Probably a silly question.

[Age]

OF COURSE IT IS a DIRECT REQUEST.

And, what can ALSO BE NOTICED is the 'will' word was FINALLY USED.

But you would still have known what I meant had I used "could", even though you consider it incorrect.

1. I could assume absolutely any thing, but as I have already explained I do not like to assume absolutely any thing.

2. Putting could instead of will requests two different answers, and thus two different outcomes as well.

3. I do not consider it incorrect. I am just continually aware that there are two different responses to answer, correctly.

And, in fact, if I wanted to be as pedantic as you, I could insist that "will" is incorrect.

But there is no correct nor incorrect thing here, to me.

You just ask whatever clarifying question you like. But obviously, depending on the way you word your question, the Honest answer could be different.

Will you explain how adding the will word is incorrect?

If no, then why not?

I WILL define what a 'clarifying question' IS, from my perspective. WILL you define what a 'rhetorical question' IS, from your perspective?

A rhetorical question is a form of discourse that draws attention to a state of affairs by putting it in the form of a question. There is typically only one sensible answer that could be arrived at from such a question, thus highlighting the point that is being made. If that defininition does not satisfy you, you will have to resort to a dictionary.

That definition is fine, but it somewhat contradicts you opening post question here.

See, if someone KNOWS what is the irrefutable Truth of some thing, then it would be better to so-call "doggedly stick to that Truth", in that scenario, like for example if you KNEW that the earth revolves around the sun, but everyone else around you BELIEVED differently.

A 'clarifying question', to me, is one just asked when CLARIFICATION or CLARITY is being sought.

But surely a request, rather than a question, is what you would use to ask for claryfication.

That is WHY one replaces the could word with the will word, when one wants something clarified.

That makes the clarifying question 'a request', instead of just a yes or no answer.

And as for the term itself, the word "clarifying" is being used as an attributive verb, qualifying the noun "question".

I have absolutely no idea what nouns and verbs are, and I am purposely going out of my to not learn them.

Oh, and make of that as you will.

Hence, a clarifying question would be a question that clarifies, which is clearly nonesense. If clarification were to result from a question, it would be the answer to the question that would provide it, not the question.

Good point.

In fact VERY good point.

Oh, and by the way, that is another example of me admitting of where I have made an ERROR.

[Age]

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.

You aren't interesting enough to monitor in any more detail than this.
You switched to normal modes of language and expression solely for the purposes of communicating with a new girl.
That was one of your rare notable moments, all your other shit just blends together and I don't really care.

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.

You expressed yourself using regular language typed relatively normally for a handful of posts to impress a new girl.

Is this what you BELIEVE is absolutely true?

If no, then why not?

It was the only notable thing you've done in years.
End.

If this is the only thing you have noticed, then okay.
Noted

[Age]

I also asked you to provide the, supposed, errors I have made. But not a one you provided.

I'm not here to do your bidding, Age, you will have to find them yourself.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Will you go and find the errors you have made?

If no, then why not?

Does anyone else see the absolute absurdness and Dishonesty in accussing another of something, but never willing to provide absolutely any thing AT ALL, which could back up and support the claim and accusation?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't believe you've started the experiment yet. Do you want me to quote something in the Probability thread to point you to where we left off?

[Age]

I don't believe you've started the experiment yet. Do you want me to quote something in the Probability thread to point you to where we left off?

Yes.

But let us not forget that I am still waiting for to answer my question.

[Harbal]

Will you go and find the errors you have made?

No

If no, then why not?

Because I don't have a reason to.

Does anyone else see the absolute absurdness and Dishonesty in accussing another of something, but never willing to provide absolutely any thing AT ALL, which could back up and support the claim and accusation?

I don't see the absurdness in it, but I can't speak on behalf of anyone else.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't believe you've started the experiment yet. Do you want me to quote something in the Probability thread to point you to where we left off?

Yes.

But let us not forget that I am still waiting for to answer my question.

Which question is that? A question in this thread, or the probability thread? Can you ask it again?

[Flannel Jesus]

And, what was 'our conversation', in that thread, about, EXACTLY?

Oh, you must mean this question, my mistake. The conversation is about the scenario I laid out in the first post in the thread,

viewtopic.php?p=583768#p583768

And our different answers to it.

[Harbal]

Can you ask it again?

If you want him to ask it again, you must say, "will you ask it again?".

[Iwannaplato]

I don't see the absurdness in it, but I can't speak on behalf of anyone else.

It's not absurd in general to not want to, and it is not absurd in the specific. My experience with Age is that if you perform such tasks you will get more questions, more demands and more talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic. It may be that perhaps a dozen people here have completely misunderstood him, but many have experienced a Sisyphusean process with him or her. I cannot rule out that someone might, after some long process of work, receive some kind of 'Ah, ok, I see what you mean. I should have said.' or the like. But it seems of no concern to Age that quite a number of people have a problem with both his manner of communicating AND his ability to admit to having communicated poorly or made a mistake, etc.

And while it is not exactly an example of the issue you raise in the OP, it is very close. You have gotten a lovely test case for all to see.

[Harbal]

And while it is not exactly an example of the issue you raise in the OP, it is very close. You have gotten a lovely test case for all to see.

Yes, it's a gift isn't it? I certainly couldn't have planned it.

[Age]

Will you go and find the errors you have made?

No

If no, then why not?

Because I don't have a reason to.

Do I have a reason to?

If yes, then what is that reason to?

Does anyone else see the absolute absurdness and Dishonesty in accussing another of something, but never willing to provide absolutely any thing AT ALL, which could back up and support the claim and accusation?

I don't see the absurdness in it, but I can't speak on behalf of anyone else.

Okay.

So, because you are a child rapist and killer, then I can claim that this to be absolutely true and inform others of what you are really like, and you also do not see absurdness in this, correct?

[Harbal]

OF COURSE IT IS a DIRECT REQUEST.

And, what can ALSO BE NOTICED is the 'will' word was FINALLY USED.

But you would still have known what I meant had I used "could", even though you consider it incorrect.

1. I could assume absolutely any thing, but as I have already explained I do not like to assume absolutely any thing.

2. Putting could instead of will requests two different answers, and thus two different outcomes as well.

3. I do not consider it incorrect. I am just continually aware that there are two different responses to answer, correctly.

And, in fact, if I wanted to be as pedantic as you, I could insist that "will" is incorrect.

But there is no correct nor incorrect thing here, to me.

You just ask whatever clarifying question you like. But obviously, depending on the way you word your question, the Honest answer could be different.

Will you explain how adding the will word is incorrect?

The problem is that you are treating language in the same way you might treat maths; as a matter of pure logic, and language doesn't work like that.
In maths 2 is always 2, and when 2 is added to 2 the outcome is always 4. That is not the case with language. Words can have different meanings according to how they are used and the context they are used in. In this instance you are interpreting the word "could" to mean, "are you capable of", which is very often what it is meant to mean, but "could" is also conventionally accepted as the correct way to begin a polite request. It sounds more courteous than "will".

I am not saying to use "will" is incorrect, I am saying that you could be just as pedantic about it as with "could" if you wanted to be.

eg. Will you clarify the question?

You could respond to that by saying: I don't know if I will clarify the question, but I might clarify it if you ask me to.

Good point.

In fact VERY good point.

Oh, and by the way, that is another example of me admitting of where I have made an ERROR.

You don't know how much that means to me, Age. I would give you a hug if you were within reach.

[Age]

I don't believe you've started the experiment yet. Do you want me to quote something in the Probability thread to point you to where we left off?

Yes.

But let us not forget that I am still waiting for to answer my question.

Which question is that? A question in this thread, or the probability thread? Can you ask it again?

Yes, it is in this thread, and it is this one:

Will you agree to answer all and every question I pose to you for clarification, and answer the ACTUAL question being posed and NOT the one you ASSUME that I am asking you?

[Flannel Jesus]

Will you agree to answer all and every question I pose to you for clarification, and answer the ACTUAL question being posed and NOT the one you ASSUME that I am asking you?

The way you've phrased this question sort of fails on a theory of mind level. You see, at any given time, only you can be absolutely certain what you intended and what you want. I can only do my best to interpret your words into what I think you meant, into what I think you want. I don't have direct access to your mind, I only have access to my thoughts about your mind, and I would of course hope that my thoughts about what you meant are in alignment with what you actually meant.

You're asking me to promise not to misunderstand you. I can't promise that, misunderstandings happen whether we want them to or not