Google| Subject | Re: iPad power supply unit (was: Re: Adobe's Low hanging) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 08/01/2014 09:34 (08/01/2014 09:34) |
| Message-ID | <slrnltmh5g.n6e.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
In article <gr2kt9pvae6fppt72u863kdrehj73ak66s@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
What's this, the fifth time you've promised not to troll me about that? You're lousy at keeping your word.Eric StevensSandmanEric StevensTony Cooper
You don't understand the meaning of semantics, either.
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".
No, when anyone focuses on alternate meanings of words, or detailed interpretations of words, to divert the discussion away from topic, it's a troll tactic. You would know, you do it *all the time*.
Like arguing that a power supply unit is not a power supply. In one context you are quite right but not in another. I'm not going to argue with you over this.
Please enlighten me.SandmanEric Stevens
Indeed. When the troll's can no longer argue the central point or anything related to the discussion, they divebomb into word meanings and other details. It's a common tactic that you guys use all the time.
Who do you think holds the record for being first to consult dictionaries to support their argument? Hmmm?
And for the record - dictionary definitions are not the same as semantic trolling. Dictionary definitions is useful when you guys continously use a word incorrectly, which of course happens a lot.
Semantic trolling is focusing on detailed interpretation *instead* of discussing the topic.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/10/2014-
