theklng said:
you and i work on different levels. i'll only post this short notice and read any remarks upon it, because quite frankly, i can't be bothered about this anymore.
what you write about yourself is what i wrote about you before. your use of the word "clarity" is superficial, again with creating purpose for yourself (i am talking strictly out of what you did here in regards to my first post; i want you to learn from your mistake there). you're not the editor of this forum and as such, it is not your duty or responsibility to edit or change them. you do so of your own will. i wouldn't have said a word if you were an editor because it would be implicit that it was your job (personally, i can't imagine the sum of money it would take to pay someone to clean up these forums every day).
as for the "philosophical" answer: i could give you a superficial one, but i would be lying. you cannot explain the actions of a person without going through his or her mind first. for me, the borderline between the profound and the mundane does not exist, and i will utilize language to its best extent; to put down exactly what i mean in words what my thoughts were in my mind.
if you limit yourself to thinking in categories or genres, and cannot cross from one to the other, there will be a point where you will find it hard to explain yourself. i have had cases where language has been unable to supply a syntax for my semantic, and i consider that enough of a limit; much less would i limit myself to only speaking certain words in certain communiques.
despite all i have written, i want to thank you. i learn while in communication, and it is often i get new perspectives from simply talking. it's not what you say, it's not how you say it, it's why you say it.
I must say, while this has been a very enlightening discussion, I must disagree with your method of simply regarding a single example. You appear to have taken my first action as my only, something that is not the case. So, in this way, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, simply because we're once again where we've started, with so many words expressing so little.
As such, it has been a fun perspective shift, but I don't believe myself "mistaken" because I adhere to syntax as something positive for language. On the same vein, I don't regard laws as restrictive. You are only as limited as your medium, and as such, I feel no limits when dealing with syntax. You apparently have semantics that are inexpressible through syntax. I can accept that you have such a barrier, where I feel I do not. By that vein alone, I would agree with you more than any English scholar, professor, or editor would. Granted, there are still thoughts of "If they just tried..." in my head. Though, such qualms are a function of my understanding, and as something irrevocable from my mind, I simply cannot hold my perspective against you.
So, I think the order of the night is "agree to disagree." Your perspective is unique, but not likely something I will ever understand. In retrospect, it's been a fond pleasure.
tikiwargod said:
I have no problem with people who disagree but if they can't defend their argument with rational though then I tend to tear them apart. I hate how everyone assumes i'm arguing just to be right when i'm trying to prove that they have no actual arguments and they just disagree the second you bring up a concept. It makes me think of almost everyone in my class, I'm talking to my friend about how someone was saying that piracy is not theft because nothing is taken and no-one looses anything (in this forum actually) and I was saying how I disagreed and why (you still get something out of piracy and the compagnies loose money)then this idiot pipes up about how it's ok because everyone does it and he wouldn't pay for thoes things anyways and when I proved him wrong he just started yelling and saying i'm stubborn and wrong.
We should have a debate sometime. I'd love to sit down for another long discussion like the one above, although preferably not while de-railing the thread next time.
