Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 04/05/2014 04:20 (04/05/2014 15:20) |
| Message-ID | <2tjuj997c3toessl655t27646k703v38ls@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (7h & 7m) |
On 4 Apr 2014 05:40:35 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanCan you give a reference to your source of this definition?
In article <i3vrj9dpe0eu24om4e9ocklmtqbhifik71@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:Eric Stevens
--- snip ---Tony CooperSandman
If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject is not included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored".
No, this is incorrect. It could be any of these:1. Forgotten 2. Overlooked 3. Ignored 4. MissedEric Stevens
I would address the point in only a slightly different way.It could be any one of these:1. Forgotten 2. Overlooked 3. Deliberately ignored. 4. Missed.In any case, If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject is not included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored". As the list indicates, that does not require that the aspect has been deliberately ignored.Sandman
ignore verb refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally
In any case, we should get back to the beginning of your argument in Message-ID: <slrnlj4ul8.31g.mr@irc.sandman.net>
"Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something isn't. There are millions of things you didn't state in your post here, but you're not actually ignoring all of them; like floods in malaysia, the price of IKEA furniture and the mating calls of sea lions. You didn't state any of those items, and according to you, that means you ignored them. Well, according to the English language, you didn't.
Ignoring something is deliberate, and one cannot prove the existence of a deliberate action (ignoring something) solely by noting the absence of another deliberate action (i.e. stating something)."
Taking that apart:
1. "Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something isn't."
It depends upon whether or not the speaker knows of the 'something'. If the speaker knows, not stating the something is a result of a deliberate decision by the speaker - to not state.
2. "There are millions of things you didn't state in your post here, but you're not actually ignoring all of them; like floods in malaysia, the price of IKEA furniture and the mating calls of sea lions."
There is the test of relevance. Even if the speaker knew all these things, I would expect the speaker to ignore them on the grounds that they were not relevant to the subject under discussion.
3. " You didn't state any of those items, and according to you, that means you ignored them. Well, according to the English language, you didn't."
Of course he did. They are utterly irrelevant to the subject under discussion, which (in case you had forgotten) was "What he [nospam] ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available." I would like to know what you think Tony did with these things if he did not ignore them.
Are you aware that the significant difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian mechanics is that Newtonian mechanics ignores relativistic effects? --
Regards,
Eric Stevens
03/13/2014-
-
