Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:24 pm 
Here for the 10th Anniversary
Offline
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:35 am
Posts: 323
why are there so many arguments about the meanings of words, or attacks upon one possible interpretation of a person's words

if you didn't understand what the speaker was trying to convey then that is a problem with your ability to interpret the world, and frankly, no one wants to hear about your problems

I certainly dont

these arguments are always started by people who never say anything useful too

I'm not going to name names but I think you can figure it out yourself

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:45 pm 
    User avatar
    Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Shiny Red Star Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter This user posted the comment of the month This user is a part of Erfworld canon! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
    Posts: 4412
    Location: Morlock Wells
    Welp, that's the beauty of the internet Zeku, we get to listen to lots of people run their mouths about lots of silly things, and griping about it usually just makes it worse.

    _________________
    "I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
    GJC wrote:
    Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
    There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:16 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 pm
    Posts: 572
    I love the Internet.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:40 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:57 am
    Posts: 157
    Zeku wrote:
    why are there so many arguments about the meanings of words, or attacks upon one possible interpretation of a person's words

    if you didn't understand what the speaker was trying to convey then that is a problem with your ability to interpret the world, and frankly, no one wants to hear about your problems

    I certainly dont

    these arguments are always started by people who never say anything useful too

    I'm not going to name names but I think you can figure it out yourself


    But what do you mean by that? I have to figure out whether I disagree with your interpretation! ;)

    _________________
    Image

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:33 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:32 pm
    Posts: 21
    WarFAN wrote:
    What is so important about Charlie's past?


    We also know he "paid a terrible price" (of a Carnymantic nature?) for surviving Olive's poison. This might imply a Fate or tendency to die by poison just as Sylvia died repeatedly by fire. A significant weakness to keep secret, especially if there's more about this to come in Book 0.

    Also, the knowledge that he's a Carnymancer says a lot about his strengths and weaknesses. As well as being a political and commercial-reputation liability. Jillian dances around whether he's a Thinkamancer or not in a Book 1 quote - so even that much is a secret, or Charlie would like it to be one.

    (That quote sounds to me as if she knows there's a secret, but can't talk about it. Others have debated that at length. But can't say or doesn't remember, either way it's a secret.)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:26 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    Lilwik wrote:
    It's not clear that you are right about [the definition of forswear]. To me it looks like the number one definition of "forswear" is "to reject or renounce under oath: to forswear an injurious habit." To me, that looks like she is saying "Can you speak of what we forswore to speak of?" which should mean that they rejected or renounced speaking of it under oath. None of the definitions that I see have "forswear" meaning what you claim it means.
    Well, look at it this way: Is talking about Charlie "an injurious habit"? Only if you consider that Charlie might try to shorten your lifespan for doing so, and that's also not in the context. No, it is clear that to speak of an oath they made but have not yet broken that the correct terminology is "swore" and not "forswore."

    You can forwear (commonly phrased "swear off", if that helps the context) cigarette smoking;
    Look at the #3 and #4 definitions for clearer examples:
    3. to perjure (oneself).
    4. to swear falsely; commit perjury.

    Look up "forsworn" for a better understanding of the word. You'll find in most online dictionaries something about breaking a vow or promise. And yes, the etymology of the word does indicate that it was used incorrectly in the context.

    Kreistor wrote:
    Interesting how Lipkin took you down on a definition. Isn't it?
    It would be interesting, if he was correct. But he is not.

    What is interesting is you, again hauling anything and everything into a conversation, no matter how irrelevant to the subject at hand, in an effort to muddy the waters and obscure your own errors. You didn't even look up the word, did you? You were so tickled to have some straw to grasp at that you decided that one person gainsaying me had to mean that I was not only wrong about that topic, but the topic we were discussing as well. You are pathetic!

    No matter were I wrong about a dozen other things in a dozen other conversations, that doesn't make you right in our conversation. But you'd like to believe that it has some significance. I'd cite the logical fallacy you have committed, but that would only give you liberty to prattle on about the fallacy and the myriad ways you will deny having committed it, rather than the subject at hand.
    Kreistor wrote:
    “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
    *golf clap* I believe I paraphrased Wanda Gershwitz regarding you once before: "Apes may quote definitions, they just don't understand them." You've managed to correctly cut and paste the definition of Occam's Razor, and many congratulations on your grade school level computer skills. You just cannot comprehend the words you have copied.

    However, a 50% score isn't very impressive, as you also managed to mis-attribute Lilwik's words. So you have an overall failing grade. Try to do better.

    Not to be multiplied beyond necessity: Put into an example that you might understand, this means that when one reads an exchange between two characters concerning a promise made to not speak of certain matters that one does not therefore decide, as you have done, invent out of whole cloth and therefore "multiply beyond necessity" some fantasy that one of those characters is a long time mole of some third character. One does not therefore decide that canon examples of "thinkamancy tapping, hacking, or cracking" should be put aside in favor of one's invented mole fantasy. Do not multiply beyond necessity. Don't make shit up.

    I hope that this school lesson will sink in, and may it serve you well as you continue on in your life.


    Zeku wrote:
    why are there so many arguments about the meanings of words, or attacks upon one possible interpretation of a person's words
    Well, for my part, Zeku, it didn't start out as an argument. I was simply trying to be a helpful reader and point out to the author that he had made an incorrect word choice for the context.
    Lilwik was the only one who disagreed (Kreistor doesn't count here, as in most things), but he is mistaken.

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:54 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1503
    Oberon wrote:
    Well, look at it this way: Is talking about Charlie "an injurious habit"?
    I'm sure that anything can be forsworn, not just injurious habits.

    Oberon wrote:
    Look at the #3 and #4 definitions for clearer examples.
    Definitions that don't make sense in this context are irrelevant. The #1 definition makes sense while the others don't make sense, so Wanda was clearly using the #1 definition. Any other definitions of the word are simply definitions that Wanda didn't use.

    Oberon wrote:
    And yes, the etymology of the word does indicate that it was used incorrectly in the context.
    All I can find in the etymology of "forswear" is that the "for" prefix turns the word "swear" into "swear off", and that makes perfect sense with definition #1. The perjury meaning of the word is far less clear from the etymology.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:56 am 
    Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am
    Posts: 268
    [thinks to self] Fire-fighting is best done without flammable materials[/thinks to self]

    :P

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:58 am 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user has been published! This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am
    Posts: 3830
    Using Occam's Razor, I'm going to say that they foreswore something, and then made a contract with Charlie not to speak of it.

    Using my imagination, I'm going to say they foreswore eating tuna salad, and really, who can blame them?












    For those who need it pointed out, I'm just being snarky. I know that isn't Occam's razor, so untwist your britches. Occam's Razor would probably be that Wanda is as bad at using proper terminology as I apparently am.

    _________________
    I'm writing a fan fiction. It's called Murder in the Magic Kingdom. Check it out, if you'd like. Completed May 5th, 2015

    I'm writing a sequel! It's called Finding Sanctuary. Please do give it a look. Last updated December 1st, 2016.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:02 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:07 am
    Posts: 675
    Or that they foreswore tattling Charlie's secrets. Fits fine with the definition. This is not something major.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:07 am 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user has been published! This user posted the comment of the month Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am
    Posts: 3830
    wih wrote:
    Or that they foreswore tattling Charlie's secrets. Fits fine with the definition. This is not something major.

    Just saying, it's not wrong, it just either means one thing or the other. Either they foreswore talking about something, or they foreswore something, and can't talk about it.

    _________________
    I'm writing a fan fiction. It's called Murder in the Magic Kingdom. Check it out, if you'd like. Completed May 5th, 2015

    I'm writing a sequel! It's called Finding Sanctuary. Please do give it a look. Last updated December 1st, 2016.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:27 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1503
    Lipkin wrote:
    Either they foreswore talking about something, or they foreswore something, and can't talk about it.
    Actually, it only seems to work one way.
    Wanda: "Can you speak? Of...what we forswore to?"
    Jack: "Of Charlie. Yes. His contract ended with my life."
    As soon as Jack says "Of Charlie" there's no doubt that Wanda wants him to talk about Charlie, and forswearing Charlie doesn't make much sense. On top of that, if they forswore something and then couldn't talk about it, then we really should be able to come up with a possible reason why they can't talk about it. The only thing I can think of is that they forswore the thing, and they forswore talking about the thing, which is getting convoluted.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:29 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am
    Posts: 1191
    Lilwik wrote:
    Definitions that don't make sense in this context are irrelevant.
    You have it backwards. The word forswear was used incorrectly, and that is why those definitions of the word don't make sense in the given context. Just as I originally said, when you put the definition of the word into the sentence, it ceases to make sense. It doesn't make sense even without the definition, of course, but that's where you are disagreeing with me.
    "Can you speak? Of what we have already broken our vow not to speak of?" This makes no sense because forsworn is used incorrectly in the sentence. Even:
    "Can you speak? Of what we have sworn off speaking about?" does not make sense, because the "swearing off" use of forsworn is not used correctly in that context, either, even though it does flow better when substituted. You don't "swear off" discussing something, you swear off drugs, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or other harmful habits. Making a one-time promise to someone, regardless of the duration of that promise, is not being forsworn and cannot be properly referred to in that manner. Breaking that promise makes you forsworn.

    Since asking you to drop this and simply take me at my word is probably not going to move your opinion anywhere, I'll ask you to discuss it with someone with an English degree instead. Or perhaps a few people you trust to have a good vocabulary.

    Edit: Also, etymology. I dunno where you were looking for it, this was the first link in my Google search for "forsworn etymology."

    Quote:
    forswear (v.)
    Old English forswerian "swear falsely," also "abandon or renounce on oath," from for- "completely" + swerian "to swear." Related: Forswore; forsworn; forswearing.

    _________________
    How using capslock wins arguments:
    Zeroberon wrote:
    So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:26 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1503
    Oberon wrote:
    You don't "swear off" discussing something, you swear off drugs, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or other harmful habits.
    Why can't I swear off discussing something if I choose to? Wanda and Jack apparently did it, too. Is there a particular reason why it's not allowed? Is there some authority that forbids it? Why should being harmful make a difference when it comes to forswearing a thing?

    Is the whole reason that "forswore" is supposed to be incorrect in this page the assumption that what they forswore was harmless? We don't even know exactly what they are forsworn to talk about. Perhaps talking about it is harmful, especially if there is some magically enforced penalty for talking about it. If harmfulness is critical to the correctness of the word "forswore", then it is premature to be declaring it incorrect usage before we even know if the forsworn thing is harmful.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:11 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am
    Posts: 481
    Hereby I forswear all discussion about the definition of forswear.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:34 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:57 am
    Posts: 157
    Lilwik wrote:
    As soon as Jack says "Of Charlie" there's no doubt that Wanda wants him to talk about Charlie, and forswearing Charlie doesn't make much sense. On top of that, if they forswore something and then couldn't talk about it, then we really should be able to come up with a possible reason why they can't talk about it. The only thing I can think of is that they forswore the thing, and they forswore talking about the thing, which is getting convoluted.


    I dunno, forswearing Charlie seems like a good idea to me. Don't talk about him, don't talk to him, and you might have an easier life.

    _________________
    Image

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:42 am 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:53 am
    Posts: 338
    Location: When you reach the border of hell, turn right. Can't miss me.
    As interesting as this discussion is about the proper context and phraseology for this word, I have to ask what the point of this discussion is? Are you trying to make Rob go back and change it?

    Maybe if he used improper grammar outside of a character's line, I could understand, but Wanda was speaking. And as far as I'm aware, Erfworlders don't have any kind of grammar check attached to their brains that make them automatically infallible in that regard. So she said something wrong. So what? She's 'human', she can say incorrect things. The way it was written, it was obviously an incomplete thought. Maybe she couldn't finish the sentence due to what she had done?

    I understand that, on a very high level, analyzing what she said could give us clues as what she is referring to, but I think in this instance the argument is kind of pointless. Was it incorrect grammar? Perhaps, and perhaps we'll see in the future if it was. But in the end, perhaps Wanda simply chose the wrong word to say. I doubt it's important in the narrative of the comic as a whole and discussing it further likely will not edify anyone involved in the conversation.

    I'd just rather see the arguments go back to the nature of what said arrangement is rather than the words used to describe it.

    _________________
    Demon Lord Etna wrote:
    Looks like I have to resort to the politician's golden rule: "If they can't prove it, deny, deny, deny."

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:24 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:49 pm
    Posts: 127
    Sir Shadow wrote:
    As interesting as this discussion is about the proper context and phraseology for this word, I have to ask what the point of this discussion is?


    You're expecting a point? Someone is disagreeing with someone else over an irrelevant bit of trivia on the Internet of all places. Honor demands blood.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:29 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user is a Tool! Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:36 pm
    Posts: 1917
    No one in particular wrote:
    Hey, you know what I'm looking forward to?

    When David has to stop drawing Erfworld at the end of Book 3 (that seems to be the trend... New book, new artist! :p ), and everyone will be all "Oh, no, we love your art, how will your replacement ever live up to you?" and then rag on the new guy after all of 4 panels that don't give any room to stretch their talents because it's a packed group in a bare room.

    Yeah. That's gonna be fun.


    It's like being the Hogwarts Defense professor!


    As for new rounds of Tin-foil: Kriestor definitely has a point that it raises the possibility that something else besides a simple NDA is involved, but 0beron's right that it can't be enough to make them all-revealing moles - for story reasons if nothing else. There is a definite lack of need, there.

    mortissimus wrote:
    Well, a number of things could happen but Occam's razor forces the simplest explanation on us...
    Superb inference!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:44 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:57 am
    Posts: 157
    Regarding the new artist, we actually have already seen quite a bit of his work, what with him illustrating the Erfabet book that was posted daily awhile back. So I'd say we've got a fair sampling to decide whether we do or do not like his work at this point in time.

    _________________
    Image

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Finn MacCool, Fridgecake, George, Merilynne, Moonflyer, pitrsapprentice, Revelation, TheMediocreMrRook, twhitt, Vendanna and 26 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: