Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
genghiscant

Sam Harris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3JzcCviNDk&feature=player_embedded
The Boyg

Thanks for that.

I just wasted nearly six minutes of my life listening to Sam Harris droning on when he could have just said "don't worry, be happy" and been equally profound.  
Shaker



I remember when I first got hold of The End of Faith, I did what I always do with a good book and thought, I know, I'll jot down all the best written, most concise and incisive sentences, the best bits really worth remembering. I think I got about five pages in when I realised that I was actually copying the book verbatim.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Thanks for that.

I just wasted nearly six minutes of my life

I'm sure you've wasted far lengthier periods of time than that on other things, so six minutes isn't such a concern, surely.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Thanks for that.

I just wasted nearly six minutes of my life

I'm sure you've wasted far lengthier periods of time than that on other things, so six minutes isn't such a concern, surely.


But it's ironic given the subject of his monologue.

"Take some time to stop and smell the roses" takes seconds to say, but I guess that whomever was paying for Sam on this occasion needed to be made to feel that they'd had their money's worth.

Wow! That Sam Harris can say in minutes what it takes other guys to say in seconds. With purdy pictures too!

Still a fanboy like you can probably never get enough Sam, eh?  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
But it's ironic given the subject of his monologue.

Is it?
Quote:
"Take some time to stop and smell the roses" takes seconds to say, but I guess that whomever was paying for Sam on this occasion needed to be made to feel that they'd had their money's worth.

Presumably some people - Harris being one - are aware of Horace's dictum: "I strive to be brief and become obscure." Some things don't admit of the facile and fatuous axiom, which is something that the age of the soundbite and the short attention span in which we live has forgotten.

Quote:
Wow! That Sam Harris can say in minutes what it takes other guys to say in seconds.

Probably because anything that can be said that quickly is facile in that it lacks depth and thought, which is something that Harris definitely does not.

Quote:
Still a fanboy like you can probably never get enough Sam, eh?  

Indeed; his videos and his books especially have graced my life in that they've provided much intellectual nutriment for years now.

Tell you what: why don't you say "Whatever" again and then you can leave the discussion thinking that you've not only contributed something, anything of actual substance but that you've bested me?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But it's ironic given the subject of his monologue.

Is it?

Yes. He points out that people often regret the time that they spent on things that seem trivial to them at the end and then takes nearly six minutes to say that which could be summarised in a single sentence.

Quote:
Quote:
Wow! That Sam Harris can say in minutes what it takes other guys to say in seconds.

Probably because anything that can be said that quickly is facile in that it lacks depth and thought, which is something that Harris definitely does not.

Really? What did he say that was in any way more profound than "take some time to stop and smell the roses"?

Quote:
Quote:
Still a fanboy like you can probably never get enough Sam, eh?  

Indeed; his videos and his books especially have graced my life in that they've provided much intellectual nutriment for years now.

Nuff sed. You won't hear a bad word about him.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Yes. He points out that people often regret the time that they spent on things that seem trivial to them at the end and then takes nearly six minutes to say that which could be summarised in a single sentence.

Anything with such profound implications and ramifications for people's lives and the issue of meaning, worth and purpose isn't reducible to a single sentence. But there we are: that goes back to what I said before about the age of the soundbite and a short attention span. Some people appreciate the thoughtful and the considered while others prefer the cheap, quick, slick, facile and over-simplified. O tempora, O mores.
Quote:
Really?

Yes, really.

Quote:
What did he say that was in any way more profound than "take some time to stop and smell the roses"?

All of it.
Quote:
Nuff sed. You won't hear a bad word about him.

Only if there's something bad to be said about him, which I've yet to encounter. If it's bad then I'll agree with it and doubtless say it myself. But as I say, that day hasn't yet arrived.
genghiscant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feat...ayer_detailpage&v=AcO4TnrskE0
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Anything with such profound implications and ramifications for people's lives and the issue of meaning, worth and purpose isn't reducible to a single sentence.


What Harris says in that monologue can be summarised easily: "try to live more in the moment and enjoy the now, you won't regret it at the end".

Everything else was filler.

It was trite, Hallmark card, cod philosophy.

There was nothing profound, nothing that couldn't be found (and more) in The Little Book of Happiness.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
What Harris says in that monologue can be summarised easily: "try to live more in the moment and enjoy the now, you won't regret it at the end".

Everything else was filler.

It was trite, Hallmark card, cod philosophy.


Only in your opinion it is.

Quote:
There was nothing profound, nothing that couldn't be found (and more) in The Little Book of Happiness.

Which (Amazon's Look Inside feature informs me) is made up of the shallow, facile, happy-clappy, Chinese fortune-cookie soundbites which you seem to favour, for reasons best known to yourself.

Pseudo-profundity at the level of the mottoes found in poor quality Christmas crackers is the level at which some people seem to want to engage, it would appear.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
What Harris says in that monologue can be summarised easily: "try to live more in the moment and enjoy the now, you won't regret it at the end".

Everything else was filler.

It was trite, Hallmark card, cod philosophy.


Only in your opinion it is.


OK, tell me what other profound revelations there were in this piece?

Quote:
Quote:
There was nothing profound, nothing that couldn't be found (and more) in The Little Book of Happiness.

Which (Amazon's Look Inside feature informs me) is made up of the shallow, facile, happy-clappy, Chinese fortune-cookie soundbites which you seem to favour, for reasons best known to yourself.


I bet that in six minutes of reading the Little Book of Happiness one will encounter more trite pieces of advice than Harris delivered in the time that he was droning on, so it's a better application of time. Which is what Harris was encouraging us all to do, after all.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
OK, tell me what other profound revelations there were in this piece?

I have no need or wish to explicate anything of this nature. I'm quite happy to read, listen to and enjoy Mr Harris. Anybody who has no desire to need not.

Quote:
I bet that in six minutes of reading the Little Book of Happiness one will encounter more trite pieces of advice than Harris delivered in the time that he was droning on

Yes; not only would I bet as much but I would be happy to state explicitly my agreement that the Little Book of Happiness is more trite than Harris, just as you said.

Quote:
trite
adj. trit·er, trit·est
1. Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
OK, tell me what other profound revelations there were in this piece?

I have no need or wish to explicate anything of this nature.


Fail.  


Quote:
Quote:
I bet that in six minutes of reading the Little Book of Happiness one will encounter more trite pieces of advice than Harris delivered in the time that he was droning on

Yes; not only would I bet as much but I would be happy to state explicitly my agreement that the Little Book of Happiness is more trite than Harris, just as you said.


No, it's just that Harris takes nearly six minutes to impart a single piece of trite 'wisdom' whereas you could glean many more from The Little Book of Happiness in the same time.

In that sense it is more efficient and, if you are really interested in the sort of cod philosophy that Harris drones on about in this YouTube video, a better application of one's limited time.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Fail.  

Not really an improvement on your customary "Whatever", though with precisely the same amount of substantive content.
Quote:
No

Yes. You said that six minutes of reading The Little Book of Happiness's cracker-barrel pseudo-profundity is more trite than the equivalent six minutes of listening to one of Mr Harris's speeches - it's right here:
The Boyg wrote:
... in six minutes of reading the Little Book of Happiness one will encounter more trite pieces of advice than Harris delivered in the time that he was droning on

I was agreeing with you.

Quote:
it's just that Harris takes nearly six minutes to impart a single piece of trite 'wisdom' whereas you could glean many more from The Little Book of Happiness in the same time.

Although that's not what you actually said, of course (what you actually said has been quoted above), and your attempt to make it read as though it was is simply a dodge designed to cover up the embarrassing mangling of your previous post, which involved making a statement you didn't intend. Or maybe you did - who on earth can ever tell?

Never mind. I'm sure you can emulate Ralph2's long-standing habit of making a 20-page-plus thread out of trying to make out that you wrote something other than what you actually did write. Be my guest  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Fail.  

Not really an improvement on your customary "Whatever", though with precisely the same amount of substantive content.


What else can one do when you run away from a straightforward challenge to back up your opinion about this Harris monologue?  

Quote:
Yes. You said that six minutes of reading The Little Book of Happiness's cracker-barrel pseudo-profundity is more trite than the equivalent six minutes of listening to one of Mr Harris's speeches


Yes, The Little Book of Happiness is a far more efficient vehicle for delivering trite, cod wisdom and therefore, if that's what you're looking for, is a better use of time than listening to this Harris monologue for nearly six minutes in which he manages to deliver just one piece (and nothing else).  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
What else can one do when you run away from a straightforward challenge to back up your opinion about this Harris monologue?  

Ignore it, perhaps? I'm under no obligation to back up my opinions to you or anybody else.

Quote:
Yes, The Little Book of Happiness is a far more efficient vehicle for delivering trite, cod wisdom and therefore, if that's what you're looking for

It isn't, but since you were the one who introduced the book to this discussion (which presumably means that it must be your favoured kind of reading material - personally I'd never previously heard of it), I shall leave you to enjoy the sort of books which you apparently favour.
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Fail.  

Not really an improvement on your customary "Whatever", though with precisely the same amount of substantive content.


What else can one do when you run away from a straightforward challenge to back up your opinion about this Harris monologue?  

Quote:
Yes. You said that six minutes of reading The Little Book of Happiness's cracker-barrel pseudo-profundity is more trite than the equivalent six minutes of listening to one of Mr Harris's speeches


Yes, The Little Book of Happiness is a far more efficient vehicle for delivering trite, cod wisdom and therefore, if that's what you're looking for, is a better use of time than listening to this Harris monologue for nearly six minutes in which he manages to deliver just one piece (and nothing else).  


Whereas, you could, no doubt, have spent a much more productive time praying?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
What else can one do when you run away from a straightforward challenge to back up your opinion about this Harris monologue?  

Ignore it, perhaps? I'm under no obligation to back up my opinions to you or anybody else.


That's it Shaker, you carry on bravely running away when you can't support your opinions.  

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, The Little Book of Happiness is a far more efficient vehicle for delivering trite, cod wisdom and therefore, if that's what you're looking for

It isn't, but since you were the one who introduced the book to this discussion (which presumably means that it must be your favoured kind of reading material - personally I'd never previously heard of it), I shall leave you to enjoy the sort of books which you apparently favour.


I introduced it simply as another example of the sort of cod wisdom that Sam Harris takes nearly six minutes to deliver in his boring drone. It would be foolish of you to presume that I enjoy such books. Perhaps you should send a copy to Mr Harris though as an example of how he can deliver his message in a more succinct manner.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
That's it Shaker, you carry on bravely running away when you can't support your opinions.  

I'm perfectly capable of so doing: I have no need to, however.

Quote:
I introduced it simply as another example of the sort of cod wisdom that Sam Harris takes nearly six minutes to deliver in his boring drone.


Although you did actually state that six minutes' worth of reading this book of yours is more trite than the equivalent amount of time listening to Mr Harris.

Quote:
It would be foolish of you to presume that I enjoy such books.

You were the one who brought it into the discussion and seemed to know of its contents, so it's a perfectly reasonable supposition. You are clearly familiar with at least one book which dispenses cod, trite wisdom.

Quote:
Perhaps you should send a copy to Mr Harris though as an example of how he can deliver his message in a more succinct manner.

By all means, send him your copy via his agent or publisher if you wish.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
Whereas, you could, no doubt, have spent a much more productive time praying?


I could have used it more productively ironing the kids school clothes for tomorrow.

But, hang on, Sam says that I should enjoy the now instead of spending so much time planning for the future so perhaps I should have just had a cup of tea and a bit of a sit down instead.  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
That's it Shaker, you carry on bravely running away when you can't support your opinions.  

I'm perfectly capable of so doing: I have no need to, however.


.... he bravely ran away, away ......  
Shaker

Quote:
"If you can't add anything of substance to this discussion may I suggest that it's probably better for your reputation if you add nothing at all"

No, on second thoughts, carry on  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
"If you can't add anything of substance to this discussion may I suggest that it's probably better for your reputation if you add nothing at all"

No, on second thoughts, carry on  


Yes, if all you've got to offer is your slavish fanboy devotion to Harris and aren't prepared to engage in any sort of critical discussion of this monologue then it would probably be better for your reputation if you had said nothing in the first place.

Keep on running Shaker!
http://youtu.be/HAdottB7UU8
Shaker

Quote:
"Do you actually have anything further of interest to add to this discussion or is it just going to be more of your second-rate, sixth form debating tactics from here on?"  


*

Quote:
Keep on running Shaker!

I'll do that and you keep on praying: that way at least I'll be the one who gets somewhere  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
Keep on running Shaker!

I'll do that and you keep on praying: that way at least I'll be the one who gets somewhere  


Presumably you're hoping to put some distance between yourself and awkward questions that you would prefer not to have to answer.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Presumably you're hoping to put some distance between yourself and awkward questions that you would prefer not to have to answer.  

No, that presumption is erroneous: distance between myself and the weird masochists who expend so much time and so many words on things in which they're not interested.

Creepy bunch, as a whole. Strange, sad little people with empty lives.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Presumably you're hoping to put some distance between yourself and awkward questions that you would prefer not to have to answer.  

No, that presumption is erroneous: distance between myself and the weird masochists who expend so much time and so many words on things in which they're not interested.


But not from the weird bores who expend more words than they need to imparting cod "wisdom" about living more in the now.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
But not from the weird bores who expend more words than they need to imparting cod "wisdom" about living more in the now.  

No, since Mr Harris is not weird and not a bore. I've been familiar with him and his works for years and have enjoyed his books and videos hugely - I'm in the right place on a thread called Sam Harris. You however have presumably encountered him for the first time today and have declared yourself unimpressed, so, pray tell, what are you still doing here?

Is there some sort of enjoyment you get in contributing nothing of any meaningful content on threads dedicated to subjects in which you're not at all interested? As I say, some people clearly have nothing better to do. One must try to be sympathetic, I dare say.

ETA: Lexi, since so few of the posts in this thread are on topic (i.e. actually about Sam Harris) and most are clearly intended only to derail, maybe you could have a tidy-up in here as well?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But not from the weird bores who expend more words than they need to imparting cod "wisdom" about living more in the now.  

No, since Mr Harris is not weird and not a bore.

That's your opinion.
(c.f. http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/sutra98473.php#98473   )


Quote:
ETA: Lexi, since so few of the posts in this thread are on topic and actually about Sam Harris's YouTube video and most are intended only to derail, maybe you could have a tidy-up in here as well?


Yes, please remove all of Shaky's comments that don't directly relate to this video but are merely about derailing discussion of it by defending the reputation of Sam Harris and attacking those who have the temerity to criticise what he says in this monologue.

Which would be all of his post in this thread.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
That's your opinion.

Well spotted!

Quote:
Yes, please remove all of Shaky's comments that don't directly relate to this video but are merely about derailing discussion of it by defending the reputation of Sam Harris and attacking those who have the temerity to criticise what he says in this monologue.

Perfectly happy to keep the thread on-point and to see all of your posts disappear into nothingness (well, obviously that's a given, across the board) and all of mine after the one of 5:51pm.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Perfectly happy to keep the thread on-point and to see all of your posts disappear into nothingness and all of mine after the one of 5:51pm.


I have offered a critique of the contents of the video.

One that you have refused engage with when asked to.

All you've done is tried to derail with comments that do not relate to the contents of the video at all.

None of your posts in this thread, not even the first one, are about the contents of the video.

So before you start chucking stones about things being off-topic I suggest that you step out of your glass house.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Perfectly happy to keep the thread on-point and to see all of your posts disappear into nothingness and all of mine after the one of 5:51pm.


I have offered a critique of the contents of the video.

One that you have refused engage with when asked to.

Quite correct. End of your participation in the thread at this juncture, surely? Unless you can find somebody else with which to discuss the contents of the video, of course. Good luck.

Quote:
All you've done is tried to derail with comments that do not relate to the contents of the video at all.

Because I have no desire to discuss the contents of the video in any detail with you. The advice is the same for this thread as I have stated elsewhere in the past about this forum as a whole: if it's not to your liking, leave. That's what I did with the occasionally functional R & E, rather than being permanently banned.

Quote:
None of your posts in this thread, not even the first one, are about the contents of the video.

Erm, yes it was. I suggest you go back and look at it again, obviously this time with a modicum of care.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Quite correct. End of your participation in the thread at this juncture, surely? Unless you can find somebody else with which to discuss the contents of the video, of course. Good luck.

Because I have no desire to discuss the contents of the video in any detail with you.


So what is the point in your participation in this thread if you refuse to discuss the video linked to in the OP?  

Quote:
Quote:
None of your posts in this thread, not even the first one, are about the contents of the video.

Erm, yes it was. I suggest you go back and look at it again, obviously this time with a modicum of care.


No it wasn't. It was all about your fanboy admiration for Sam Harris. You never even mentioned the contents or subject of the video:
Shaker wrote:
I remember when I first got hold of The End of Faith, I did what I always do with a good book and thought, I know, I'll jot down all the best written, most concise and incisive sentences, the best bits really worth remembering. I think I got about five pages in when I realised that I was actually copying the book verbatim.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
So what is the point in your participation in this thread if you refuse to discuss the video linked to in the OP?

Initially, to indicate to genghiscant my enjoyment of and agreement with the video he kindly posted in his OP, which I was and am glad to see. Thereafter, dealing with your usual tedious, snivelling, pointless, derailing twaddle.
Quote:
You never even mentioned the contents or subject of the video

Perhaps you should look at all of the post this time around. I particularly draw your attention to the use of this emoticon:

Quote:


which I habitually use to indicate enjoyment and agreement. A "right on!", a "yes, I agree", a "thumbs up" if you will. Nodding is generally regarded as indicating agreement: at least, down our way it is. I can't speak for what the custom is wherever you may be.

Glad to have helped.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Thereafter, dealing with your usual tedious, snivelling, pointless, derailing twaddle.


       
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So what is the point in your participation in this thread if you refuse to discuss the video linked to in the OP?

Initially, to indicate to genghiscant my enjoyment of and agreement with the video he kindly posted in his OP, which I was and am glad to see.

So you accept that you made no comment regarding either the video or it's contents in that post. Good.


Quote:
Perhaps you should look at all of the post this time around. I particularly draw your attention to the use of this emoticon:

Quote:


which I habitually use to indicate enjoyment and agreement. A "right on!", a "yes, I agree", a "thumbs up" if you will. Nodding is generally regarded as indicating agreement: at least, down our way it is. I can't speak for what the custom is wherever you may be.


And you're trying to say that this emoticon was you making a valuable contribution to this thread about the video linked to in the OP.

That's pathetically desperate, even for you.  
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Thereafter, dealing with your usual tedious, snivelling, pointless, derailing twaddle.


       


Lennie, there's still the subject of your argument from incredulity elsewhere to be dealt with if you've got time on your hands now.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
So you accept that you made no comment regarding either the video or it's contents in that post.

I said the opposite of that. I did make a comment regarding my opinion of the video in the OP. Can you not read, or is it just the understanding part of what you read with which you struggle?

Quote:
And you're trying to say that this emoticon was you making a valuable contribution to this thread about the video linked to in the OP.

Valuable or not, it was my contribution, and therefore your statement

Quote:
You never even mentioned the contents or subject of the video


was, and remains, false.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So you accept that you made no comment regarding either the video or it's contents in that post.

I said the opposite of that. Can you not read?


Are you trying to claim that a nodding head emoticon is a "comment" now.

You're really scraping the barrel this time Shaky, and no mistake.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Are you trying to claim that a nodding head emoticon is a "comment" now.

Part of one. The whole post was a comment: the emoticon was a part of it. Comment; observation; opinion, take your pick.

We can walk you slowly through the fallacies of composition and division if you have a mind before your warm milk, bed and teddy?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
You never even mentioned the contents or subject of the video

was, and remains, false.


Please indicate where in this post you mention the contents or subject of the video linked to in the OP:
Shaker wrote:


I remember when I first got hold of The End of Faith, I did what I always do with a good book and thought, I know, I'll jot down all the best written, most concise and incisive sentences, the best bits really worth remembering. I think I got about five pages in when I realised that I was actually copying the book verbatim.


Shaker

Quote:
Please indicate where in this post you mention the contents or subject of the video linked to in the OP


I refer you some earlier posts:

The Boyg wrote:
So what is the point in your participation in this thread if you refuse to discuss the video linked to in the OP?


Shaker wrote:
Initially, to indicate to genghiscant my enjoyment of and agreement with the video he kindly posted in his OP, which I was and am glad to see.


Pssst, it's the bit that moves.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Are you trying to claim that a nodding head emoticon is a "comment" now.

Part of one. The whole post was a comment: the emoticon was a part of it.


And yet the actual words make no mention of the video at all.

I think it's you who needs the lie down if you think that anyone is going to be fooled by this.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
And yet the actual words make no mention of the video at all.

I had already indicated to genghiscant my opinion of the video he posted.

Quote:
I think it's you who needs the lie down if you think that anyone is going to be fooled by this.  

Who do you think is going to be fooled by your assertion that you're actually interested in discussing Sam Harris or, indeed, absolutely anything at all?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
Please indicate where in this post you mention the contents or subject of the video linked to in the OP


I refer you some earlier posts:

The Boyg wrote:
So what is the point in your participation in this thread if you refuse to discuss the video linked to in the OP?


Shaker wrote:
Initially, to indicate to genghiscant my enjoyment of and agreement with the video he kindly posted in his OP, which I was and am glad to see.


Pssst, it's the bit that moves.


"Mention" Shaker.

You know, words and suchlike.  

You wouldn't refer to nodding your head in real life as "mentioning" something, now would you?

Where in that post do you actually "mention" either the video or it's contents (since you assert that I am wrong when I state that you have not mentioned it at all in that post)?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
And yet the actual words make no mention of the video at all.

I had already indicated to genghiscant my opinion of the video he posted.


And yet you make no mention of it at all.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
You wouldn't refer to nodding your head in real life as "mentioning" something, now would you?

I would regard it as a gesture

Quote:
to indicate .. my enjoyment of


and/or

Quote:
agreement with


something. Wouldn't you?

Quote:
Where in that post do you actually "mention" either the video or it's contents (since you assert that I am wrong when I state that you have not mentioned it at all in that post)?


The noddy emoticon is my comment on the video, directed at the poster who supplied it.

P.S. Are you being paid by the word, by any chance?
Derek

Well, I was going to give Shaker another can of whoop ass but it looks like The Borg has already opened a can for you so I will pour out a cup of tea, something I never did as a Mormon, and dunk some digestive whilst I watch the match.
Shaker

Oh look, the tag-team of tedium.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
You wouldn't refer to nodding your head in real life as "mentioning" something, now would you?

I would regard it as a gesture


But you wouldn't refer to that gesture as "mentioning" something, would you?



Quote:
Quote:
Where in that post do you actually "mention" either the video or it's contents (since you assert that I am wrong when I state that you have not mentioned it at all in that post)?


The noddy emoticon is my comment on the video, directed at the poster who supplied it.


But it isn't actually "mentioning" anything.

Which is strange because you were adamant that I was wrong when I said that "You never even mentioned the contents or subject of the video" in that post.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
But you wouldn't refer to that gesture as "mentioning" something, would you?

Sure, as good as. Not all communication has to be explicit.

Quote:
But it isn't actually "mentioning" anything.

Not in your opinion, I dare say. It's mentioning my enjoyment of and agreement with the video, as I intended it to mean.

Quote:
Which is strange because you were adamant that I was wrong when I said that "You never even mentioned the contents or subject of the video" in that post.  

Not strange at all as far as I'm concerned.

So, what's the going rate per word count, if you don't mind my asking?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But you wouldn't refer to that gesture as "mentioning" something, would you?

Sure, as good as. Not all communication has to be explicit.


So if you had simply nodded at someone if they showed you a picture you would later say (if for instance you were required to give an account of yourself) that you had mentioned the picture in conversation?

I fear that you have caught Leonard's bad habit of trying to invent new and unique defintions of common words in order yto try and justify your comments when backed into a corner.

   
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
So if you had simply nodded at someone if they showed you a picture you would later say (if for instance you were required to give an account of yourself) that you had mentioned the picture in conversation?

I would say that I had passed an opinion on it.
Quote:
I fear that you have caught Leonard's bad habit of trying to invent new and unique defintions of common words in order yto

Common words I'm good with but forgive me, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those particular ones  

So is it something like, I don't know, 10p per word, something like that, up to a certain limit?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So if you had simply nodded at someone if they showed you a picture you would later say (if for instance you were required to give an account of yourself) that you had mentioned the picture in conversation?

I would say that I had passed an opinion on it.


But you wouldn't say that you had "mentioned" it?

Because that would involve a bizarre definition of the word "mention".

So why are you trying to claim that a nodding head emoticon was you "mentioning" the video linked to in the OP?  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I fear that you have caught Leonard's bad habit of trying to invent new and unique defintions of common words in order yto

Common words I'm good with but forgive me, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those particular ones  


Reduced to pointing out typos now?

I apologise for saying earlier that you were scraping the barrel back then.

There was clearly even deeper scraping that you could stoop to than that.  
Derek

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So if you had simply nodded at someone if they showed you a picture you would later say (if for instance you were required to give an account of yourself) that you had mentioned the picture in conversation?

I would say that I had passed an opinion on it.
Quote:
I fear that you have caught Leonard's bad habit of trying to invent new and unique defintions of common words in order yto

Common words I'm good with but forgive me, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those particular ones  

So is it something like, I don't know, 10p per word, something like that, up to a certain limit?


Funny, I understood it perfectly, but there again you have informed me many times that my spelling is appalling whilst yours is immaculate. Seems like something you pick everybody up on, without noticing that someone with a good understanding of the English language, and a modicum of intellect, would just see what was supposed to be written and carry on. It is not like you give a flying frigate and are helping those with poor spelling, you just belittle them, then gloat and vaunt. Very arrogant and puerile
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I fear that you have caught Leonard's bad habit of trying to invent new and unique defintions of common words in order yto

Common words I'm good with but forgive me, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those particular ones  


Reduced to pointing out typos now?

I apologise for saying earlier that you were scraping the barrel back then.

There was clearly even deeper scraping that you could stoop to than that.  

When you're around, of course - you set 'em up and I'll knock 'em in, sort of thing.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Funny, I understood it perfectly, but there again you have informed me many times that my spelling is appalling

Yes.
Quote:
whilst yours is immaculate.

No. I've never claimed as much. On the whole, pretty damned good is about as far as you'll get me to go.

Quote:
Seems like something you pick everybody up on

Not always. Rarely, in fact. The odd little slip here and there - meh, we all do that, especially in haste. Some people just find spelling trickier than others - no biggie.

Those who set themselves up as being of above-average intelligence and as possessing superior skills with English and say so, on the other hand; perpetual malcontents, trolls, nitpickers, timewasters and general wankers - well, they're fair game.
Quote:
without noticing that someone with a good understanding of the English language, and a modicum of intellect, would just see what was supposed to be written and carry on. It is not like you give a flying frigate

About the proper use of our glorious language I do.

Quote:
and are helping those with poor spelling, you just belittle them, then gloat and vaunt. Very arrogant and puerile

For ever young, that's my motto.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:


Those who set themselves up as being of above-average intelligence and as possessing superior skills with English and say so, on the other hand; perpetual malcontents, trolls, nitpickers, timewasters and general wankers - well, they're fair game.


     
Derek

Shaker.

Quote:
Those who set themselves up as being of above-average intelligence and as possessing superior skills with English and say so, on the other hand; perpetual malcontents, trolls, nitpickers, timewasters and general wankers - well, they're fair game.


You do realise that you have just given a description of yourself, don't you?
Shaker

I know full well who I was describing, and it's not me.
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I fear that you have caught Leonard's bad habit of trying to invent new and unique defintions of common words in order yto

Common words I'm good with but forgive me, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those particular ones  


Reduced to pointing out typos now?

I apologise for saying earlier that you were scraping the barrel back then.

There was clearly even deeper scraping that you could stoop to than that.  


Have you finished derailing this thread now? Would you mind going away using short thrusting movements of your pelvic region & leave us to debate properly?
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
Have you finished derailing this thread now?


I wasn't the one who derailed this thread.

I was the one who commented on the video that you linked to in your OP.

If you want to accuse anyone of derailing this thread you should direct your comments at the person who didn't mention either the subject or content of the video but who simply launched into an attack against me for daring to be critical of it.

Doesn't seem like you're particularly interested in discussing the video either though, so you probably won't.  

I hope that you and Shaker enjoy your travels together on your little bandwagon.  
Powwow

The Banjo Jug Band! YEE HAW!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k2Ntl1uIHVc
genghiscant

pow wow wrote:
The Banjo Jug Band! YEE HAW!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k2Ntl1uIHVc


Excellent musicians.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum