Bank Run... Gold and Silver Up

Watermark said:
Yes, exactly. They are imperfect communication. I just think that it's useless to argue about vague facts like how perfectly we believed you used your words, and just get down to the obvious meat of the argument.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the meat of the argument lies in the semantics of the words used. Always. It has to, unless you're telepathic.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Yes, but the meat of the argument lies in the semantics of the words used. Always. It has to, unless you're telepathic.
Click to expand...

Well, if there is disconnect then you seek to define the terms. But making the argument about the words is a good way to waste a lot of time.

Ib1 knew what I meant. He simply wanted to argue my use of the word.
 
Semantic arguments are retarded, especially when you know full well what the person means.

And no the use is not retarded. You won't even back that up, ib1, you'll just keep asserting it over and over.

Buzz off, gnat.
 
RStringfield said:
Well, if there is disconnect then you seek to define the terms. But making the argument about the words is a good way to waste a lot of time.

Ib1 knew what I meant. He simply wanted to argue my use of the word.
Click to expand...
"Making the argument about the words" would be the opposite of making it about semantics. Semantics is that which concerns meaning or significance. Linguistics and grammar are concerned with symbols and their usage.

I did preface this whole thing with a "pet peeve" warning, did I not?

One must ALWAYS define the terms adequately. Without explicit definition, you just have verbal flatulence. Or AssHat-ism, which is more-or-less synonymous.
 
RStringfield said:
Semantic arguments are retarded, especially when you know full well what the person means.

And no the use is not retarded. You won't even back that up, ib1, you'll just keep asserting it over and over.

Buzz off, gnat.
Click to expand...
People who think that "semantic arguments" concern the "proper" dictionary definition of words are retarded.

:pke:
 
RStringfield said:
Semantic arguments are retarded, especially when you know full well what the person means.

And no the use is not retarded. You won't even back that up, ib1, you'll just keep asserting it over and over.

Buzz off, gnat.
Click to expand...

I've made my point in the original thread. You keep defending the idea that US currency is illegitimate because it doesn't reflect the value of gold, and ergo (so you say) it is counterfeit. That is utterly retarded.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I've made my point in the original thread. You keep defending the idea that US currency is illegitimate because it doesn't reflect the value of gold, and ergo (so you say) it is counterfeit. That is utterly retarded.
Click to expand...
Only if you're using "retarded" as a synonym for "stupid" or "silly".

:cof1:
 
ib1yysguy said:
I've made my point in the original thread. You keep defending the idea that US currency is illegitimate because it doesn't reflect the value of gold, and ergo (so you say) it is counterfeit. That is utterly retarded.
Click to expand...

ANd i corrected you in the original thread. Fiat currency is illegitimate, yet not counterfeit. Don't be a dense queefsniff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top