Probably a silly question.

[Flannel Jesus]

Run the experiment, see if anything interesting happens. You might be surprised.

Okay, and just like I said, previously, WHEN you inform me of what 'our conversation' IS, in another thread, THEN I will go there, and do this.

Fabulous, I'm very interested in this. You're going to run the agreed upon experiment with me and see if you get meaningful engagement then? No capitalising, underlining, bolding, or inappropriate quotes? And you're not going to come up with some new creative way of doing the same thing?

I'm ecstatic, can't wait to start. I just want confirmation from you that that's what you're agreeing to before I tag you in the other relevant thread

[Harbal]

What on earth have I unleashed with this thread?

[Iwannaplato]

What on earth have I unleashed with this thread?

It's your fault for asking a question. Statements man, that's where it's at.

[Harbal]

What on earth have I unleashed with this thread?

It's your fault for asking a question. Statements man, that's where it's at.

But it was a rhetorical question, and rhetorical questions are more statement than question. The last thing I expected was that anyone would answer it.

[Iwannaplato]

But it was a rhetorical question, and rhetorical questions are more statement than question. The last thing I expected was that anyone would answer it.

A rhetorical question!? That's even worse. You've shamed a whole generation. It's slither back into holes or bite the nearest person.

[Harbal]

A rhetorical question!? That's even worse.

But how could I have known the havoc it would wreak? I thought I was just being a bit adventurous.

[Skepdick]

Okay. As long as you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'I' am absolutely INCAPABLE of 'learning', absolutely ANY thing whatsoever AT ALL, then this is ONLY what you WILL RECOGNIZE and SEE, forever more.

That's not true. As a scientist I am always considering both hypotheses.

It's just that the hypothesis where you are capable of learning is backed by zero evidence.

Of course, it is entirely possible that you are "learning" while intentionally choosing not to apply your "learnings" to practice.

Then again, if a child keep touching the hot stove over and over and keeps burning their fingers. If a chld never alters their hot-stove-touching behaviour - has the child really learned anything?

[Iwannaplato]

A rhetorical question!? That's even worse.

But how could I have known the havoc it would wreak? I thought I was just being a bit adventurous.

Well, now you know and presumably have learned. You certainly failed to indoctrinate anyone, even while using the nefarious rhetorical question.

[Age]

Yes.

I guess you don't understand that the question I ask is a request question.

I understood, fully, that your question was a request question. That is; you were requesting me to ANSWER your QUESTION, and thus CLARIFY to you what the ANSWER IS, EXACTLY.

Which is EXACTLY what I did. That i; to the ACTUALY QUESTION you posed here, to me.

They are common in English.

I KNOW.

Opening a question with 'Could you' is consider a polite way to formulate a request.

And I PROVIDED the ACTUAL True, Right, AND Correct ANSWER, to and for THAT 'could you' QUESTION

You explained that I would have been better if I had asked a clarifying question, in a rather long post. So, I asked a question. You answered like a surly teenager.

NO I DID NOT. What you CONCLUDE here is just YOUR ASSUMPTION, ONLY.

Fine, ok. You're very angry and you seem very angry at a lot of people.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The ASSUMPTIONS just KEEP ROLLING ON.

Now, are you ABLE TO DISTINGUISH between 'Could you ...' AND 'Will you ...'?

See, for example, if I asked you,

'Could you CLARIFY .... [this or that]?' Or,

'Will you CLARIFY .... [this or that]?

Then, CAN you DISTINGUISH the DIFFERENCE between the two?

If yes, then, WILL you EXPLAIN the DIFFERENCE?

For your information, the two questions are VERY DIFFERENT, AND there are TWO VERY DIFFERENT ANSWERS ALSO, by the way.

Can you, now, SPOT the DIFFERENCE?

You think that

Have ANY of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY LOOKED AT "your" OWN 'selves'?

explains what 'you' means and I should have known. But it doesn't because if 'adult human beings' is what is meant by 'you' it wouldn't need the citation marks.

Are you YET AWARE that what you call 'citation marks', other people call 'quotation marks', while others call them 'single quotation marks', and yet others call them 'scare quotes', or 'warning quotes' and even 'singletons', among other names and labels.

And, besides this, there are DIFFERENT WAYS those 'marks' can, and will, be used. Which means the 'way' 'you', "iwannaplato", use them does NOT mean that "others' use them the SAME 'way' as 'you' do.

Is this understood?

Have any of you, adult human being, really......? is much more clear and in fact you don't even need the commas.

1. So WHY did you put the commas in there?

2. If it is much more clear to you without just these two marks ' ', then okay.

And further, interpersonally, it makes more sense just to ask me if I have looked at my self,

If thee ACTUAL Truth be KNOWN, asking that does NOT make much sense, AT ALL. Although to 'you' it obviously does.

But, then, 'you' are NOT YET ABLE TO answer the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY?' properly AND correctly, right?

rather than getting me to weigh on people whose introspective abilities I don't know much about. And then the strange 'your'......

If you do NOT provide the ACTUAL WORDS that I USED, then this makes it MUCH HARD to understand what you are referring to, EXACTLY.

But you seem interested in shaming people in very confusing ways. Hey, look. I get angry also.

Here we have ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one who just ASSUMES that I 'get angry'.

What do you BASE this ASSUMPTION ON, EXACTLY?

Oh, and ALSO, I have NEVER been interested in 'shaming' ANY one here.

By the time, the MISTAKES that 'you', posters, are making here, 'you' will probably NOT even be around to feel 'shame'. Or, if 'you' are, then 'you' ALSO WILL SEE and UNDERSTAND what I was REALLY doing here, and then NO 'shame' AT ALL will be 'felt'.

But generally I find most of your posts outraged AND confusing.

Okay.

Are you YET AWARE of just HOW to REDUCE 'confusion', and turn 'it' around to absolute and FULL 'understanding'?

Perhaps you learn from feedback like this - thinking of the OP topic now - perhaps not.

What is 'it', EXACTLY, to think I NEED 'to learn' here?

I do put people on 'foe' so I can't see their posts if I find interacting with the person useless. Nearly always I check back, now and then, to see if I have changed my mind or judged incorrectly or to see if something has changed in the other person.

But I see no reason to interact with you.

YET here you are, interacting with 'me'.

The combination or poor communication and anger is truly a waste of my time. But the internet is diverse. I am sure you will find your people.

I KNOW I WILL, and HAVE, ALREADY.

They are the ones, for example, who can SEE and UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCES RESPONSES to questions that start with 'Could you ...?' FROM 'Will you ....?'

Hopefully, you have LEARNED the DIFFERENCE between the two. But, if you put me on your 'foe' list BEFORE you read this, then maybe you are STILL NOT YET savvy.

[Age]

Run the experiment, see if anything interesting happens. You might be surprised.

Okay, and just like I said, previously, WHEN you inform me of what 'our conversation' IS, in another thread, THEN I will go there, and do this.

Fabulous, I'm very interested in this. You're going to run the agreed upon experiment with me and see if you get meaningful engagement then?

Are you here TELLING me some thing, or, ASKING me some thing?

You wrote a statement, but put a question mark at the end of it?

Oh, and by the way, you JUMPED to me 'agreeing upon YOUR experiment'.

It appears that you have completely become LOST and have MISUNDERSTOOD, ONCE MORE.

No capitalising, underlining, bolding, or inappropriate quotes?

I NEVER 'agreed' to NOT 'underlining', nor NOT 'bolding', and what is 'inappropriate', without ABSOLUTE CLARIFICATION, is just way too relative to agree upon.

But I did agree to NO capitalising words.

And you're not going to come up with some new creative way of doing the same thing?

AGAIN, you are TELLING, but just adding a question mark onto the end.

I'm ecstatic, can't wait to start. I just want confirmation from you that that's what you're agreeing to before I tag you in the other relevant thread

I will, 'now', agree to NO capitalizing WHOLE words, NO underling, NO bolding, NOR coming up with some creative way of doing the 'same thing' (whatever that refers to, EXACTLY), either. But as I have ALREADY SAID and EXPLAINED;

But i will have to apologize in advance if I 'slip up', now and then in that thread, as this would not be on purpose.

Now, will you agree to answer all and every clarifying question I pose to you, and answer the ACTUAL question being posed and NOT the one you ASSUME that I am asking you?

If yes, then we can proceed, correct?

Let us recap, so far:

I'd actually be interested in continuing our conversation in the other thread, if I didn't have to read those words in the way you write them.

When you say, "those words in the way you write them", are you referring to just the use of capital letters, or to something else, (as well?)?

Because if you are Truly interested in continuing 'our conversation' in another thread, then I will not just 'try to' 'change' the way I write the words I do, I will actually do it. But i will have to apologize in advance if I 'slip up', now and then in that thread, as this would not be on purpose.

And, if you are still very keen and interested, then you will just have to inform me of how you want me to change my writing style, exactly, and inform me of what conversation are you talking about and referring to, exactly?

You have already informed me of how you want me to change my writing style, correct?

If yes, and you agree to answering the actual clarifying questions I pose to you, then all we are waiting for is you to inform me of what, 'conversation' and in what 'thread', you are referring to.

Oh, and by the way, there is no need to 'tag me' in the other, supposed, 'relevant thread'.

[Age]

Okay. As long as you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that 'I' am absolutely INCAPABLE of 'learning', absolutely ANY thing whatsoever AT ALL, then this is ONLY what you WILL RECOGNIZE and SEE, forever more.

That's not true.

'What' is, supposedly, not true.

As a scientist I am always considering both hypotheses.

What other hypotheses.

You STATED that I am incapable of learning to communicate with other people.

Are you saying that there is or could be another hypothesis here?

If yes, then what it is or could be that one?

It's just that the hypothesis where you are capable of learning is backed by zero evidence.

Did you purposely not add the two words that would make that claim of yours here absolutely and irrefutably accurate? Or, did you just forget, which has made your claim here absolutely and irrefutably inaccurate?

Of course, it is entirely possible that you are "learning" while intentionally choosing not to apply your "learnings" to practice.

At least you are NOW starting to consider MORE than what you just ASSUME or BELIEVE is true.

Then again, if a child keep touching the hot stove over and over and keeps burning their fingers. If a chld never alters their hot-stove-touching behaviour - has the child really learned anything?

Has ANY child throughout the WHOLE of human history EVER touched a hot object and NOT learned to EVER touch it again, and so just keeps touching the hot object over and over?

If yes, then REALLY?

[FlashDangerpants]

Run the experiment, see if anything interesting happens. You might be surprised.

Okay, and just like I said, previously, WHEN you inform me of what 'our conversation' IS, in another thread, THEN I will go there, and do this.

Fabulous, I'm very interested in this. You're going to run the agreed upon experiment with me and see if you get meaningful engagement then? No capitalising, underlining, bolding, or inappropriate quotes? And you're not going to come up with some new creative way of doing the same thing?

I'm ecstatic, can't wait to start. I just want confirmation from you that that's what you're agreeing to before I tag you in the other relevant thread

Age has demonstrated he can meet those conditions in precisely one thread, which you can see here... viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35157
no strange capitalisation, no underlinings, no boldings, and no "theeeee one and only absolute" anything.

It is notable that he apparently made this change in order to impress a new girl, demonstrating a form of motivation that we (well I anyway) wouldn't have expected him to respond to at all. So tell him you have tits and you can probably get your experiment concluded before he even asks if they are man boobs.

[Age]

What is the difference between a rhetorical question and a clarifying question?

[Harbal]

From my perspective

Well your perspective, whatever it is, is of great interest, because your conduct is typical of the sort that this thread is meant to highlight. You are pedantic to the point of making meaningful communication with you impossible. You are completely incapable of admitting an error in either judgement or logic, and if you are accused of either, all you are interested in is findind a way to make it the fault of your accuser, rather than actually stopping to consider if they might have a point. I just wonder what, from "your perspective", your way of carrying on is meant to achieve.

[Age]

Okay, and just like I said, previously, WHEN you inform me of what 'our conversation' IS, in another thread, THEN I will go there, and do this.

Fabulous, I'm very interested in this. You're going to run the agreed upon experiment with me and see if you get meaningful engagement then? No capitalising, underlining, bolding, or inappropriate quotes? And you're not going to come up with some new creative way of doing the same thing?

I'm ecstatic, can't wait to start. I just want confirmation from you that that's what you're agreeing to before I tag you in the other relevant thread

Age has demonstrated he can meet those conditions in precisely one thread, which you can see here... viewtopic.php?f=20&t=35157
no strange capitalisation, no underlinings, no boldings, and no "theeeee one and only absolute" anything.

But I have NEVER written 'that', BEFORE.

It is notable that he apparently made this change in order to impress a new girl, demonstrating a form of motivation that we (well I anyway) wouldn't have expected him to respond to at all.

Are you trying to suggest that I NEVER capitalized words, in that thread.

And, I only bold and underline together when I repeat what was previously written here in this forum. Did I do that in that thread you are referring to here?

So tell him you have tits and you can probably get your experiment concluded before he even asks if they are man boobs.

The IMMATURITY that STILL EXITS here is quite amazing REALLY. Especially considering that this is MEANT to be a 'philosophy forum'.

The FIRST post of mine in that thread included single quotation marks in it, AND, the SECOND post of mine included capatilized words in it.

So, maybe what you are SEEING is just what you were 'trying to' do.