Haha, that's more like an f.
Ah, love is a foul force, isn't it? :rofl: Much better f.BicycleTree said:I am surrounded by twits. In a situation like this I must abandon love and go straight to foul force.
Whether you created these particular images deliberately or not (isn't all your writing deliberately done? Did your hand just spontaneously start writing stuff that you didn't intend to write at some point in time?), they are all still examples of atrocious handwriting if that first letter in the first two images is supposed to be an f. Those are the sort of examples they show to M.D.s to demonstrate why they should write prescriptions more carefully or use a computer and print them so pharmacists can actually read them.BicycleTree said:Are you people really idiots? Griping about poor handwriting? You are the third person to do that in this thread. Do you understand that this is an image I have created deliberately?
: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".mattmns said:Well you know my reading comprehension is terrible, and that I am unqualified to read your posts anyway
l don'l core???matthyaouw said:Very clever. See if you can get this one.
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.BicycleTree said: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.
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.Furthermore, this is not supposed to be a discussion. It is an interesting image, posted to draw comments, not argument.
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.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.
Bicycle Tree said: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:
2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.
An informal commentary on a picture is not a formal discourse.
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:Bicycle Tree said:Furthermore, this is not supposed to be a discussion. It is an interesting image, posted to draw comments, not argument.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argument2. 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.
Bicycle Tree said: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.