By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 23 March 2017
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
Zekkyou said:

I've never said clarification wouldn't be useful, i just don't see why you'd immediately focus on such a specific combination of assumptions. If i said "i like apples" and "i don't like apple pie", i wouldn't expect people to say i'm being contradictory. I could understand if they asked why i felt that way, but i'd be pretty confused if they skipped too "it seems like you're being contradictory".

You've right this conversation has gone round in circle, but I've already been the following speaker in this discussion. When I've repeated stuff it's because either you did, or because you claimed i believe something counter to what I've actually previously said. I just read through our discussion again now to double check, and i often even qualify when my response to a point is one i made earlier.

Blah is by its very definition a dismissive way of condensing text, and "fairyland" is outright mocking. I'd have thought you above interjecting mockery into a discussion, but if i'm wrong in that assumption then fine. Clearly my impression of you was inaccurate.

How can i explain myself any clearer than in my previous post? You mimic the model of summary i used there, so clearly it makes sense to you. If you disagree then fine, but i'm not aware of any simpler way of explaining it. If you have one then by all means show me, i'd love to see it so i can utilise it down the line.

Your example doesn't even match what you're arguing against, this is more akin to someone saying Ferraris are too fast then turning around and saying a Porsche drives at the right speed, both vehicles drive at similar speeds and so on which would make the statement contradictory. This is why clarification was asked it's not confusing on any manner what the posts said, to me it comes more across as you confusing yourself trying to read between some lines that aren't there.

Blah is also a common used phrase in the UK with many contexts, when explaining or bring up something to someone who already is aware of previous information it's not uncommon to say "Ok here's how it goes sort this out you know the usual blah blah..." the is nothing aggressive in that unless you yourself are looking for aggression. What ever impression you want to have is up to you but tbh if I get the impression that you're deliberately trying to go around in circles or refusing to clarify I'll highlight that in a blunt way if need be, you went on about assumptions yes then I responded with that he maybe should have clarified what he meant. After that you went off on your argument about assumptions like you're looking for some hidden meaning in the post as I mentioned above it's almost as if you're trying to read between lines that aren't even there.

When I asked you what it's all about you gave vague side stepping reply which further made it look like a deliberate attempt to be awkward, an easy way to be clear or even ask if you don't understand something. If your arguing that we aren't sure what variables he means so it's an assumption at this point and maybe he just prefers the form factor of Vita then yeah I agree with that in fact I already have which is why I brought up clarification to begin with, instead you've come up with a confusing angle that's not even clear on what you're trying to argue, tbh I think you've misread something somewhere.

It wasn't meant to be a perfect comparison, just an easy demonstration of another situation in which multiple assumptions can be made (and assumptions about those assumptions). That car example is contradictory from the start, since there's only 1 variable and it can be controlled for. You can drive slower, but you can't make the Switch smaller or stop apple pie being apple pie (bar adding a creative assortment of additives :p)

I live in the UK and i can't say I've ever seen it used outside of a "doesn't matter enough to be said" context, so i'm stuck with the actual definition. It seems a bit silly for you to claim i might be 'reading between the lines', given that's the foundation of your original argument (a desire for clarification hadn't been expressed at that point).

You've not answered by question. You wanted me to be clearer, so i condensed my point into an easy to read 3-point question/answer summary, a style you then replicated in response. How could it have been clearer?