Just what exactly does this cursive word say?

[Moonbear]

Well you know my reading comprehension is terrible, and that I am unqualified to read your posts anyway

:rofl: You're right, he's already declared us all unfit to have a discussion with him, so I have to wonder why he keeps posting topics for discussion with us...if you can even call them "topics".

 

[JamesU]

Very clever. See if you can get this one.

l don'l core?

 

[Knavish]

Wow, you need to calm down, BT; if you get mad at crap like this you're going to have a heart attack. :tongue: Anyway, I should probably make it clear that I was telling myself off more than you in my first post.

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear: Creating the images deliberately is obviously as opposed to just writing the word without thinking about ambiguity and having the entire double-ambiguity just appear, as an accident. The two tools required for you to realize this are common sense and reading comprehension. Furthermore, how is it relevant to preach about the importance of neat handwriting relevant, given that the image is not an example of bad handwriting, but rather an example of carefully crafted ambiguity? My actual handwriting is perfectly legible.

Furthermore, this is not supposed to be a discussion. It is an interesting image, posted to draw comments, not argument.

I believe that the reason I am receiving opposition here is the nature of the words in the ambiguity. The hidden words "Foul force" in the original image prime your subconscious into pessimism and antagonism.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear: Creating the images deliberately is obviously as opposed to just writing the word without thinking about ambiguity and having the entire double-ambiguity just appear, as an accident.

In your first post, you said you noticed it while taking notes. The astute reader interprets that to mean it is your usual handwriting while note-taking.

Furthermore, this is not supposed to be a discussion. It is an interesting image, posted to draw comments, not argument.

Perhaps you should try re-reading the title of the forum: "General Discussion." If you do not wish to discuss something, there is no point in posting it, unless of course your intent is to troll. You may also want to look up the definition of "discussion." Surely someone with your superior reading comprehension skills is aware that discussion is not synonymous with argument.

I believe that the reason I am receiving opposition here is the nature of the words in the ambiguity. The hidden words "Foul force" in the original image prime your subconscious into pessimism and antagonism.

Nope, what you're calling an f simply doesn't look at all like an f, there's nothing more to it. The only antagonism around here is you calling people twits and idiots because they have told you that the word you are claiming is ambiguous is primarily ambiguous because one of the letters is written with atrocious penmanship.

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear: Obviously, the type of discussion to which I was referring was the type of discussion for which very high reading comprehension is required--an argument. Used more broadly, "discussion" can mean other things. But because the "parent" subject was the reading comprehension requirement for a contentious discussion, the sense of the word "discussion" in use was this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

An informal commentary on a picture is not a formal discourse.


What I noticed while taking notes was a hint of the ambiguity. If you simply write the word, "force," in neat, clear, cursive, it can be interpreted as "foul" provided that the e is slightly larger than normal, which was in fact the only abnormality the original time I wrote it.

Also, you should have realized that the only thing depending on the f - L ambiguity was the interpretation of "love." The original "force-foul" interpretation does not depend on the f - L ambiguity, but rather on the fusing of the r and the c into the letter u (which is interesting, as it is a two-letter ambiguity), and the reading of the final letter as an L.

Also, my use of the word "nitwit" was clearly in jest, as you could tell from the context. And I did not call anyone an idiot, simply ask rhetorically and incredulously if that were the case (the implied answer to the rhetorical question obviously being no, the people here are not idiots, and the point being that they are acting foolishly in this case). Both of those cases were a reaction to people criticizing my carefully made image without a single good word.

Furthermore, the fact that in the original image the first letter was more difficult to read as an f is the reason why the words "foul" and "force" in that image were subliminal.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear: Obviously, the type of discussion to which I was referring was the type of discussion for which very high reading comprehension is required--an argument. Used more broadly, "discussion" can mean other things. But because the "parent" subject was the reading comprehension requirement for a contentious discussion, the sense of the word "discussion" in use was this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

An informal commentary on a picture is not a formal discourse.

Of course it is not; this would be an inappropriate place for an exposition on a topic. An exposition upon which commentary or debate is not desired would be most suitable for a journal entry, which you most certainly already knew. Clearly, we agree that the definition of discussion pertinent to this thread and this forum is the first definition provided, namely:
"Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation."

Furthermore, this is not supposed to be a discussion. It is an interesting image, posted to draw comments, not argument.

Based on your explanation that "discussion" in the above statement refers to the definition: "A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition," then one must interpret that you are using "argument" consistent with that usage. While one could of course view that as two independent sentences with "argument" being unrelated to your usage of "discussion," in your previous lecture on reading comprehension skills, you informed us that your view of the matter is that in the absence of a statement indicating a change in topic, we must assume that no change has occurred. Thus, I will defer to your expertise in regard to your own writing and interpret that no shift in topic has occurred here. This would mean you were not interested in an argument according to one of the following definitions of argument (I'll offer the benefit of doubt that it could be any of the three of these definitions, as any would be consistent with your usage of "discussion" defined as an exposition:

2. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argument

I see no problem here, as the defintion of argument presented in this thread is consistent with the usage of discussion we agree most appropriately suits this topic: "A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate."

What I noticed while taking notes was a hint of the ambiguity. If you simply write the word, "force," in neat, clear, cursive, it can be interpreted as "foul" provided that the e is slightly larger than normal, which was in fact the only abnormality the original time I wrote it.

Also, you should have realized that the only thing depending on the f - L ambiguity was the interpretation of "love." The original "force-foul" interpretation does not depend on the f - L ambiguity, but rather on the fusing of the r and the c into the letter u (which is interesting, as it is a two-letter ambiguity), and the reading of the final letter as an L.

Also, my use of the word "nitwit" was clearly in jest, as you could tell from the context. And I did not call anyone an idiot, simply ask rhetorically and incredulously if that were the case (the implied answer to the rhetorical question obviously being no, the people here are not idiots, and the point being that they are acting foolishly in this case). Both of those cases were a reaction to people criticizing my carefully made image without a single good word.

Furthermore, the fact that in the original image the first letter was more difficult to read as an f is the reason why the words "foul" and "force" in that image were subliminal.

Yes, we can once again appreciate the extraordinary reading comprehension ability demonstrated in understanding, interpreting, and further elaborating upon your own statements. I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed by others that such ability is unparalleled among the rest of the membership here.

 

[εllipse]

more ambiguity

l .. is it a one, an L, or an i?!?

O .. the letter o, or a zero!??!?

$5 .. 5 U.S. dollars or 5 Mexican pesos?