arguing semantics, it's totally valid to try to support the idea that there's a precedent for using a word in a certain way, to defend your similar use of it.

You're arguing semantics, I'm arguing something different.

Humor me for a minute: Assume I don't know what a chair is. You know what a chair is, right? Define for me, assuming I'm totally alien to this world, what a chair is?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You're arguing semantics, I'm arguing something different.

Humor me for a minute: Assume I don't know what a chair is. You know what a chair is, right? Define for me, assuming I'm totally alien to this world, what a chair is?

Okay.


CHAIR: any of numerous small chiefly Old World oscine birds (family Sylviidae) many of which are noted songsters and are closely related to the thrushes

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Okay.


CHAIR: any of numerous small chiefly Old World oscine birds (family Sylviidae) many of which are noted songsters and are closely related to the thrushes

While I could probably do the exact same thing with that, they aren't outside my window right now, and I don't feel like getting the bird watching book...

So try another chair.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That's my definition of "chair". That's it...my answer.
Do you have some problem with my definition of "chair" there?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

That's my definition of "chair". That's it...my answer.
Do you have some problem with my definition of "chair" there?

Okay, yeah sure. What's a bird?

 

[sinewave]

You'll know. I don't know how much power they have but there does appear to be an effort to attack Christianity and religion at this time.

You have to at least see that don't you?

yep, i've seen a few instances of it. i just don't think it's anything more than a few idiots making the rest of the atheist community look bad by association, much like falwell and robertson do with the christian community. and right-wing news organizations like fox news love to pounce on these examples and build them up to make 'em look like a part of some vast, evil conspiracy to topple the christian empire. speaking as an atheist myself, i couldn't care less about people's religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe on my rights or lifestyle. i guess a lot of the types of atheists you're referring to just take it too far and feel they need to actively attack the christian community, which i don't support. i think the problem lies in both camps, though. you've got the christian majority in this country which has a lot of pull with the population and the government and part of their doctrine is to try to convert the "non-believers" to the ways of christ. i can understand and even respect that if they think they're trying to "help" people, but i can also understand how someone who wants nothing to do with the christian lifestyle might feel that the christian community might be trying to force their beliefs on them, which isn't always the case with all christians, but can be construed that way, is suppose. you mentioned the "war on christmas" earlier. that's a perfect example of the disconnect between some christians and atheists. apparently some christians want people to use the term "merry christmas" rather than "happy holidays", for some reason i can't figure out. with all the various and sundry belief systems in this country, why single out one as the primary and alienate the rest? it could easily be construed as arrogance on the part of some christians that we must only acknowledge their holidays and ignore the rest. so yeah, sorry for the long-winded, stream-of-thought post. i guess i'm no better than wilhelm sometimes.

I should also point out the irony that Wilhelm got both quotes he posted off of an extremely pro-evangelical Christian propoganda site.

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/11/philip-pullman.html

This might not be the site itself, but all sites I've found with variations of the article are very pro-Christian propaganda. None are very well researched either.

yeah, that's what got me to actually enter into this conversation. it seems very unlike wilhelm to use those two highly questionable quotes as proof of this guy's supposed intent to undermine the christian community. we can't even be sure of pullman's intent based on his phrasing. wilhelm doesn't strike me as the type of guy to take something out of context to prove his point, which is why it's strange to see him fighting so hard to use those quotes as proof without the context to back it up.

His actions certainly don't suggest he's trying actively to undermine a religion. Nor did he ever use the word "goal" in that particular quote. He's never firebombed a church or actively gone around calling preachers liars and charletons. He's even quoted as saying "if I wanted [to covert] I'd write a sermon not a story". Seems to me this is just a case of a Evangelical Christian website taking two measley quotes out of context in a smear campaign against someone else's movies. And if the best you can do is pull out two quotes you can't even substantiate by posting the whole article you must not have much to go on.

1. Why do you care so much?

because you're obviously a smart guy and you can very easily make your point without using arrogance and excess, but you choose to do so anyway. most people don't like others condescending to them. sure, i can live with it, but i've read enough of your posts to know that the majority of them are drenched in arrogance. be it your constant use "LOL" in response others' opinions or the apparent pleasure you get from tearing people's beliefs apart. basically, you're better than that and you know it. i know you claim you only post here to kill time at work and entertain yourself, you can still do that without being a raging d-bag to anyone who dares to hold a different opinion than you. i'm guilty of that myself sometimes, and it's not something i'm proud of or want to maintain.

2. Why are people so threatened and angry about verbosity?
I haven't said one "crazy" thing.
All I've ever done is express my opinion and give examples of things.
People act like I'm struggling and straining inordinately to post.
I assure you, it's really easy to type and then copy/paste stuff.
Hardly any effort at all.

i'm not "threatened" or "angry" about verbosity. i'm guilty of that myself, as you can see. i actually like your writing style, but it gets to be a bit much when you sprinkle in such obviously giddy displays of condescension. like you're having such a blast picking people apart that you've got to exaggerate things prove how very right you are and how very wrong and unworthy they are to even enter into a discussion with you.

And the length comes from the insanity of having to explain the obvious to people.
He obviously answered:
"I want to undermine belief in Christianity."
THEN
"C.S. Lewis would think I'm doing the Devil's work."
(Why would he think I'm doing the Devil's work? - 'Cause of how I want to undermine Christianity.)

It'd be totally different if it went,
"What would C.S. Lewis think of you?"
"Uh...I wanna undermine Chritianity?...I'm doing the Devil's work?"

But he didn't, plainly (to me), and yet someone can't see what is right before their eyes, so, I was trying to show them what is plain to me, 'cause it's obviously really hard for them to see it.

that first line, "having to explain the obvious to people", really illustrates my points. it's like you think it's your solemn duty to correct everyone who doesn't see things the way you do. that's the very essence of arrogance (please don't drag out the definition of the word to try and prove how wrong i am). in this particular case, since you nobody knows the context of those quotes, there's no way to be absolutely positive what his intent was when he made them. sure, you can form hypotheses by looking at his history of opinions on the topic, but you can't say with absolute certainty that you know what he meant in this instance.

Also,
Self Indulgent: excessive or unrestrained gratification of one's own appetites, desires, or whims

I don't know if you hang out at the Hype to change the world, or do some kind of important service to others or what.
But the SOLE reason I do is to gratify my own appetites, desires and whims.
But, I am very restrained, or I'd be banned....so, I guess the word "self indulgent" doesn't apply to me except with respect to the subjective word "excessive".....but there's even a standard here for what's an excessive number of words in a post and I haven't reached it, like, ever, except in PM's. *shrUg*

really? you're gonna pull out the dictionary and play phrase-nazi? get over yourself already.

Hahaha what a load!


Can we prove, right now that he admitted to wanting to undermine, six years ago?
Well, yes, we can prove that he said the sentence, but we can't yet prove, to your satisfaction, that he actually...meant it? Hahaha

OKAY


Would he be pleased if his writing caused someone to rethink and renounce their Christianity?
OBVIOUSLY
OBVIOUSLY
OBVIOUSLY

So, obviously.

again with the condescension.

alright, i'm done with this. i've made my points and i don't want this to dissolve into a multi-paged bash-wilhelm type dealie, since i actually do like him, but i just can't get past that unwavering arrogance of his.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Okay, yeah sure. What's a bird?

Bird: a device usually of metal attached to a ship or boat by a cable and cast overboard to hold it in a particular place by means of a fluke that digs into the bottom

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Bird: a device usually of metal attached to a ship or boat by a cable and cast overboard to hold it in a particular place by means of a fluke that digs into the bottom

Okay, fine. If that's the way you want to do this, I'm done. I used to really enjoy philosophical exercises in college, but if you don't want to indulge me that's fine I won't force them on you.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Okay, fine. If that's the way you want to do this, I'm done. I used to really enjoy philosophical exercises in college, but if you don't want to indulge me that's fine I won't force them on you.

Wait...

You keep rejecting my definitions, man.

Why?
Are you saying that there is some other definition for the word "chair", or the word "bird", that has more value, usefulness, and truth to it?

 

[Zoken]

Chair: a device used for rest typically consisting of a platform roughly 2 feet square at knee level, supported by four vertical legs. It is separated from the stool by the fact that a chair has back support. It may or may not have a place for the occupant to rest their arms. Some are more ornate than others, some have padding, but none of those things is necessary.

 

[Zoken]

Bird: a warm blooded animal with feathers that lays eggs and does not feed it's young with milk. Most are capable of flight, though some are naturally flightless. Some have been rendered flightless through generations of artificial selection. Naturally flightless birds include the Kiwi, Ostrich, and penguin. Species rendered flightless through artificial selection are species of chicken raised for human consumption.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

be it your constant use "LOL" in response others' opinions or the apparent pleasure you get from tearing people's beliefs apart.

Unlike some who use the internet, I only use "LOL", when I have indeed laughed-out-loud. I can't apologize for what I find funny.

basically, you're better than that and you know it.

You're wrong. I'm not "better than that". That's "ME".
Some people enjoy getting on the internet and saying "Hi all, what ya eatin' for lunch? Welp, gotta go, big hugs, love ya."
I'm entertained by debate, but sadly I'm right about so many things that there are few who oppose me in any respectable, intelligent way.

Like, I could have a great debate with Mr. Sparkle, or Maxwell's Demon...but I agree with them on almost everything they say.

But when someone starts saying ridiculous things like "Dictionary definitions have absolutely no value whatsoever.", I'm going to laugh and say, "That is RIDICULOUS." and go "".

i know you claim you only post here to kill time at work and entertain yourself, you can still do that without being a raging d-bag to anyone who dares to hold a different opinion than you.

I'm not. Like Mr. Sparkle and I have had words about illegal immigration. I'm not a "raging D-Bag" with him, because he's smart and I respect what he's saying, even when I disagree.
If moviefan2k4 says, "You can't truly be happy without Jesus in your life.", then that's such a stupid thing to say, that there will be some expression of disdain for it.

like you're having such a blast picking people apart that you've got to exaggerate things prove how very right you are and how very wrong and unworthy they are to even enter into a discussion with you.

I do have a blast doing that. I don't do anything on the Hype unless it's entertaining to me. Once it ceases to be entertaining, I go elsewhere.

that first line, "having to explain the obvious to people", really illustrates my points. it's like you think it's your solemn duty to correct everyone who doesn't see things the way you do.

It's not a "duty" and there's nothing "solemn" about it. It's for fun, on the internet.
The only duty I have is to leave the Hype when I have to go help a resident or office tenant here, while I'm on the clock.

there's no way to be absolutely positive what his intent was when he made them. sure, you can form hypotheses by looking at his history of opinions on the topic, but you can't say with absolute certainty that you know what he meant in this instance.

I know. I said that, several times.
See? How weird it gets when I say something, and people act like they didn't even read it?
He said he thinks the Narnia books are "poisonous", he despises Christianity, and wanted to counter the Narnia books, making a fantasy epic for children where instead of venerating God, they KILL God.
It is obvious that he'd be glad to hear that his writings helped someone on their way to disbelieving Christianity....and, it's even more suggestive when, 6 years ago, with no multi-million dollar movie coming out, he said the words, "I want to undermine belief in Christianity." and then, "C.S. Lewis would think that's the Devil's work.".......but then when the movie comes out, he says he has no problem with it, that he is BACKPEDALING.

My opinion, my informed opinion.

really? you're gonna pull out the dictionary and play phrase-nazi? get over yourself already.

When you refer to the dictionary, that IS "getting over yourself. It's saying,
"I've always used this word in a certain way, but through years of use, do I really have the right connotations affixed? I am not the authority on it, I have to DEFER to the consensus when it comes to verbal communication."
So you check it, knowing that you might be a little wrong.

alright, i'm done with this. i've made my points and i don't want this to dissolve into a multi-paged bash-wilhelm type dealie,

Too late. I've been bashed for multiple pages, and now, multiple days.
I get attacked and insulted a lot for simply expressing my thoughts and feelings. People don't like the words I choose, or my attitude, or my opinions, and that's very natural.