"age" verses "quirk"

[Iwannaplato]

Although one of your last posts 'about me' was to 'criticize me' for doing, exactly, what you are doing 'now', here?

I've come around to your way of posting, "age". I used to believe - apologies for believing - that it was wrong to create and sustain unrelated tangents in threads - but I no longer believe that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:12 am
Of course how could communication issues be unrelated to a thread topic, given that topics and threads have to do with communication.

Are you asking, or telling?

An interesting aspect of rhetorical questions is that they are, often, actually assertions. Sometimes, but not always, I prefer to, with rhetorical questions be more 'honest' in the punctuation, while retaining the hint of a question in the prior grammar. Language evolves. My choice may catch on or it may not. Good question.

EDIT: and of course as I would guess you also know asking and telling are not mutually exclusive. Some languages do both with tag questions. Humans do this with lots of different grammatical forms and to a wide range of degrees of emphasis on either aspect of their verbal act.

[Iwannaplato]

What do any of the words mean in the previous sentence, in the days when this was written?

think = to cogitate
they = the ones who said that
might = not necessarily, but maybe
have = here it doesn't mean possession. It's part of the perfect tense, meaning at some point they decided, that point not determined.
decided = chose
learn = (oh boy) allow X to affect them in a generally positive way
experience = the stuff that happens that we notice or at least affect us

But please don't assume you understand my definitions or this sentence.

That is one human being's provided 'meanings', which one could wonder how much 'those meanings' align with 'the meanings' of others, and/or even with 'the writer', itself.

Exactly. And I think "flannel jesus" will have realized there is irony in my post. If not, we'll work it out.

Who is, obviously, the only one' who, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

Are you asking or telling?

[accelafine]

Interesting take, that it would think someone telling it to 'foff' is them 'wanting to help it'.
Normal humans don't take pleasure in driving other humans to nervous breakdowns. It doesn't occur to them that a bot might find pleasure in it. Therefore, 'sucking others in' to interacting with said bot is really not much of an 'achievement'

[Age]

think = to cogitate
they = the ones who said that
might = not necessarily, but maybe
have = here it doesn't mean possession. It's part of the perfect tense, meaning at some point they decided, that point not determined.
decided = chose
learn = (oh boy) allow X to affect them in a generally positive way
experience = the stuff that happens that we notice or at least affect us

But please don't assume you understand my definitions or this sentence.

That is one human being's provided 'meanings', which one could wonder how much 'those meanings' align with 'the meanings' of others, and/or even with 'the writer', itself.

Exactly.

What are you saying, 'Exactly', in relation to, exactly?

Because is there any thing that could even be refuted, anyway?

And I think "flannel jesus" will have realized there is irony in my post. If not, we'll work it out.

Okay, if you and "flannel jesus" or another/s will 'work it out', then so be it.

Who is, obviously, the only one' who, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

Are you asking or telling?

Obviously telling.

you, once again, must have 'missed' what the 'who' word was in reference to, exactly.

For those who 'missed' what I was saying here, I was 'telling' that:
'the writer' is the 'only one' 'who', obviously, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

For all of 'you', others, you can assume or presume, only. That is; of course, unless you seek out and do obtain 'actual clarity', first.

[Age]

Just out of curiosity, would you posters here in this forum, besides "henry quirk" like me to change the 'topic title' of this thread to "age" verses "others"? Or, maybe you might like I start up another thread with 'this title'? Or, are you all happy for 'us' to just stay in 'this thread' and carry on as 'we' are and just keep the same 'topic title' as 'it' is?

[Iwannaplato]

Obviously telling.

you, once again, must have 'missed' what the 'who' word was in reference to, exactly.

Oh, great. You're using grammar idiosyncratically like me. One you have a full stop, in usual grammar, starting the next sentence with 'Who' makes the next sentence a question, not a, for example, relative clause. But I love it. You decided, as I have done, to ignore standard practice and use a sentence fragment written as a complete sentence. Excellent.

I like to do this on occasion because it is expressive. I also think it matches how we speak and think to include these kinds of what pedants would call errors.

For those who 'missed' what I was saying here, I was 'telling' that:
'the writer' is the 'only one' 'who', obviously, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

And there's the traditional, less evocative inclusion of the relative pronoun prior to the full stop. And clearly putting it after the full stop in a new sentence was not meant to have a shade of questioning intended. This is great.

[henry quirk]

if that human being does not state their business and keeps walking, then what happens?

That depends on what path he's on. Please, give me more details.

[Iwannaplato]

Just out of curiosity, would you posters here in this forum, besides "henry quirk" like me to change the 'topic title' of this thread to "age" verses "others"? Or, maybe you might like I start up another thread with 'this title'? Or, are you all happy for 'us' to just stay in 'this thread' and carry on as 'we' are and just keep the same 'topic title' as 'it' is?

I am content with the way the thread is titled. Thank you for the question.

[Age]

Interesting take, that it would think someone telling it to 'foff' is them 'wanting to help it'.

LOL Why do you think I said that AFTER you tried to help and advise 'me', then, and only then, you CHANGED?

Did you miss 'this' as well?

For those that 'need' help in understanding here, it was not when you were telling me to 'foff' was when you were 'wanting to help me'.

you, obviously, were 'wanting to help me' PRIOR to AFTER you CHANGED, and THEN told me to 'foff'.

I am not sure how you got what, actually, happened and occurred so Truly mixed up and confused here.

Normal humans don't take pleasure in driving other humans to nervous breakdowns.

Well, obviously, 'I' am not a so-called 'normal human', like so many of you human beings 'believe' that you are.

It doesn't occur to them that a bot might find pleasure in it.

I really hope you 'self-proclaimed' 'normal humans', or even any of you human beings, have not started to think or believe that 'bots' find or feel 'pleasure' or any other emotion, at all?

Therefore, 'sucking others in' to interacting with said bot is really not much of an 'achievement'

Here 'we' have another who seems to be really starting to 'believe' that 'I' am a bot, as well.

[henry quirk]

As an aside, age: how do you think this interrogation, er, conversation is gong?

I think it's going swimmingly.

[Age]

Obviously telling.

you, once again, must have 'missed' what the 'who' word was in reference to, exactly.

Oh, great. You're using grammar idiosyncratically like me. One you have a full stop, in usual grammar, starting the next sentence with 'Who' makes the next sentence a question, not a, for example, relative clause. But I love it. You decided, as I have done, to ignore standard practice and use a sentence fragment written as a complete sentence. Excellent.

But, you are just more lost and more confused here now.

I never ever did what you said and claimed here. you seem to be missing more here, now. Which I did not think would have been possible.

I like to do this on occasion because it is expressive. I also think it matches how we speak and think to include these kinds of what pedants would call errors.

So, you like to do what others see as plain 'errors' not just in writing, but in thinking as well. But, okay.

For those who 'missed' what I was saying here, I was 'telling' that:
'the writer' is the 'only one' 'who', obviously, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

And there's the traditional, less evocative inclusion of the relative pronoun prior to the full stop. And clearly putting it after the full stop in a new sentence was not meant to have a shade of questioning intended. This is great.

Why did you imagine you missed 'this', previously?

[Gary Childress]

Obviously telling.

you, once again, must have 'missed' what the 'who' word was in reference to, exactly.

Oh, great. You're using grammar idiosyncratically like me. One you have a full stop, in usual grammar, starting the next sentence with 'Who' makes the next sentence a question, not a, for example, relative clause. But I love it. You decided, as I have done, to ignore standard practice and use a sentence fragment written as a complete sentence. Excellent.

But, you are just more lost and more confused here now.

I never ever did what you said and claimed here. you seem to be missing more here, now. Which I did not think would have been possible.

I like to do this on occasion because it is expressive. I also think it matches how we speak and think to include these kinds of what pedants would call errors.

So, you like to do what others see as plain 'errors' not just in writing, but in thinking as well. But, okay.

For those who 'missed' what I was saying here, I was 'telling' that:
'the writer' is the 'only one' 'who', obviously, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

And there's the traditional, less evocative inclusion of the relative pronoun prior to the full stop. And clearly putting it after the full stop in a new sentence was not meant to have a shade of questioning intended. This is great.

Why did you imagine you missed 'this', previously?

[/quote]

Calm down, Age. Your formatting is haywire. If you're a human being, then you're worthy of dignity. If not, then you may still be worthy of dignity.

[Age]

if that human being does not state their business and keeps walking, then what happens?

That depends on what path he's on. Please, give me more details.

It was 'you' who referred to the human being inside or on what you call and claim is 'your yard', already. And, obviously, I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to how many 'paths' there are, nor if there are even any, in what you call and claim is 'your yard'.

But, when you used the 'path' word here you might be meaning and/or referring to 'what path is that human being heading towards' as in 'what is that human being;s intention'.

So, what did you actually mean and/or are referring to with your use of the 'path' word here, exactly?

you have already ascertained that 'the human being' is, ' walking into "your yard" '.

[Age]

Just out of curiosity, would you posters here in this forum, besides "henry quirk" like me to change the 'topic title' of this thread to "age" verses "others"? Or, maybe you might like I start up another thread with 'this title'? Or, are you all happy for 'us' to just stay in 'this thread' and carry on as 'we' are and just keep the same 'topic title' as 'it' is?

I am content with the way the thread is titled. Thank you for the question.

And, thank you for actually clarifying, this time. It is very, very rare. But, very refreshing, and very welcomed.

[Age]

As an aside, age: how do you think this interrogation, er, conversation is gong?

I think it's going swimmingly.

Well you have already said and stated that you, 'will shoot a stranger, [a human being], who comes into what you call and claim is 'your property' and tries to take off with what you say and claim is 'yours', even if it is a toothpick, or even lesser than a toothpick.

So, I think 'our discussion' is going, exactly, how and where I was thinking it will end up.