Well 'I' was just going of, and on, what 'you' said and claimed.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pmYou responded with, "It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean".
1. I was never asked to.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm And that is not a valid answer because you didn't tell me what meaning people assign to it.
2. I did not have to.
So, what was 'it' that you were asking for, exactly?
And, what even is a 'valid answer', to you?
In fact, will you even provide a 'valid answer' to your own question, here?
If no, then why not?
If this is what you believe is true, then okay.
If you want to believe that you never misunderstand, and/or that I keep misunderstanding, here, then okay.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm You keep misunderstanding what other people are saying ( which is, ironically, what you accuse other people of. )
If this is what you want to believe is true, then okay.
Again, if this is what you want to believe is true, then okay.
If you want to call the expressing of 'my words' using 'different words' not 'paraphrasing', then okay.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm And I didn't paraphrase it incorrectly because I wasn't relly trying to paraphrase it.
But, 'my answer' is nothing like what you misinterpreted them to, effectively, mean.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm I merely said that your answer is effectively the same as, "It means whatever it means".
But, because you believe, absolutely, that you did not misinterpret, and that you understand what I said very well, you will, obviously, believe otherwise, here.
But, 'it' is absolutely nothing like 'this'. However, if you, really, do want to keep believing that 'it' is, then that is also perfectly fine and okay with me.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm It's like someone asking "Who's Peter?" and you responding with "Peter is a person called Peter". It's true but it says nothing of niterest.
And, it could also be said that you are obviously a bit too much of a non 'literalist'.
However, to do so would be just as ridiculous and stupid.
Where and when, exactly, did you, supposedly, tell me 'this'?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pmAnd I have told you that it's enough for you to explain what meaning YOU or ANYONE ELSE assign to the word.
Yet, it was you who claimed, 'I am asking about the common definition though'.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm It does not really have to be a common meaning ( since that's too much of a headache for you. )
But now, it does not, really, have to be a common meaning. So, what is 'it', exactly, that you are, 'now', wanting and desiring, here?
Okay. But why are 'you' telling 'us' what the word, 'common', means, 'to you', exactly?
1. How many is a 'lot of people'.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 1:34 pm A common meaning would thus be one that frequently occurs, e.g. a lot of people people use it a lot of the time. And if you also need a timeframe, you can stick to the last 50 years or so.
2. Is the 'last 50 years or so', from when you wrote those words, or from when a reader reads those words?
3. In what country and/or culture are you referring to, exactly?
4. And, from which dictionary would 'you' like 'me' to look in, exactly, to find 'the definition' and the 'valid answer', which you are seeking and wanting, here?
5. Also, which one of the different meanings, exactly, would you like 'me' to present to 'you', here?
6. In other words, which meaning would 'you' like 'me' to respond to 'you' with, which would satisfy 'you' as being the 'valid answer'?
Yet, although 'you' believe, absolutely that both of them are 'Absolutely Positively True', (with capital letters), here you are, still, communicating 'with me', and, specifically, communicating, with me, in regards to the actual answers 'I' provided to 'your questions'.
Oh, 'the irony', some would be very clearly recognizing and noticing.