For those of you who are always right...

[outhouse]

:yes: and :clap Katzpur.

Know-it-all-ism is easily of the most well represented religions here.

Many people turn away from education and knowledge due to religious faith, fanaticism and fundamentalism.

That's one thing.


But isn't willful ignorance worse then backing knowledge?

 

[BSM1]

Knowing about what you are talking about, really helps too. [/quote

What a novel idea. :yes:

 

[Thief]

An ex-boss of mine tried to write me up for being a know-it-all.....for real.

As toolmakers go I have a knack for the work.
He did not.........not at all.

So, I had found employment elsewhere.
I did note on the application NOT to contact current employer.
Apparently they did anyway.

Obviously privy to my pending departure.....he wanted one more poke at me.

He calls me to the office and hands me the write-up.
I said.....Really?.....You're writing me up for being a know-it-all?

and he wanted me to sign it!!!!!!!!!!

I said ...No.
He said .....Why not?

You didn't spell knoe-it-all right!

I tossed it back at him and left.

 

[Sapiens]

And there YOU go - shoving words and meanings into the mouths of those who didn't say them.

What Katzpur said was this: ...

She didn't say dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum. She did say that it CAN come from either end of a spectrum, and it certainly can. I see nothing in her statement that warranted assuming that she didn't know the meaning of the word.

Actually, she did say that dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum.

In this context "can" denotes the ability to do something (e.g., "can come from either end of a spectrum"), so it is assumed that any alternative denotes "can not," (e.g., "can not come from either end of a spectrum"). Thus what she said, in essence was, "... dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum."

Were she merely denoting a possibility out of several alternatives (e.g., "either end of a spectrum is possible, but so is somewhere in between"), as you are suggesting, she, being well bred and educated, would have used "may" or "might," both of which indicate possibility rather than ability.

But grammar aside, parsing her statement the way you suggest, reduces it to meaninglessness. In that case all she was saying was that there was a possibility of coming from anywhere at all (e.g., no where in particular) a concept that leaves her entire paragraph with neither meaning nor significance.

 

[Apex]

Actually, she did say that dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum.

In this context "can" denotes the ability to do something (e.g., "can come from either end of a spectrum"), so it is assumed that any alternative denotes "can not," (e.g., "can not come from either end of a spectrum"). Thus what she said, in essence was, "... dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum."

Were she merely denoting a possibility out of several alternatives (e.g., "either end of a spectrum is possible, but so is somewhere in between"), as you are suggesting, she, being well bred and educated, would have used "may" or "might," both of which indicate possibility rather than ability.

But grammar aside, parsing her statement the way you suggest, reduces it to meaninglessness. In that case all she was saying was that there was a possibility of coming from anywhere at all (e.g., no where in particular) a concept that leaves her entire paragraph with neither meaning nor significance.

I really hope English is a second language for you.

 

[Sapiens]

I really hope English is a second language for you.

Just put your laptop in a hat and then read it ... all should be clear to you then.

 

[Katzpur]

And there YOU go - shoving words and meanings into the mouths of those who didn't say them.

She didn't say dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum. She did say that it CAN come from either end of a spectrum, and it certainly can. I see nothing in her statement that warranted assuming that she didn't know the meaning of the word.

I really hope English is a second language for you.

As I said in my OP and repeated in a later post, there is little point in even responding to people whose desire to be right 100% of the time is the overriding factor in their contributing to any thread. I think that a lot of the time, the motivation behind their posts is just hostility towards everyone and everything in general. Attacking certain individuals or certain religions is just a good way for them to let off steam. It's probably a pretty effective short-term solution, but in the long run, it almost always backfires. After nearly 10 years on this forum, I've learned that much. Might as well just let the fire burn out on its own. Cut off the oxygen, you know?

 

[Sapiens]

As I said in my OP and repeated in a later post, there is little point in even responding to people whose desire to be right 100% of the time is the overriding factor in their contributing to any thread. I think that a lot of the time, the motivation behind their posts is just hostility towards everyone and everything in general. Attacking certain individuals or certain religions is just a good way for them to let off steam. It's probably a pretty effective short-term solution, but in the long run, it almost always backfires. After nearly 10 years on this forum, I've learned that much. Might as well just let the fire burn out on its own. Cut off the oxygen, you know?

I, for one, have not desire to be right 100% of the time, if I were I would never learn anything ... and what fun is that? But I do get indigestion from dealing with stupid people who can't read and whose command of the language is limited, and who expect others to cover their intelligence and language abilities with a basket. I've generally found that a good long-term solution is to treat them with the care and respect that they deserve and to try and ignore their clumsy attempts at innuendo.

 

[Katzpur]

I, for one, have not desire to be right 100% of the time, if I were I would never learn anything ... and what fun is that? But I do get indigestion from dealing with stupid people who can't read and whose command of the language is limited, and who expect others to cover their intelligence and language abilities with a basket. I've generally found that a good long-term solution is to treat them with the care and respect that they deserve and to try and ignore their clumsy attempts at innuendo.

If you're implying that I am a "stupid person who can't read and whose command of the language is limited," I can only laugh. If that comment was not directed to me, I apologize for my mistake.

 

[idav]

Whats awesome are those threads where both sides are right for hundreds of pages.

 

[Amechania]

I always try to be fair and hear someone out. Its just that, well, some people are bonkers.

 

[Katzpur]

Whats awesome are those threads where both sides are right for hundreds of pages.

LOL! Yeah, and not only for hundreds of pages but for two or three years. I'm in awe of the patience some of these folks have.

 

[Mister Emu]

"For those of you who are always right..."

You rang? Did you have a burning question, and you just knew only the wondrous I could answer?

I've not read the thread, so I may be repeating, but what amazes me about such mindsets is that they are often mired is such readily apparent ignorance that it is laughable.

 

[Sapiens]

If you're implying that I am a "stupid person who can't read and whose command of the language is limited," I can only laugh. If that comment was not directed to me, I apologize for my mistake.

I described you in a previous post as, "being well bred and educated." Perhaps I need to reevaluate?

 

[Kathryn]

Actually, she did say that dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum.

Where did she say this? Here's Katzpur's post that you responded to by giving her the definition of dogmatism as if she didn't know it:

Originally Posted by Katzpur
And the interesting thing is that the dogmatism can come from either end of the spectrum.

In this context "can" denotes the ability to do something (e.g., "can come from either end of a spectrum"), so it is assumed that any alternative denotes "can not," (e.g., "can not come from either end of a spectrum"). Thus what she said, in essence was, "... dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum."

Interesting. "It can also be assumed" that in this context the word "can" is interchangeable with the word "may" to the author - a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but considering how well bred and educated Katzpur is, I was more than prepared to let her slide on that one - especially since her meaning, in the context of the discussion, was so abundantly clear.

But grammar aside, parsing her statement the way you suggest, reduces it to meaninglessness. In that case all she was saying was that there was a possibility of coming from anywhere at all (e.g., no where in particular) a concept that leaves her entire paragraph with neither meaning nor significance.

Sorry - couldn't resist!

See, I don't have to always be right, but I do always enjoy the opportunity to be...creative.

 

[Whiterain]

My intellect was insulted a few times.

I'm trying to get my act together.

 

[Sapiens]

Creative can/may be good, especialy in one who is not so hidebound as to be incapable of recognizing or admitting error.

 

[Kathryn]

Creative can/may be good, especial in one who is not so hidebound as to be incapable of recognizing or admitting error.

So...there's hope yet for you, since apparently you do have a tad of the creative in your psyche as well. What a powerful combination creativity and humor are, especially when mixed with a smidgen of humility!

I think that Revolting fellow has this art form down pat -but I digress.

 

[`mud]

I would like to use the word 'dogmatism' or 'dogmatic' or 'dogmatically' here for the first time in my life.
I should say for the first, second, and third attempt to use these forms of the word,
and I still don't pretend to know what it means, maybe in avoidence to fact or truth.
I have to look it up, I thought so....I don't need to use the term,
I already know it.....silly term...
I'll not use it again.
I wish you people would use more exact terms.
Try to describe what you mean by disagreement to truth,
those things that I say in dis-agreement to what you may say in response to what I might have said.
OK....say that again !
~
'mud

 

[Wirey]

If all you morons would stop disagreeing with me, we could all be right.

Ted Koppel and Pamela Anderson are the same person! Wake up, sheeple!