Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[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.