Posted by bistiza on 9/26/2013 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Revisionist history at it's finest.

There's no revision there. It's just replacing one word with two others that mean the same thing to demonstrate how it was used correctly.

Six days after that post it was used "on purpose".  Why didn't you say it was used on purpose with that last novella you posted?  You certainly said enough in it....

It was always used on purpose. I was merely demonstrating it was used correctly as well as on purpose.

Even if it was on purpose, it was still incorrect, right?

No.

It was used correctly in the context.

It can only be considered "incorrect" in a technical sense. The very POINT I'm making is that this is irrelevant because the contextual use is far more important here than the technical use.

Again, the quest to prove me wrong here is doomed to fail, because it's not a "black and white" issue.

Also, your indicated before you were blocking me. Either you lied or you have removed the block to join the crusade. Either way it's pretty funny.

Technically incorrect is still incorrect, right?

In other words, it means nothing.

Not asking if it's relevant.

You admitted the word is "technically incorrect." Right?
 

bis I meant for ALL OF YOU to get out of my thread. unless you want to talk about something even remotely related to my orignal topic, mmmkay?

Posted by bistiza on 9/26/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Not asking if it's relevant.

You admitted the word is "technically incorrect." Right?
 

If it's not relevant, then it is meaningless to the discussion, as I already pointed out.

Why are you looking to clarify a detail of the discussion which is irrelevant and therefore meaningless?

Bizfucious has his own dictionary, did you guys forget?

Did you admit that it was "technically incorrect?"

(do I have to quote your post?)

Posted by bistiza on 9/26/2013 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Bizfucious has his own dictionary, did you guys forget?

burnsyluck has lost his mind, but then we're all aware of that.

Did you admit that it was "technically incorrect?"

(do I have to quote your post?)

What's the point? That would mean nothing, so you've accomplished nothing by trying to point it out.

Do you have anything else, or are we done now?

Posted by bistiza on 9/24/2013 8:36:00 AM (view original):

I just got back around to reading this, but I refer you to my previous statement: 

You can't use words and give them any definition you want them to have. That's not how language works.

And I refer you to my previous statement, which explains to anyone with even a remote understanding of the English language how that isn't what I did. If you still don't understand, then you never will, and its your own fault.

Bottom line: YOUR inability to understand my purposeful use of a specific word despite my explaining it for you doesn't somehow translate into an error on my part.

Conversely, if you say banana, it doesn't mean apple, even if that's what you had intended to say.  And if you meant apple but said banana anyway, you can't expect everyone else to know what you meant and insist that "your meaning was perfectly clear."

Except that's not an accurate analogy of this situation at all.

In this case, I substituted a word which means the same thing but isn't technically correct, as I explained.

So a more accurate analogy is this: If you say "red apple" but actually meant "red delicious apple" because you wanted to avoid a connotation of the word delicious, then your meaning is essentially the same and can easily be understood by everyone even though you took away the word "delicious".

Of course, those who want to be sticklers would contend you were wrong since you took out the word "delicious" even though the meaning stayed the same. Then again, these people may have an axe to grind and an overly obsessive determination to prove someone wrong over anything they can, so they should probably just go get a life and get over the fact that it isn't happening this time.

Well, it would show that you were wrong. So, you know. That.