Here is a list of words

Alright, either you're a troll or just dense.

That was my point you fucking braaah braaah bibbilesmit.

I need to go count to 10 lol

 

I never said that words don't have a meaning was your point.
But arguing against that is Tom's.
"Here are some more words that mean nothing:" Was your mistake. He has been arguing against that.
Let him win, say you mispoke. And THEN you can either chase him away, or start the argument you were trying to make with him.


I know what you meant, he probably knows what you meant, but he's focusing on this weak-point to take you down. Right now, he's winning by distracting away from the main point.
Sometimes you gotta lose a foot to gain a yard, ya know?

 

Count to 10, then go buy a dictionary... It will make things much easier for everyone, if you can start using the correct words for what you intend.

The '3 meanings' quote, doesn't apply to you using the wrong words. It applies to the way words are taken as they are said.

When you choose the wrong words, you can almost bet people will misinterpret what you mean.

 

You're annoying me on purpose. Or you're an idiot. That's that.

 

That is the whole point of the thread, isn't it? He was talking about the way words are perceived. The original meaning of the word, or the intent when it is spoken, could be completely taken in by the listener as something else. He was talking about the unreliablility of words. He didn't get his "wording" right for you to comprehend his message. Seems like this whole thread is just an example of his point. Of course, though, he could have clarified himself better.

 

Can you hug me, orange?

By the way, awesome name. What's it from/mean?

 

Maybe I thought my meaning was more clear than it was.

 

*hug*

It is what I call my poetry and artwork.

 

Actually, wether he is willing to admit it now, I beleive I have already said what he originally was trying to get across.

The fact that this has been going on for so long is purely for the humor factor of watching someone who first claimed that words had no meaning, argue that he meant soemthing other then what the words he used meant.

 

An audience can not be responsible for hearing what isn't said - sure.
But why should a speaker be held responsible for what the audience didn't hear?

I thought it was too =P

 

Of course I'm annoying you on purpose now

What can you expect from a surface-thinker?

 

Because if he doesn't say it, the audience CAN'T hear it.

 

Well you won that one. lol

Pissed me right off. But I'm easy to bait into anger

I just don't hold onto it for very long.

 

But what about in cases, where the speaker didn't want it to be heard?

If someone does not mean to offend, and the audience takes it as offensive, it can only be the audience's fault.

 

My first post in this thread was little more then pointing out that words do indeed have meanings sam.

Your intent was dead on reality, just your words didn't get it across, but once you told me I was a surface thinker instead of continuing on with trying to clarify what you meant, the rest was inevitable.

 

And that my friend is what this whole thread is about.

 

Duck, now you are going off on into a twisted loop here...

Let me combine these so you can see it for yourself...

If the speaker did not intent the audience to hear something, and they didn't hear it, they automatically aren't responsible, seems they were never involved.

 

Man, I knew I wasn't going to word that first part right. The whole time I was anticipating response, so I was trying to get it down, but I failed. Props yo.

I should've stuck with the original, which was seemingly contradictory.

"An audience can not be responsible for hearing what isn't said - sure.
But why should a speaker be held responsible for what the audience heard?"

Oh oh oh, I think I got it.

"An audience can not be responsible for hearing what isn't said - sure.
But why should a speaker be held responsible for it?"

See, it doesn't have any ring to it. I can't start my fortune cookies just yet =(



Right now, the accountability rests on the speakers shoulders' we jump down the throats of people for being politically incorrect - even when the politically correct version isn't defined.
This is unfair. The audience does half of the work, they should be held accountable.
The problem is, the media is too quick to throw any victims of such confusion under the fire as immoral. Acting as sheep, to their own media-sheep.

I wanna know how Obama got away with it so easily!

 

hell, if all you were aiming for was fortune cookie worthiness you could stick with the original...lol

As for the rest, it actually depends on the medium. Over tv, the speaker is usually held accountable for the reactions of the audience, which is more responsible for the way they take it (usually on the basis of whichever news outlet they watch).

Over the internet where we have the ability to read something, digest it, and then, after putting much thought into it (wether or not we DO that is besides the point that we CAN) reply to it, then the responsibilty lays with the speaker as it should for the things that they say.

Except, when the audience argues against points that weren't SAID.

Like it or not, on the internet in this type of forum, we only have words. We don't have facial expressions, we don't have body language... we have words. So, for the audience to choose not to read what is said and take it at the accepted meanings or to add in words that aren't there and then argue it, woulld make it their responsibilty.

oh, and Obama got away with it so easily because he understands the power of words.

 

I don't know if I agree with you, but I can't think of much evidence to rebut it so, I'm not going to try. I'll mull over what you said.

I don't know how much he did; but his campaign speech-writer sure did.

The problem is that a word's power is hard to measure for many. And it is rather debatable whether a single word should be given as much as we do give it.