Your definitions do not hold water.

If a liar is someone who tells a lie, and a lie is a statement that is innaccurate then anyone that makes an incorrect statement is a liar!

I am sorry that you cannot squirm out of this.

A "liar" is not merely someone who tells a lie, *******. It's someone who lies so much that dishonesty becomes a character trait.

You're doing it again -- attributing your bullshit to me and then attacking me for that bullshit, even though it's not what i said, not what I meant and not what I explained the first time you lied about what I said/meant.

You are a dishonest scumfuck. I pity you swamp, I really do.

How can you redefine liar and lie and then get upset because I call BS on you.

Because I told you how I defined it weeks ago, and explained why I define it the way I do, and you chose yet again to be a dishonest fucktard and pretend that conversation never happened.

Just because you say black is white does not mean I have to accept it.

So when I say you called him a liar I am right, you said he lied.

When I say I am not a liar I am right, your definition isnt the one our society currently uses.

So again I am calling BS!

We both have a definition of liar. I used one and you used the other. Neither of us is right or wrong. You of course want to define me as wrong and a liar. I say I am more correct, but that isnt really important. You do need your definition to be right to keep incorrectly declaring me a liar.

As a Polish American I have of course heard the name Korzybski. I admit freely that I did not know of his work. I of course looked it up and read a little about him.

This is what Conservatives talk about when we attack "Intellectuals". Not that we are opposed to smart people, but that we are opposed to taking something that everyone understands and uses and claiming it is no longer valid because of a theoretical Linguist.

And this is an interesting theory. It just gets clumsy in real life. Afterall I could change my name tomorrow, so when I arrive at a dinner party does the host have to say this "Was" Edward? Does Google need to change its search engine so there are no "To Be" errors?

I think the way almost all Americans speak is ok. This is a common way of speaking for my society.

No, fucktard, your lie here isn't about whether one definition is correct and the other isn't. It's about you claiming I was using one when you knew full ******* well I was using the other. That's the dishonest part.

Incidentally, I guess you didn't read the part where your Wikipedia definition isn't the actual dictionary definition. Still waiting for your apology and admission that you were wrong.

As for Korzybski, try to learn something for once. I know it goes against your relig... err, politics to learn anything, but try.

There's nothing clumsy about avoiding the verb "to be" when it's used in this fashion. Let's take a common example:

You frequently make the statement "anton is a cocktail party elite, ivory tower liberal". I then scold you for lying, since it is a lie (on a few really amusing levels).

If instead you said "anton's position seems typical of a cocktail party elite ivory tower liberal", well now you're not talking about me but describing my position. And while I might still call it a lie or incorrect, and explain why it's wrong, the discussion is already less personal and less likely to get ugly, since you're not lying about me but about what I said.

Further: when you say repeatedly "anton is a cocktail party elite ivory tower liberal" then that opinion becomes encoded in your brain as fact. And when I then go and do something that isn't typical of a cocktail party elite ivory tower liberal, your brain starts misfiring because I'm not meeting your preconceptions, which then causes you to twist yourself into knots trying to explain what I said/did so that it fits those preconceptions, or else just ignore my words or actions entirely since they don't fit in the box.

This seems very complex for political debate.

I think the way people talk is kind of verbal shorthand.

You understand what I am saying, because you always explain why I am wrong implying your knowledge of my intent.

Swamp is a mainstream Conservative with Liberterian leanings may or may not be correct.
Swamps politcal views seem to indicate a mainstream Conservative with Libertarian leanings.

I dont think either is really superior.

When I say Anton is a CT elitest no one here thinks I coded your DNA and can prove that is who you are for now and forever. Why do I need to say it?

If you explain why my use of the verb "To Be" is incorrect you must have known what I meant. simple.

Oh, OK, I see what you're trying to say.

So basically you're OK with saying things you don't really mean, just so long as people usually get the gist.

And you don't think using more accurate language might make communicating with people a little smoother, and avoid problems when they don't get the gist of it?

I think my way of commuicating is more mainstream and popular.

Lets go to the Mall again...100 people.

Is this statement correct. Brittany Spears is a Singer.

When I tell them that you have to say "Brittany Spears has been a singer in the past according to the best available data but may not be tomorrow".....I think you get my point.

 

You seriously care more about whether the words you use are "mainstream" than whether they are clear and effective.

You're damaged, swamp. Hopelessly, irreparably damaged.

By the way, you poor pathetic waste of oxygen, Britney Spears is a singer by everything I've posted in this thread. She sings for a ******* living, and she's been singing for years. You're so ignorant you can't even come up with a decent example to mock me with.

Here, try this one on the 100 voices in the mall in your head:

Oliver North is a criminal;
versus Oliver North was convicted of crimes related to the Iran-Contra scandal.