Mutable

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:10

pinkegobox said:
I use obsfuscate regularily. mutable - never.

(i use it because I like the way it sounds!)

(it only has one S as someone pointed out to me this morning

)

dirtydog · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:17

VIRII said:
Several other people have stated that they are aware of people who use big words to try and appear superior.

Just because those people - and you - *think* that people use big words to try and appear superior, doesn't mean that they and you are correct. You are inferring something which you have no way of proving one way or the other.

If you do have a large vocabulary and are an intelligent person, why did you not continue to debate with robmiller in that thread, rather than go on the attack the minute he used a few long words and accuse him of only using those words to appear superior. It's all rather confusing

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:17

Arcade Fire said:
Using such language does not make you pretentious though, nor does it mean that you're trying to disguise a failing argument. It tells me that you're someone who is used to having conversations with people for whom a wide vocabulary is taken for granted. If you don't fit into that category that's fine, but I'm not going to deliberately dumb down my language because of it. I'll continue to use the words and phrases that I feel give the closest approximation to the meaning that I want to get across.

To suddenly come out with the post he came out with after 9 pages of discussion it does make it pretentious.
Perhaps you can point out a similar post from him in the preceeding 9 pages.....

A change in behaviour or style is evident, if it was his normal style, particularly within that thread, then you might have a point. Sadly, you don't.

I'll continue to call a spade a spade, you can continue to try and appear intelligent and educated if you want, if it strikes me as pretentious drivel then I'll say so

So many debates end up in semantics of the precise meaning of a word that it seems to make sense to keep the language plain and simple to avoid confusion, unless confusion and wriggle room are part of the intention.
Or is it a case of wanting to sound superior more than making a clearly cemented point.

Beansprout · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:18

I've used obfuscate in normal conversation, but only ever used mutable in a technical context

dirtydog · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:19

VIRII said:
To suddenly come out with the post he came out with after 9 pages of discussion it does make it pretentious.
Perhaps you can point out a similar post from him in the preceeding 9 pages.....
A change in behaviour or style is evident, if it was his normal style, particularly within that thread, then you might have a point. Sadly, you don't.

I'll continue to call a spade a spade, you can continue to try and appear intelligent and educated if you want, if it strikes me as pretentious drivel then I'll say so So many debates end up in semantics of the precise meaning of a word that it seems to make sense to keep the language plain and simple to avoid confusion, unless confusion and wriggle room are part of the intention.
Or is it a case of wanting to sound superior more than making a clearly cemented point.

I guess we all better strive to keep our language simple for your benefit then, lest you accuse us of only using long words to look superior?

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:28

dirtydog said:
Just because those people - and you - *think* that people use big words to try and appear superior, doesn't mean that they and you are correct. You are inferring something which you have no way of proving one way or the other.

If you do have a large vocabulary and are an intelligent person, why did you not continue to debate with robmiller in that thread, rather than go on the attack the minute he used a few long words and accuse him of only using those words to appear superior. It's all rather confusing

Not being able to prove it is not an issue to me. It seems that using "obscure", not "big" or "long" but "obscure" words is a childish attempt to make an argument seem more convincing.

Why do you keep using "long" or "big" instead of "obscure" ...... trying to twist the point I have made through language? You'll need a little more skill than that.

I have a large vocabulary and am relatively intelligent. Would you care to challenge that or will you accept it as fact? I wouldn't want you to come across as trying to snidely infer something, would you?

Why did I pick robmiller up on his sudden change of language and use of such obscure words? Because after 9 pages of thread and debate he suddenly changed his terminology and because I believe he did this to try and "assert" his "intelligence".

As you might recall I find his assumption that he is superior to be disgusting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VIRII
Do you really think education and intelligence are the pinnacle of being human?

Quote:
Originally Posted by robmiller
Absolutely 100% yes.

phykell · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:28

VIRII said:
Several other people have stated that they are aware of people who use big words to try and appear superior.

That's just their opinion though, it doesn't mean the people do use big words for that purpose. I recall it being pointed out in SC that I shouldn't use quotes from the Bard as it was allegedly pretentious (no doubt some will consider calling him "the Bard" pretentious!). Of course I wasn't trying to be and if you knew me you'd understand that I'm simply not like that. The fact is that I think it helps if you can illustrate your point and using words that read better or can provide a more accurate meaning even if the difference is subtle, can only be encouraged surely? As I've pointed out, the word, "obfuscate" can be justified and personally, I intend to keep using it.

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:30

dirtydog said:
I guess we all better strive to keep our language simple for your benefit then, lest you accuse us of only using long words to look superior?

Yawn.
"long" words?
You can use words that are as long as your arm.

The point was OBSCURE words...... don't you understand *** term "obscure" because 4 times now you've replaced "obscure" with "big".......

dirtydog · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:33

VIRII said:
Why are you resorting to insults? Aren't they the last refuge of someone who has lost the argument? :confused :

Who do I sound like?

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:33

phykell said:
That's just their opinion though, it doesn't mean the people do use big words for that purpose. I recall it being pointed out in SC that I shouldn't use quotes from the Bard as it was allegedly pretentious

By whom and why?

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:34

dirtydog said:
coming from yourself that is the most ironic thing ever That is your forté is it not?

Comments about accepting that you could be wrong are possibly the most ironic thing you've ever said

Who do I sound like?

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:34

dirtydog said:
Who do I sound like?

You?

Rich_L · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:35

I suppose calling someone pretentious or snobbish isn't insulting, just calling a spade a spade, so to speak

dirtydog · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:36

VIRII said:
Comments about accepting that you could be wrong are possibly the most ironic thing you've ever said
Who do I sound like?

I accept that robmiller could have been using OBSCURE words in order to appear superior. Do you accept that he might not have been? As neither of us can read his mind, I suggest that neither of us can know for sure. What I do know however, is that he has posted in such a vein many times before.

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:40

Rich_L said:
I suppose calling someone pretentious or snobbish isn't insulting, just calling a spade a spade, so to speak

I said I found the comments to be pretentious and snobbish.
Is robmiller the comments?

If ever there was a case for plain speaking surely your post is it

phykell · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:42

VIRII said:
By whom and why?

I don't recall who it was but the reason was as I said, because it was supposedly pretentious.

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:42

dirtydog said:
I accept that robmiller could have been using OBSCURE words in order to appear superior. Do you accept that he might not have been? As neither of us can read his mind, I suggest that neither of us can know for sure. What I do know however, is that he has posted in such a vein many times before.

He either was or he was not. He might not have been but I believe he was.
Do you *only* believe in things that you have ultimate proof of? It will make your contributions to future debates very interesting if you say yes.
After all if you have the ultimate proof where is the debate to be had?
If you say no then why harrass me over my belief here?

VIRII · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:42

phykell said:
]
I don't recall who it was but the reason was as I said, because it was supposedly pretentious.

I guess it would depend on the context then.

Mind you it would be nice if this was kept on topic re the use of the two specific words and how often if ever people use them in conversation

dirtydog · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:44

VIRII said:
He either was or he was not. He might not have been but I believe he was.
Do you *only* believe in things that you have ultimate proof of? It will make your contributions to future debates very interesting if you say yes.
After all if you have the ultimate proof where is the debate to be had?
If you say no then why harrass me over my belief here?

No; if I am not sure of something then I tend to say things like 'I think...' or 'I suspect...' and so on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have used no such qualifications or caveats in this case.

Arcade Fire · 31 Jan 2007 at 14:58

VIRII said:
Perhaps you can point out a similar post from him in the preceeding 9 pages.....

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps I can't be arsed to read through nine pages of you insisting that you're right and claiming that there's a conspiracy against you.

I'll continue to call a spade a spade, you can continue to try and appear intelligent and educated if you want, if it strikes me as pretentious drivel then I'll say so

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you've already made your mind up and so it's pointless arguing with you. You've already decided that Rob used the language because he was losing an argument with you. You've already decided that I use the language I do in order to appear intelligent and educated.

You're free to believe what you will, but I've spoken to Rob extensively and he is one of the most intelligent, well-spoken and articulate people I know - and I know a lot of very intelligent people. He's got nothing to prove. Similarly, I don't need to use big words to prove that I'm intelligent and educated - I have certificates to do that for me. If you won't even accept the merest possibility that you're wrong, though, I see little point in continuing.

Your point about keeping language plain to avoid confusion is a good one, but if there's a longer word which better encapsulates the meaning that I have in mind, then I'm going to use it. In my mind, clarity and precision are paramount in writing. I don't use complicated words and syntax needlessly, but that's a far cry from not using them at all.