Probably a silly question.

[Harbal]

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

I don't know what a "clarifying question" is. Will you please define the term for us? That last question was a direct request, btw.

[Flannel Jesus]

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'.

The thread is the one about the probability puzzle. I look forward to it.

[Age]

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.

That is perfectly fine with me, if this is what you consider is the actual TRUTH of things here.

But if what the 'rules' and 'details' of HOW words are being USED are NOT followed ABSOLUTELY in 'philosophical discussions, then WHEN would they EVER be USED.

And, I have FOUND that it is BECAUSE of a lack of USE of words, WHY there STILL exists so MUCH CONFUSION, among 'you', adult human beings.

You are completely incapable of admitting an error in either judgement or logic,

This the MOST ABSURD ASSUMPTION, of 'me', by 'you', SO FAR.

JUST POINT OUT and SHOW WHERE there is, SUPPOSEDLY, an ERROR in either 'judgement' OR 'logic'.

ONLY WHEN, and IF, you DO THIS, then we have some ACTUAL 'thing' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

and if you are accused of either, all you are interested in is findind a way to make it the fault of your accuser,

ACCUSE me of an ACTUAL ERROR that I have made, and NOT of ONE that you have just ASSUMED I have made, and then let us SEE what FOLLOWS.

rather than actually stopping to consider if they might have a point.

PROVIDE at least ONE example, but a list of examples would be better, WHERE an ACTUAL ERROR of 'judgment' or 'logic' of MINE has occurred, and been PRESENTED, and that i have NOT actually stopped to consider, if they have a point.

Until then we, ONCE AGAIN, have NO ACTUAL 'thing' to LOOK AT, and CONSIDER and DISCUSS.

I just wonder what, from "your perspective", your way of carrying on is meant to achieve.

I have ALREADY SAID and EXPLAINED 'what' I AM 'achieving' NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY. But, OF COURSE, you are NOT expected to have SEEN ANY of them.

[Age]

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

I don't know what a "clarifying question" is. Will you please define the term for us? That last question was a direct request, btw.

OF COURSE IT IS a DIRECT REQUEST.

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

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

If no, then WHY NOT?

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

[Age]

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'.

The thread is the one about the probability puzzle. I look forward to it.

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

[Flannel Jesus]

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

'Our conversation' IS about the probability I GAVE "as the answer to" the question IN MY first post in that thread. "You" were asking QUESTIONS about why my CALUCATIONS were what they were.

Jesus christ, typing like that is exhasuting. I gotta give credit to you, as annoying as your writing style is, you do genuinely put some effort in.

[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.

That is perfectly fine with me, if this is what you consider is the actual TRUTH of things here.

But if what the 'rules' and 'details' of HOW words are being USED are NOT followed ABSOLUTELY in 'philosophical discussions, then WHEN would they EVER be USED.

And, I have FOUND that it is BECAUSE of a lack of USE of words, WHY there STILL exists so MUCH CONFUSION, among 'you', adult human beings.

You are completely incapable of admitting an error in either judgement or logic,

This the MOST ABSURD ASSUMPTION, of 'me', by 'you', SO FAR.

JUST POINT OUT and SHOW WHERE there is, SUPPOSEDLY, an ERROR in either 'judgement' OR 'logic'.

ONLY WHEN, and IF, you DO THIS, then we have some ACTUAL 'thing' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

and if you are accused of either, all you are interested in is findind a way to make it the fault of your accuser,

ACCUSE me of an ACTUAL ERROR that I have made, and NOT of ONE that you have just ASSUMED I have made, and then let us SEE what FOLLOWS.

rather than actually stopping to consider if they might have a point.

PROVIDE at least ONE example, but a list of examples would be better, WHERE an ACTUAL ERROR of 'judgment' or 'logic' of MINE has occurred, and been PRESENTED, and that i have NOT actually stopped to consider, if they have a point.

Until then we, ONCE AGAIN, have NO ACTUAL 'thing' to LOOK AT, and CONSIDER and DISCUSS.

I just wonder what, from "your perspective", your way of carrying on is meant to achieve.

I have ALREADY SAID and EXPLAINED 'what' I AM 'achieving' NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY. But, OF COURSE, you are NOT expected to have SEEN ANY of them.

This is amazing.

You are disputing my essesment of you, while at the same time confirming how accurate it is.

[commonsense]

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

A lot.

[Iwannaplato]

This is amazing.

You are disputing my essesment of you, while at the same time confirming how accurate it is.

I thought this part was telling. You, Harbal say...

You are completely incapable of admitting an error in either judgement or logic,

He responds....

This the MOST ABSURD ASSUMPTION, of 'me', by 'you', SO FAR.

Now what one expects next is a denial that this is the case. And an easy way to show this is by linking to a place where he admitted error.
But next we get...

JUST POINT OUT and SHOW WHERE there is, SUPPOSEDLY, an ERROR in either 'judgement' OR 'logic'.

IOW, as you point out in your response, he does not think it could happen.
And beyond this, there are just so many oddities in even just this small exchange in a larger post.
Why put 'me' and 'you' in citation marks? It's like it wasn't actually him you were talking to. If it wasn't him, how could he know it's absurd?
Also, why does he assume it is an assumption? Not 'an absurd assertion' or 'an absurd conclusion', but he assumes you are merely assuming. As if you did not have some kind of thought process and drew a conclusion. How bizzare. I mean we can reach faulty conclusions and make incorrect assertions, but the odds that it was not a mere assumption are incredibly high, even if it were incorrect.

The horrible thing is, I think he is genuinely outraged. IOW you can meet people in here and you can read their posts and notice some cagey behavior. You can guess that they are consciously, for example, avoiding points that are not so easy to rebut. That they have some awareness of what is going on. But here he gets, I think, genuinely outrageS by things, often misinterpreting them or without showing the slightest charity about what they meant. And then pretty much any response elicits more outrage, confusion and denial. It would be somehow easier if I thought he was just trying to shirtk responsibility or consciously afraid to admit his mistakes.

AT least THAT'S 'what' 'I' THINK. (And just to be clear: the previous sentence was not about my opinion, it was about 'my' opinion.)

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

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.

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

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

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

[Age]

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.

That is perfectly fine with me, if this is what you consider is the actual TRUTH of things here.

But if what the 'rules' and 'details' of HOW words are being USED are NOT followed ABSOLUTELY in 'philosophical discussions, then WHEN would they EVER be USED.

And, I have FOUND that it is BECAUSE of a lack of USE of words, WHY there STILL exists so MUCH CONFUSION, among 'you', adult human beings.

You are completely incapable of admitting an error in either judgement or logic,

This the MOST ABSURD ASSUMPTION, of 'me', by 'you', SO FAR.

JUST POINT OUT and SHOW WHERE there is, SUPPOSEDLY, an ERROR in either 'judgement' OR 'logic'.

ONLY WHEN, and IF, you DO THIS, then we have some ACTUAL 'thing' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

and if you are accused of either, all you are interested in is findind a way to make it the fault of your accuser,

ACCUSE me of an ACTUAL ERROR that I have made, and NOT of ONE that you have just ASSUMED I have made, and then let us SEE what FOLLOWS.

rather than actually stopping to consider if they might have a point.

PROVIDE at least ONE example, but a list of examples would be better, WHERE an ACTUAL ERROR of 'judgment' or 'logic' of MINE has occurred, and been PRESENTED, and that i have NOT actually stopped to consider, if they have a point.

Until then we, ONCE AGAIN, have NO ACTUAL 'thing' to LOOK AT, and CONSIDER and DISCUSS.

I just wonder what, from "your perspective", your way of carrying on is meant to achieve.

I have ALREADY SAID and EXPLAINED 'what' I AM 'achieving' NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY. But, OF COURSE, you are NOT expected to have SEEN ANY of them.

This is amazing.

You are disputing my essesment of you, while at the same time confirming how accurate it is.

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

[Age]

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

A lot.

Will you provide the actual difference?

[Harbal]

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.

[Dubious]

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

I don't know what a "clarifying question" is. Will you please define the term for us? That last question was a direct request, btw.

A clarifying question is one which contains its own response, directly or indirectly. If the question was stupid its response will confirm it thus clarifying the question.