Space, Time, and Paradoxes

[evolution]

Well I have already explained my position on why I did what I did.

It also appears that you were expecting me to change my name anyway, and as such syou sarted accusing others as being me, which I found quite humorous to say the least. No one else was making that assumption, and some were even telling you that it did not appear that way to them.

It's not that I was expecting it. It's simply that you suddenly stopped posting (as creation)--

So, if you call just a few days of not posting, "suddenly stopped posting", then okay. But as far as I am aware most people do not usually jump to the conclusion that someone has reappeared under another name after just only a few days of not posting. Unless of course they were aware that they could not post under their usual name?

and just at the time that you were supposed to be coming up with an example of incompatible dictionary definitions per the requirements given--and then others have suddenly appeared who have some of your same quirks. It's not difficult to figure out that one is dealing with a sock in that situation.

What has a "sock" got to do with any thing?

For you to jump to the conclusion that others who have, so called, "suddenly appeared", during my not posting for only a very few days could appear as though you were expecting some thing like this to happen.

Now, as for "me supposedly to be coming up with an example of incompatible dictionary definitions per the requirements given", then you will have to refresh my memory. What thread was this in, and what were the actual 'requirements given' for me to abide by exactly?

[Terrapin Station]

It's not that I was expecting it. It's simply that you suddenly stopped posting (as creation)--

So, if you call just a few days of not posting, "suddenly stopped posting", then okay. But as far as I am aware most people do not usually jump to the conclusion that someone has reappeared under another name after just only a few days of not posting. Unless of course they were aware that they could not post under their usual name?

and just at the time that you were supposed to be coming up with an example of incompatible dictionary definitions per the requirements given--and then others have suddenly appeared who have some of your same quirks. It's not difficult to figure out that one is dealing with a sock in that situation.

What has a "sock" got to do with any thing?

For you to jump to the conclusion that others who have, so called, "suddenly appeared", during my not posting for only a very few days could appear as though you were expecting some thing like this to happen.

Now, as for "me supposedly to be coming up with an example of incompatible dictionary definitions per the requirements given", then you will have to refresh my memory. What thread was this in, and what were the actual 'requirements given' for me to abide by exactly?

I'd be up for talking about something other than talking about talking about your posting quirks.

[evolution]

So, if you call just a few days of not posting, "suddenly stopped posting", then okay. But as far as I am aware most people do not usually jump to the conclusion that someone has reappeared under another name after just only a few days of not posting. Unless of course they were aware that they could not post under their usual name?



What has a "sock" got to do with any thing?

For you to jump to the conclusion that others who have, so called, "suddenly appeared", during my not posting for only a very few days could appear as though you were expecting some thing like this to happen.

Now, as for "me supposedly to be coming up with an example of incompatible dictionary definitions per the requirements given", then you will have to refresh my memory. What thread was this in, and what were the actual 'requirements given' for me to abide by exactly?

I'd be up for talking about something other than talking about talking about your posting quirks.

But you just make the claim that I was "supposed" to do some thing, per your given requirements. I asked you nicely to remind me of what this was exactly, so that I could then do what I was supposedly "supposed" to do. Yet, you respond with this kind of completely off topic remark.

So, we have yet ANOTHER ONE who makes claims, but does not provide just one solitary thing to back up and support their claim. So be it.

[Terrapin Station]

I'd be up for talking about something other than talking about talking about your posting quirks.

But you just make the claim that I was "supposed" to do some thing, per your given requirements. I asked you nicely to remind me of what this was exactly, so that I could then do what I was supposedly "supposed" to do. Yet, you respond with this kind of completely off topic remark.

So, we have yet ANOTHER ONE who makes claims, but does not provide just one solitary thing to back up and support their claim. So be it.

I was being sarcastic about the fact that you bailed from posting as "creation" right after I asked you to back up the untenable claim that there are incompatible definitions in dictionaries, where (a) we're not simply talking about different senses of terms (for example "gay" as carefree/happy and "gay" as homosexual), and (b) we're not simply comparing specialist dictionaries to general dictionaries.

[evolution]

But you just make the claim that I was "supposed" to do some thing, per your given requirements. I asked you nicely to remind me of what this was exactly, so that I could then do what I was supposedly "supposed" to do. Yet, you respond with this kind of completely off topic remark.

So, we have yet ANOTHER ONE who makes claims, but does not provide just one solitary thing to back up and support their claim. So be it.

I was being sarcastic about the fact that you bailed from posting as "creation" right after I asked you to back up the untenable claim that there are incompatible definitions in dictionaries, where (a) we're not simply talking about different senses of terms (for example "gay" as carefree/happy and "gay" as homosexual), and (b) we're not simply comparing specialist dictionaries to general dictionaries.

But there are incompatible definitions in dictionaries.

[Terrapin Station]

I was being sarcastic about the fact that you bailed from posting as "creation" right after I asked you to back up the untenable claim that there are incompatible definitions in dictionaries, where (a) we're not simply talking about different senses of terms (for example "gay" as carefree/happy and "gay" as homosexual), and (b) we're not simply comparing specialist dictionaries to general dictionaries.

But there are incompatible definitions in dictionaries.

Example?

[evolution]

But there are incompatible definitions in dictionaries.

Example?

Finally clarification is sought.

The definitions for the words 'paradox' and 'argue'.

[Terrapin Station]

Example?

Finally clarification is sought.

The definitions for the words 'paradox' and 'argue'.

You'd need to specify the definitions and the dictionaries in question.

[evolution]

Finally clarification is sought.

The definitions for the words 'paradox' and 'argue'.

You'd need to specify the definitions and the dictionaries in question.

Do I?

Are you not capable of looking them up yourself in all of those dictionaries you have on hand there with you?

Considering how well versed you said you were with dictionaries, then I would have thought you already knew this fact. And, considering that you even work in writing some dictionaries, then I thought this would be a very simple exercise for you?

The words 'argue' and 'paradox' both have completely opposing definitions to themselves.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you not capable of looking them up yourself in all of those dictionaries you have on hand there with you?

Sure I am. Here's the problem: I'm not finding any incompatible definitions.

So can you present a couple?

[evolution]

Are you not capable of looking them up yourself in all of those dictionaries you have on hand there with you?

Sure I am. Here's the problem: I'm not finding any incompatible definitions.

So can you present a couple?

Ah okay, so you have been looking, but you have just not found any yet.

'Argue', logical reasoning, coming together to a shared, agreed upon view, or, disputing, disagreeing over opposing views.

'Paradox', a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true, or, a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.

So, to 'argue' with you, for example, we could be agreeing or disagreeing, and, a 'paradox' is either seeming absurd or contradictory but expressing a truth or seemingly sound or true but is illogical, or contradictory.

And, as I have been saying and pointing out, there is NO one right or wrong way to define words. Everyone has and uses their own definitions, and as can be clearly seen some words even have completely opposing definitions, and because of these factors is there any wonder why there is so much confusion and misunderstanding among 'you', human beings?

Until absolute clarity is confirmed from one another, then all that is really happening among communication is just assumptions and/or presuming, and we all KNOW that ALL presumptions and assumptions could be wrong, or partly wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure I am. Here's the problem: I'm not finding any incompatible definitions.

So can you present a couple?

Ah okay, so you have been looking, but you have just not found any yet.

'Argue', logical reasoning, coming together to a shared, agreed upon view, or, disputing, disagreeing over opposing views.

'Paradox', a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true, or, a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.

So, to 'argue' with you, for example, we could be agreeing or disagreeing, and, a 'paradox' is either seeming absurd or contradictory but expressing a truth or seemingly sound or true but is illogical, or contradictory.

And, as I have been saying and pointing out, there is NO one right or wrong way to define words. Everyone has and uses their own definitions, and as can be clearly seen some words even have completely opposing definitions, and because of these factors is there any wonder why there is so much confusion and misunderstanding among 'you', human beings?

Until absolute clarity is confirmed from one another, then all that is really happening among communication is just assumptions and/or presuming, and we all KNOW that ALL presumptions and assumptions could be wrong, or partly wrong.

??????????

What in the world are you even talking about here?

Aren't you claiming that there are terms that have incompatible definitions in two or more dictionaries? You're suggesting a couple terms for that. Well present the definitions in question, the definitions that you believe are incompatible, by quoting the definitions in question and telling us what dictionaries they're from. You'd have to quote at least two definitions for each term.

For example, here are two definitions of "argue":

"to give reasons for or against something"--that's from Merriam Webster online.

"to present reasons for or against a thing" --that's from dictionary.com

Are those definitions incompatible? No.

So give an example of incompatible definitions.

[evolution]

Ah okay, so you have been looking, but you have just not found any yet.

'Argue', logical reasoning, coming together to a shared, agreed upon view, or, disputing, disagreeing over opposing views.

'Paradox', a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true, or, a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.

So, to 'argue' with you, for example, we could be agreeing or disagreeing, and, a 'paradox' is either seeming absurd or contradictory but expressing a truth or seemingly sound or true but is illogical, or contradictory.

And, as I have been saying and pointing out, there is NO one right or wrong way to define words. Everyone has and uses their own definitions, and as can be clearly seen some words even have completely opposing definitions, and because of these factors is there any wonder why there is so much confusion and misunderstanding among 'you', human beings?

Until absolute clarity is confirmed from one another, then all that is really happening among communication is just assumptions and/or presuming, and we all KNOW that ALL presumptions and assumptions could be wrong, or partly wrong.

??????????

What in the world are you even talking about here?

Aren't you claiming that there are terms that have incompatible definitions in two or more dictionaries? You're suggesting a couple terms for that. Well present the definitions in question, the definitions that you believe are incompatible, by quoting the definitions in question and telling us what dictionaries they're from. You'd have to quote at least two definitions for each term.

For example, here are two definitions of "argue":

"to give reasons for or against something"--that's from Merriam Webster online.

"to present reasons for or against a thing" --that's from dictionary.com

Are those definitions incompatible? No.

So give an example of incompatible definitions.

Are you BLIND? I wrote the two definitions out for you. Could you not SEE them?

If you now asking for the names of dictionaries, then that is another matter.

[Terrapin Station]

??????????

What in the world are you even talking about here?

Aren't you claiming that there are terms that have incompatible definitions in two or more dictionaries? You're suggesting a couple terms for that. Well present the definitions in question, the definitions that you believe are incompatible, by quoting the definitions in question and telling us what dictionaries they're from. You'd have to quote at least two definitions for each term.

For example, here are two definitions of "argue":

"to give reasons for or against something"--that's from Merriam Webster online.

"to present reasons for or against a thing" --that's from dictionary.com

Are those definitions incompatible? No.

So give an example of incompatible definitions.

Are you BLIND? I wrote the two definitions out for you. Could you not SEE them?

If you now asking for the names of dictionaries, then that is another matter.

Ah--was your "or" supposed to be the dividing point between two different definitions? Maybe you could make that clearer when you write? (Because why couldn't that "or" be in a single dictionary's definition?)

At any rate, so yeah, what dictionaries were you using there?

[evolution]

Are you BLIND? I wrote the two definitions out for you. Could you not SEE them?

If you now asking for the names of dictionaries, then that is another matter.

Ah--was your "or" supposed to be the dividing point between two different definitions?

Yes.

Maybe you could make that clearer when you write?

How could I have made it clearer, for you?

I used a comma before and after the 'or' word so that it appeared as two completely separated definitions. Also, I thought the obvious incompatibility in the two separated by the 'or' word definitions would have made the distinction between the two blatantly obvious also.

(Because why couldn't that "or" be in a single dictionary's definition?)

What is the difference if it was or was not in a single dictionary's different incompatible definitions?

At any rate, so yeah, what dictionaries were you using there?

Google