Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[Evo]

But not the rich; the rich, the people who would go to the suburbs, were originally mostly urban, not rural. But the main point I made is still in the air at the moment--your move.

Many rich owned farms and ran small towns. Where are the rich mentioned? I love how you keep interjecting these completely irrelevant topics.

Not to mention, as I have previously stated, the article has no impact on the other thread.

BT, did you read that DOT study I posted? Or the other link Moonbear posted? Those both had relevant studies and statistics and proposals and plans that addressed busing. Did you bother to read them?

 

[Evo]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

No, because she pointed out exactly what I did, you pulled it out of context. The first sentence is very important. Remember paragraph construction and topic from school?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Everything's double edged. However, in your case, we get the blunt or sharp edge depending on your purpose. I noticed how Chroot had to repeat a good point four times to you in the other thread.

No comment BT?

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

Nope, I actually sat here and read this entire discussion before jumping in. You want to challenge the interpretation of the second sentence, but you are doing so out of context of the first sentence. Interpreting the meaning of a sentence out of context is poor reading comprehension.

Did you miss this last part of my post, where I directly address the second sentence - the one you've been harping on for nearly 3 pages?

even if you want to argue that "many" means "most" in that context, which it may or may not, what BT had been ignoring is that the rest work someplace else other than in the urban areas. It also does not necessarily indicate that people are working in the city closest to their suburb. Consider the household with two working professionals who live in a suburb of NYC. One of them commutes to NYC, and the other to Philadelphia; or one to NYC, and the other to Trenton, NJ, or to Newark, NJ. There are many cities that one can commute to from a suburb.

Most is not synonymous with "all" as you were trying to use it.

 

[BicycleTree]

Quote from Wikipedia: "Those who lived in the city were increasingly poor, as the wealthy, who had lived there not too long ago, moved to these suburbs."

Before suburbanization, the rich were city-dwellers. In those countries where suburbanization has not yet happened, such as Egypt, the rich are still city-dwellers. I'm sure other articles can confirm this.

But this is a relatively minor point and it's off topic. (the other thread is also not the topic of debate) The main point which I have made, which is still in the air, is:

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, the question is over what the "many" referred to in the sentence (which is not necessarily "most") refers to.

 

[BicycleTree]

No comment BT?

Yes, no comment until you explain what you mean. Please do so by PM because it does not belong in this discussion.

 

[Evo]

Quote from Wikipedia: "Those who lived in the city were increasingly poor, as the wealthy, who had lived there not too long ago, moved to these suburbs."

Before suburbanization, the rich were city-dwellers.

That has nothing to do with the first paragraph. The first paragraph is stating current conditions. Subsequent topics discussed in later paragraphs do not modify the first paragraph.

I have never lived in the city, I have always lived in the suburbs, most people living in suburbs right now probably never lived in the inner city. Which is what the first paragraph addresses, nothing else. Which makes your obsession with this wikipedia article make even less sense.

What does this have to do with whether or not under current conditions more bus terminals is a realistic solution to traffic congestion? According to the Department of Transportation, it's not.

 

[BicycleTree]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, no comment until you explain what you mean. Please do so by PM because it does not belong in this discussion.

It certainly does belong in a discussion of reading comprehension.

However, I see I'm getting the blunt edge of your sword ("I don't understand.").

 

[BicycleTree]

At the moment, only one thing from the pet peeves thread is on topic: the interpretation of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article as your and my reading comprehension. If you want to bring more stuff in, I'd like to see a convincing argument for how it is on topic.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, Zooby, then let it wait. I don't remember the point you say chroot was making--I do recall that he kept thinking my claim was much broader than it actually was--but I'm not going to try to talk about several different things at once in the same thread.

 

[Evo]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

Because that has to do with the wikipedia post.

 

[BicycleTree]

Because that has to do with the wikipedia post.

I don't think it has much to do with the interpretation of the sentence in the wikipedia post. Are you going to prepare a response to the following?

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

 

[Moonbear]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

You introduced the discussion of the pet peeves thread by challenging the reading comprehension of those participating in that thread when you presented, as your example, the statement used in that thread.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, I am not going to discuss the topics of the pet peeves thread at the moment except in how they directly have impact on the meaning of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article, unless someone can give convincing reasons otherwise. And even if someone gives those reasons, I'm not going to discuss it until the second sentence of the Wikipedia article has been resolved. And Zooby's question has priority after that if he so wishes since he brought his question up first.

 

[Evo]

I don't think it has much to do with the interpretation of the sentence in the wikipedia post. Are you going to prepare a response to the following?

I already did.

Also, everyone seems to be in agreement that the commuting mentioned is open to commuting anywhere. You are the only one saying it can only be commuting back to the city. You're the only one trying to make the statement have only one true interpretation. Prove it.

I'm not going to discuss it until the second sentence of the Wikipedia article has been resolved

It's resolved as far as everyone is concerned, except you. Majority rules. End of dispute.

 

[BicycleTree]

I already did.

You did? News to me. The only thing I noticed was you talking about was how a minority of the rich would have lived in rural areas before migrating to the suburbs.

As to majority, I recall that I have one backer and one partial backer. But majority is hardly a valid way to settle debate.

Zooby, if you're there this would be a fine time to explain your point.

 

[Moonbear]

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..."

The full paragraph states:

Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States. Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work. This has set the United States apart from many other countries where the majority of people live in urban areas.

In context, it becomes clear that the second sentence serves two purposes, however horrendous the grammar. First, it does set up a contrast between past and present; we can agree on that. That contrast is between "live where they work" and "live in the suburbs, commuting to work." In the past, they lived where they worked, possibly cities, as you argue. In the present, they live in suburbs and commute to work. The location of that work is unspecified. One cannot assume from the sentence that the location of the work now is the same as the location of the work previously, because the emphasis, provided by the first sentence, is on the location of where they live.

The second purpose of that sentence is to set up the premise for the contrast of America with other countries, which is elaborated in the third sentence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And Zooby's question has priority after that if he so wishes since he brought his question up first.

I have no question. That was an observation about your modus operandi. When I asked for a comment, I just wanted to make sure you knew I noticed that you'd ignored it. The way you ignored Chroot's repetition of the same point four times in the other thread comes of as, well...a reading comprehension problem.

 

[BicycleTree]

One cannot assume from the sentence that the location of the work now is the same as the location of the work previously, because the emphasis, provided by the first sentence, is on the location of where they live.

One cannot assume that the location has been changed. In the absence of any mention of a possible change, one must assume that the location of work remains the same. The default is no change, overrided only when there is a reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Moonbear]

In this discussion of reading comprehension, that wikipedia definition provides another very useful example related to what was discussed way back at the beginning of this thread. If you do not write clearly, such that your statements have ambiguous meaning, the communication breaks down at the level of the writer not the reader. That second sentence in the wikipedia definition is poorly written, and without reading the mind of the writer, there is no way to understand the intention umabiguously. Perhaps you should move on to another example as the one you're presenting is not an issue of reading comprehension but writing ability.

 

[BicycleTree]

I have no question. That was an observation about your modus operandi. When I asked for a comment, I just wanted to make sure you knew I noticed that you'd ignored it. The way you ignored Chroot's repetition of the same point four times in the other thread comes of as, well...a reading comprehension problem.

Zooby, you're making vague claims. If you stated what his point actually was (in a PM since this discussion is currently occupied) then you might have something to talk about.

 

[Moonbear]

One cannot assume that the location has been changed. In the absence of any mention of a possible change, one must assume that the location of work remains the same. The default is no change, overrided only when there is a reason to believe otherwise.

You are correct in the first sentence, we cannot assume the location has changed. But, we also cannot assume it has not changed. There is nothing in that sentence to distinguish between either option. You then do make the assumption that there must be some "default" assumption, but there is no requirement for that. Nothing in the paragraph indicates one should interpret it one way or the other. It is only you who seems to argue it must mean only one thing, and you conveniently choose the only one thing that fits your argument. That is called bias.

 

[BicycleTree]

No, it's a general rule that in the absence of any reason to suppose change, no change should be supposed. If I say I go for a walk, would you be inclined to express doubt over whether or not I changed my shoes? You would normally take it for granted that I kept the same shoes, unless I had earlier mentioned a predilection to wearing different shoes while walking.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, you're making vague claims.

I'm not making any claims. I am informing you of an observation I have made about your modus operandi.

 

[BicycleTree]

Call them "observations" if you like, but you're still making vague claims.

 

[BicycleTree]

Also, if you look at the history of the article on Wikipedia, the earlier versions of the sentence can be seen clearly not to be compatible with interpretations other than mine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Call them "observations" if you like, but you're still making vague claims.

I'm sorry. I observed what I observed. There was nothing vague about it.

 

[Evo]

Also, if you look at the history of the article on Wikipedia, the earlier versions of the sentence can be seen clearly not to be compatible with interpretations other than mine.

Doesn't matter, we're going by what is currently posted. Obviously the wording was changed because the writer no longer felt the old version applied, so he changed it to correct the meaning.

 

[Danger]

I am subjecting myself to permanent banishment from PF, and to my friends here I apologize, but I just can't keep this in any longer...

BT - Get over yourself, give credence to those who are more knowledgeable than you, admit when you're wrong, and for Crissakes try to learn how to communicate with people in a civil manner.

 

[BicycleTree]

I'm sorry. I observed what I observed. There was nothing vague about it.

Yes, there was; as I explained, you did not state what exactly was the point you claim chroot was making.

Danger, nobody on these boards is significantly more qualified to interpret English than I am. (assuming we have no professional grammarians in the house)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, there was; as I explained, you did not state what exactly was the point you claim chroot was making.

I did not claim to be stating what point Chroot was making. My only claim was that I accurately stated my observation about your modus operandi.

 

[BicycleTree]

I suppose the best resolution of the sentence is this:

The interpretation I have of it is clearly the correct one, and the one the authors intended. Why I say this depends on a few issues that I have explained based on my reading experience, and experience-determined mental weights to those issues, but is crystal clear to me that there was only one intended interpretation for that sentence. As the history of the sentence implies, the sentence was originally designed to mean what I say it was, and was reworded slightly by future authors while retaining the same meaning (except for "most--many"). However, the view that the sentence was ambiguous is possible if you ignore these issues, which are predicated and weighted only on empirical reading experience rather than on fixed rules stated in a book anywhere. So it is not a good example of flawed interpretation; I apologize, Evo, for insulting you.

 

[Evo]

I suppose the best resolution of the sentence is this:

The interpretation I have of it is clearly the correct one, and the one the authors intended. Why I say this depends on a few issues that I have explained based on my reading experience, and experience-determined mental weights to those issues, but is crystal clear to me that there was only one intended interpretation for that sentence. As the history of the sentence implies, the sentence was originally designed to mean what I say it was, and was reworded slightly by future authors while retaining the same meaning. However, the view that the sentence was ambiguous are possible if you ignore these issues, which are predicated and weighted only on empirical reading experience rather than on fixed rules stated in a book anywhere. So it is not a good example of flawed interpretation; I apologize, Evo, for insulting you.

Apology accepted, but it was decided that your interpretation was incorrect awhile back, and the fact that the author even previously deleted your interpretation in order to correct the meaning confirms it.

 

[BicycleTree]

Actually, no such thing "was decided." I am not going to retract my apology, but know where you stand. Also, the very recent "correction of meaning" was obviously done by one of PF's own, perhaps even you.

 

[BicycleTree]

Another good point: the way the phrase "commuting to work" is used in the sentence, it appears in a natural pairing with "live in the suburbs." If you are commuting to work elsewhere in the suburbs, that relationship would not be present because you would have been commuting anyway if you lived in the city. The sentence is equivalent to "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, thus commuting to work."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Danger, nobody on these boards is significantly more qualified to interpret English than I am. (assuming we have no professional grammarians in the house)

This is pompous.

 

[BicycleTree]

Pompous, perhaps, yet true.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Pompous, perhaps, yet true.

You are truly pompous, yes.

 

[BicycleTree]

That's very clever how you misspelled "truly" to emphasize the reference to the word "true." It would have been sufficient just to say "truly," I would have gotten it. But I appreciate the extra effort.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's very clever how you misspelled "truly" to emphasize the reference to the word "true." It would have been sufficient just to say "truly," I would have gotten it. But I appreciate the extra effort.

And you are truly pedantic. Pompous and pedantic.

 

[hitssquad]

The SAT and the A-levels

Being a non-USian, I don't know what these SAT thingies are

The SAT is the American version of Britain's A-levels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

It used to stand for Scholastic Aptitude Test. The company that develops, publishes and scores it, the Educational Testing Service (ETS), announced in 1994 that SAT now stands for nothing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#History_and_name_changes

 

[Huckleberry]

I've read all ten pages of this thread and I realize I no longer care what that sentence means. There comes a point in every argument where a persons opinion has been expressed as well as they can express it. If others choose not to accept it then there is no point in expressing it any further. Being correct is not the most important issue here. Expressing and understanding an idea in a manner that people will choose to accept is what promotes comprehension. That includes more than scholastic ability. It is this 'choose to accept' part that BT needs to work on. Otherwise I think he is a very intelligent man.

In a normal conversation it becomes clear very quickly when there is a misunderstanding. If misunderstanding happen all the time then it is a degradation of the argument. This argument has degraded.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In a normal conversation it becomes clear very quickly when there is a misunderstanding. If misunderstanding happen all the time then it is a degradation of the argument. This argument has degraded.

The longest "discussion" threads (not joke threads) almost always center around the "argument" dynamic. They thrive on people not seeming to understand each other. Threads where people agree at the start, or soon come to an agreement, don't last very long. I don't think BicycleTree had too much of a point to make. I think he just wanted a big dose of attention and knew that the surest way to get it was to keep the argument going.

 

[brewnog]

nobody on these boards is significantly more qualified to interpret English than I am. (assuming we have no professional grammarians in the house)

You're a stuck-up, egotistical, arrogant, abrasive little character aren't you? No offence, like.

And, you're wrong too.

Ohh, is it so wrong to feed a troll?[/size]

 

[Danger]

You're a stuck-up, egotistical, arrogant, abrasive little character aren't you?

And, you're wrong too.

Ohh, is it so wrong to feed a troll?[/size]

Keep in mind, Mr. Nog, that this is a fellow who lives and dies by the holy scripture of the 'American Heritage Dictionary'.

Where's Moonbear's barfing smilie when I really need it?

 

[Soilwork]

Sure is a long discussion.
Who cares if people have misinterpreted something. Just tell them that they've done so and I'm sure in 90% of the cases they will see that they've misunderstood.
I haven't really bothered reading the 10 pages of this discussion, but if my skim reading is anything to go by, Bicycle Tree is pretty arrogant.
I would say that most people don't really care about their use of English on a forum as long as it is legible and isn't that frickin' mobile text or 'leet speak'.
But the moment you start insulting people and bragging about your skills in English you should make sure your grammar is absolutely correct.
What does looking down on others achieve??
Anyway in the end I've no doubt misinterpreted something haha, but really I already know that I'm probably the worst offender when it comes to misinterpretation 'cause I'm a bit of an ass ;)
This place is to relax and unless people are abusing other members I think they're qualified enough to post their thoughts in a public forum. :)

 

[Moonbear]

This place is to relax and unless people are abusing other members I think they're qualified enough to post their thoughts in a public forum. :)

Sort of leaves you wondering about the intent of someone starting a discussion thread with the premise that unless you're perfect, you shouldn't engage in discussion, doesn't it? That sort of attitude runs entirely counter to the objectives of this site, which is that of learning. We assume that people coming here to ask questions are not perfect in their knowledge (well, geez, as if anyone is perfect ), and thus engage in discussions in an attempt to improve what they know and understand. To even begin a discussion with the intent of excluding people from discussion (anyone who does not pass or refuses to take some arbitrary test) is highly suspect. When a discussion continues and someone begins suggesting others should leave the discussion when it becomes apparent they are not in agreement, what could possibly be the point? When it yet further continues and someone continues to maintain their position they are 100% correct even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and rather than support their argument with their own evidence, simply dismisses the evidence presented as wrong because it doesn't agree with them, then it becomes clear that there was no intention of initiating any actual discussion.

So, what would the consensus be, is it trolling or flame bait? Either way, it is not constructive to this forum to start up threads suggesting exclusivity of who can participate in discussions.

 

[Evo]

I think there is no need to continue this thread. Test results are not an indicator of whether people can carry on an intelligent discussion.