Mutable
- Thread starter VIRII
- Start date
I think most people here will not be familiar with them which is not an issue, they are obscure words imho.Ice Tea said:I was just pasting them up incase anybody asked what they ment
What I would like to do is establish just how obscure they are.
Gah he got me making a typo and I genuinely tend to check for them in my posts as well.Solari said:<pedantic>obfuscate</pedantic>? I can unequivocally say that I do
I used to love baffling my old boss with words like quixotic, refulgent, and some other oddities
Refulgent .... that is a cracking word. Although you admit to using the words not to communicate but to confuse.
LOL. No. I'm not a programmer nor did I know they were commonly used in programming to be honest.Augmented said:
I just felt that this post was pointless posturing and a weak attempt at validating a poor argument by use of uncommon words:
Kermit said:
Pretentious pap imho.
Rich_L said:That post makes perfect sense, concisely conveys a point, if it sent you scurrying for a dictionary that's not his fault
To me it simply shows that perhaps the poster has a background in the subject, where such terms are probably more common than in 'normal' discussion.
How strange you used the same terminology to defend it as the original poster did...... or not strange perhaps
Option 1
If intelligence is mutable, it's ipso facto able to be changed: whether autodidactically or by teaching on the part of another, either way it's teaching.
Option 2
If intelligence is changeable it is able to be changed either by self education or by conventional teaching. Either way it is teaching.
I think my paraphrase is both more concise and easier to grasp all round, unless of course you get off on unnecessarily convoluted language designed specifically to obfuscate and discompose the target whilst simultaneously bolstering the ego of the poster ......
Although as for the actual argument itself it is a cobblers. I can change your intelligence by subjecting you to brain trauma. Therefore just because it can be changed to your detriment it does not mean it can be increased.
phykell said:I do and I think the use of the word, "obfuscate" can be in preference to "confuse" because the former tends to imply a more deliberate action and it's less "clumsy" sounding in some cases. For example, if someone "obfuscates the accounts", it implies a deliberate attempt to confuse others. If someone "confuses" the accounts, the implication isn't necessarily that the action was deliberate and I don't like the sound of "confuses" anyway in that context.
Mutable and immutable are just, as some have said, words that have become more commonly used by programmers. I tend to leave the word, "mutable" to design specifications where I may wish to obfuscate how something is intended to work
A more common option for obfuscate is "cloud"........
I was not aware of mutable being a programming thing so perhaps I'll edit the first post to "outside of programming".
Hehehe, my point exactly. Although Rich L and arcadefire disagree, but then they always appear to back the poster who posted the phrase.....Magister said:Some people see "clever" words and assume he must know what he's talking about, in this case I think he doesn't.
It reads betterRich_L said:I've no idea what you're on about, I assume this is from a thread somewhere?
Far better.
It highlights what pap the first one was.
"If something is changeable it can be changed" is the meaning of the first part of his post..... what was the point in that other than trying to clarify the meaning of mutable?
Looks like ego stroking masterbation to me rich, vomit inducing even as is the mutual nature of it all.
Last edited:
No not at all. Where have I said "use the simplest possible language"?dirtydog said:
Conversely are you saying "make your posts as deliberately wordy and unnecessarily obfuscated as possible" in order to try and appear intelligent?
That appears to be what you are saying....
Knowledge is not a measure of intelligenceRich_L said:I think that one should be able to post in whatever manner they wish, if people are too thick to understand they can look it up and get cleverer, that's got to be better than making clever people stupider by making them speak thick.
tongue slightly in cheek, principle sound though..
Deliberately using obscure words to try and infer some sort of linguistic superiority or to attempt to give credence to your argument is far from clever, it is infact quite stupid as it results in the opposite to intended effect.
It just smacks of some little kid getting all uppity and onto his little rocking high horse pulling faces at people. Particularly when it is just more semantic drivel as to the exact meaning of a word.
Looking down your nose at people with less interest in expanding their language capabilities beyond your own is equally pitiful. Typical of the pro PC pro multicultural posters approach to everything though. Claim to like diversity and then look down on those who disagree or don't share their views. Vomit inducing hypocrisy
aardvark said:
It does seems that some people do like to use words with the intention of confusing others. It seems that they derive some sort of superiority over others by doing so. Perhaps they were bullied at school or have some self worth issues, or maybe they have tiny manhoods. Is your boss just being an idiot towards you or is he jovially pulling your leg?
dirtydog said:
It could be but when the language significantly deviates from their norms just as their argument is falling to pieces I'd say that they were specifically chosen for effect rather than content
Right?
As for the one syllable comments - do you believe that is what I think?
Solari said:I wouldn't use uncommon words on a forum as people may believe me to be going for "one-upmanship" or could interpret it as being obnoxious. I genuinely enjoy learning new words, however - I love reading
Nothing wrong with having a love for the English language when many others around you are destroying it. Just take the Jade Goody crew as an example ("Awight geezah, I bin dahn da benefits office innit.")
As for other cool words, I do use "Defenestrate" and "Deracinate" sometimes.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with enjoying the language or learning new words etc, etc.
However do you think it is "right" to look down upon those who do not share your interests?
Solari said:In my case, the boss in the old job was full of self-importance and needed taking down a peg or two. He didn't understand what egregious or insidious meant until I directed them at him and he had to look them up
Hehe
I don't particularly like people like your boss. Does he post in SC?dirtydog said:
Rob uses "highbrow" words when his arguments start falling down. Read the thread. The sudden use of such a convoluted and sublimely ridiculous set of words was a last ditch attempt to regain a little ground by him.
There is a lot of demonstrated snobbery in SC. A superiority complex with some people genuinely believing that being educated makes you superior to others and reflects you as a person and your worth amongst humanity.
I think that simply shows conceit, a trait that is reviled generally and is indicitive of undesireable apsects of human nature, hardly superior, if anything inferior.
Such pompous behaviour and attitudes deserve to be ridiculed.