Skip to main content
news

Re: iPad power supply unit ...

Savageduck
SubjectRe: iPad power supply unit (was: Re: Adobe's Low hanging)
FromSavageduck
Date07/31/2014 06:56 (07/30/2014 21:56)
Message-ID<2014073021562956578-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsEric Stevens

On 2014-07-31 04:21:22 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:

Eric Stevens
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:40:58 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:

Tony Cooper
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:05:18 +1200, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Sandman wrote:

Sandman
Semantics, the trolls last resort.

Tony Cooper
Eric replied:

Eric Stevens
You don't understand the meaning of semantics, either.

Tony Cooper
It's very simple. If you use the wrong word or term, it's an error. If they use the wrong word or term, and you call them on it, it's "trolling" and "semanitics".

The ironic thing about Popinjay writing "Semantics, the trolls [sic] last resort" is that "semantics" is about the meaning of words and phrases in a particular context. So, what he's saying is that "The meaning of words is the troll's last resort." To pay attention to the meaning of words and phrases is, according to Popinjay, trolling.

He, in that area, does avoid trolling.

Eric Stevens
In the early days I was told that message content was the primary concern of semantics. There was a demonstration: a lecturer and someone from the audience standing on a stage with two chairs. The lecturer was standing leaning on a chair and the volunteer just standing in a relaxed fashion. Everyone was expecting them both to sit down.

Then the lecturer quietly and clearly said "I'm going to kill you". The other guy looked slightly doubtful and said something along the lines of "Huh?". The lecturer then talked about how the words were serious, the recipient did not really take them to heart and wasn't really concerned.

Then the lecturer picked up the chair and, waving the chair above his head, screamed "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!" as he ran across the stage towards the volunteer. The volunteer charged off the stage, nearly losing his head to the chair in the process, and finished up red faced and angry in the audience.

The lecturer then explained that on both occasions the words were the same but the message content was very different. I can't remember who he was other than that he had worked with Alfred Korzybski in Chicago.

Any way, the general content of Sandman's messages is that he is here to argue, even if it's about one of his favourite subjects.

Sort of like Edward III saying he had gone to France to negotiate a real estate deal at Poitiers & Crécy. His great-nephew Henry V made the same trip across the channel, this time to Agincourt, to straighten out a misunderstanding after his father, Henry IV forgot to enforce the terms of the original deal.

-- Regards,

Savageduck