Mimi wrote:And men say women with PMS are bad. Sheesh. Can't we all just get along?
Or a bong! Can't we all just get a bong?
Mimi wrote:And men say women with PMS are bad. Sheesh. Can't we all just get along?
I commend you on your boldness to just go with your assumption and make inane statements. Too many people around here rely on context and make sincere efforts to figure out a poster's intent. Embrace your prejudices and reap the rewards!ChicoHarris wrote:I've no idea who isn't or is a Yankees fan, but am so used to folks hating the Yankees I figured whoever you're referencing was just another baseball fan on the outside looking in.
The reason I hate the Cardinals is that they are responsible for Global Warming, SARs, and the ironic appreciation of Rick Astley.JennyB wrote:So wait...I've had it all wrong all along. The reason you all hate the Cardinals is jealousy, not because us fans are jorts-wearing morans!
She's on to us, boys—dismantle the set, kill the stooges, back to the mother ship.JennyB wrote:So wait...I've had it all wrong all along. The reason you all hate the Cardinals is jealousy, not because us fans are jorts-wearing morans!
Dr. Medulla wrote:I commend you on your boldness to just go with your assumption and make inane statements. Too many people around here rely on context and make sincere efforts to figure out a poster's intent. Embrace your prejudices and reap the rewards!ChicoHarris wrote:I've no idea who isn't or is a Yankees fan, but am so used to folks hating the Yankees I figured whoever you're referencing was just another baseball fan on the outside looking in.
Naw, I hate the Cardinals because they're in the minor league, so many people around these parts are Cardinals fans and they've won 10 championships (16 behind the Yankees, the only other team in double digits).JennyB wrote:So wait...I've had it all wrong all along. The reason you all hate the Cardinals is jealousy, not because us fans are jorts-wearing morans!
Read what eumaas wrote about context. Assuming that revbob meant that Markakis bats 1.000 against the Yankees was inane or just trolling—I'll let you pick. Look, you like to come around and try some lame-ass trash talk about 26 rings, blah blah blah like the mouthbreather type of Yankee fans, so don't expect people not to call you on your shit. You want to engage in semi-intelligent baseball discussion, you're welcome to join in. But babbling on like Michael Kay's cabana boy won't get you more than derision.ChicoHarris wrote:You're assuming whether he or she is a Yankees fan would make a difference in what I wrote...it wouldn't. Which statements were inane and why?Dr. Medulla wrote:I commend you on your boldness to just go with your assumption and make inane statements. Too many people around here rely on context and make sincere efforts to figure out a poster's intent. Embrace your prejudices and reap the rewards!ChicoHarris wrote:I've no idea who isn't or is a Yankees fan, but am so used to folks hating the Yankees I figured whoever you're referencing was just another baseball fan on the outside looking in.
You're right. But zombie Jesus made them so pathetic looking, you just want to help the poor pathetic creatures out.Flex wrote:Let's not feed the trolls.
Can you provide an alternative account of meaning that does not fail on the terms demonstrated by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations and later elaborated by the ordinary language philosophers? Until you can... well, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.ChicoHarris wrote:No, you're wrong. Always means always. I feel like I should be paying you.eumaas wrote:It wasn't used wrongly.ChicoHarris wrote:Well, okie-dokey. He or she used the word wrongly, (or maybe there's a special definition of the word...even being American, i'll stick to English) I suspect by feeling hatred about the Yankees (read; jealousy), the frustration caused the trip-up for he or she..
The use of "always" in this case was wholly consistent with its typical use in that particular language-game. "Always" in such a context is synonymous with "habitually"—for example, we say
—Inder always jogs at 7:30 in the morning.
yet we understand that he might typically jog starting in a range of times from 7:20 to 7:40, and he might not jog when he's sick, or injured, or whatnot. Yet to use the word "always" here is not wrong, because in the context of this language-game, "always" has a meaning synonymous with "habitually," whereas in another language-game, such as
—Two added to two always equals four.
we mean quite something else by "always" from its use in the other language-game. Let's look at the utterance in question.
—It seems he's always getting hits against them.
First of all, how does its context differ from the proposition that "two added to two always equals four"? Well, the latter is concerned with a matter of definition. It's a tautology—the concepts of "two" and "addition" are such that two added to two cannot be anything but four. On the other hand, revbob's utterance is concerned with repeated behavior over time—i.e. playing a game of baseball. What would that suggest? Well, habit of course. Secondly, revbob's qualifier "seems" is also a clue that we're dealing with something contingent such that "always" probably doesn't have the same use as it does in the mathematical proposition that "two added to two always equals four"—combine these insights together and you have a context for understanding the uses of the words in revbob's utterance, and if you know the uses, you know the meaning.
To interpret "always" as its use in the mathematical language-game rather than its use in the language-game of repeated behavior over time is to abstract it from its proper context—that is to say, to make nonsense of the word. That strikes me as uncharitable. Dr.Medulla's question ("So, when you watch a game and the announcer says that a batter "owns" a pitcher, do you get upset, thinking the the 13th Amendment has been violated?") to which Chico responded negatively, points to the fact that in order to operate in language at all we have an understanding of the contextual uses of words. Selectively ignoring context is dishonest.
What a commercial announcer calls players while soothing the masses has nothing to do with me, whoever it was's Yankees envy does.
Sorry for speaking out of line, sir.eumaas wrote:Shouldn't you be shining my boots, maggot?matedog wrote:I was a newbie once. Where is my trust and "mutual respect"?eumaas wrote:Didn't see your post.Inder wrote:*** THOUGHT POLICE GANGBANG PILE-ON ACTIVATE! ****
Anyway, I generally like it when a newbie sticks around and lets us get to know him before choking up the board with contrarian stuff. It lays the groundwork for trust and mutual respect so that when differences of opinion are debated, it doesn't end up overly combative.
Best limey ever.Silent Majority wrote:Never mind though, eh? It's not like we're talking about football, that's something worth getting confrontational over.
I'm no fan of the dog pile or uneven sides, but Chico mate, you're alienating people left right and center with your attitude. You wouldn't walk up to a group of long-time friends in a bar and start talking over them and make loud assumptions about them based on nothing at all then get defensive when they call you on it. That's called aspergers. My advice is to try and play nice for a little while, keep it a little lower key and get to know posters. Smiley face emoticon.
"I, sir, am a wiggly worm, sir, and a wiggly worm, sir, is the lowest form of life."matedog wrote:Sorry for speaking out of line, sir.eumaas wrote:Shouldn't you be shining my boots, maggot?matedog wrote:I was a newbie once. Where is my trust and "mutual respect"?eumaas wrote:Didn't see your post.Inder wrote:*** THOUGHT POLICE GANGBANG PILE-ON ACTIVATE! ****
Anyway, I generally like it when a newbie sticks around and lets us get to know him before choking up the board with contrarian stuff. It lays the groundwork for trust and mutual respect so that when differences of opinion are debated, it doesn't end up overly combative.