But by all means, it may very well be true that the actual intent was a different one. That is of course, the problem when using your own talent to create a different vernacular, of the same language. It is a similar, though larger problem, than the Brits asking Americans where the loo is.

DNW Says:
October 18th, 2016 at 10:49 am

DNW’s use of English there to tell a story makes perfect logical sense and structurally, it is rather well done as well. So the issue isn’t lack of English expertise, rather it is too much of it, when conveying personal thoughts.

For people that are constrained by the English language, even at the maximum proficiency standards, they’ll often have simultaneous parallel thoughts going on at once when writing. Thus they sometimes condense it into complicated wording or phrasing, or like Art, uses a surrogate link and text others have written. To them, it is all of one piece, to other people it’s 5 fragments barely attached to each other at times. Or the same 5 ideas repeated different ways.

The problem is when the user himself doesn’t realize he is doing so, or perhaps they don’t want to disconnect their brain’s parallel processing and only think like average or sub average humans would, using One Track at a time.

And I suppose a charge of “snark” a relative neologism seems less ridiculous than a charge of disrespect; which is more likely to elicit howls of derisive (“snarky”, then?) laughter, than feelings of chagrin from the ostensible perpetrator.

Your problem DNW is confirmation bias. Since everything only makes sense to you from inside your IQ and internal analysis, whenever you allow yourself to imagine someone has “trolled” you, true or not, it hijacks your brain, your logic turns off and your emotions take over. But to you, it feels perfectly normal. You are not normal under those conditions and you do not think with 100% of your logic, thus you become incapable of self assessing.

Which is why in chess as well as in rhetoric or logic, being in firm control of one’s imagination of perceived slights as well as directly confronting it with probes and questions if such a perception is indeed perceived, fixes the issue more than talking around it using your Customized Vernacular, DNW.

For you to do as Neo Neo suggested and using a different style, you would have to change your thinking process. Which is not easy, even for those who have mastered a single language.

neo-neocon Says:
October 18th, 2016 at 7:36 am

DNW:

Yes, thanks for clearing up the mystery …

You are welcome Neo.

…of your reference, which was to that earlier thread.

But despite your denial of sarcastic intent in that thread, you certainly were being snarky, a word which (as I have indicated in this thread) contains sarcasm under its umbrella.

And here is the definition of “snarky”:

1 crotchety, snappish

2 sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner”

Well, if irreverent and disrespectful in tone, especially toward relatively abstract classes of persons or institutions such as “Mr. Sensitive” or “Precious” (the Compassionate Conservative Republican Party) then I suppose I was engaging by that standard which I do not myself accept, in some subcategory of snark.

And I suppose a charge of “snark” a relative neologism seems less ridiculous than a charge of disrespect; which is more likely to elicit howls of derisive (“snarky”, then?) laughter, than feelings of chagrin from the ostensible perpetrator.

But this is all too too, as they say.

Regards,

As in many states, the License Bureaus or Secretary of State offices are reminiscent of urban Post Offices, the ne plus ultra of a thronging fulminating lumpen-proletariat immigrant service hell; and I had been delaying in hopes of finding a suburban location that was more convenient.

In any event a court appearance was either required or I noticed a problem with the charge, and showed up in court. The officious little bailiff read the charge, “Driving on an expired Texas registration (or plate or some such) ” and informed me that I could plead guilty and pay a fine or I could plead innocent and they would arrange a trial date.

I began to say “not guilty, but …” and was interrupted by the court flunky who informed me I was not allowed to say anything other than the plea. I began to reply, and was threatened with contempt.

I looked at the cop who had been friendly and even helpful, and then at the judge, and said “the problem is the charge” … at which point the His Officiousness went ballistic threatening to lock me up, and the judge intervened telling everyone to calm down.

The judge said “We want to hear what he has to say”. I then told him that I had never had a Texas license: therefore the charge was impossible. But that I freely admitted I had been in need of transferring the registration … that was all.

He summoned me to the bench and asked to see my driving papers. I showed him that the driver’s license and registration were changed, the insurance was in order, and he remarked that he was extremely impressed that it had been accomplished the day after.

The judge found me guilty of something or other, but waived all costs and fines except for $30.00.

I went to the seats and shook hands with the grinning cop, exchanging some pleasantries, and the bailiff began shouting for order.

You have to get the charge right, in order to convict. Or under the system we used to have, and which was even then sagging under the weight of discretion, you were supposed to.

That doesn’t quite apply to every situation in life, but it’s something to bear in mind.

The two groups tend to be very very different.” – Neo

I’d add one more category, a third group … “trump converts”.

They might not have been an original supporter, but are as strenuous in support of trump and as excusing of trump as any “original trump supporter”.

Yes, thanks for clearing up the mystery of your reference, which was to that earlier thread.

But despite your denial of sarcastic intent in that thread, you certainly were being snarky, a word which (as I have indicated in this thread) contains sarcasm under its umbrella.

And here is the definition of “snarky”:

1 crotchety, snappish

2 sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

As you can see, “snarky” is a more general word than “sarcastic,” but it includes it.

More to the point, your denial of sarcasm (or your denial of having the intent of sarcasm, if you want to get technical) in that thread was actually a denial of any sarcasm in the following comment of yours on the thread [emphasis mine]. It was the one to which I was referring when I had said “Ignoring the sarcasm…”:

Well here’s the thing. If the burn it down crowd are not real Republicans, then there is nothing they can do to burn the Republican Party down, is there. Since losing with the execrable McCain and with the personally admirable Romney, did not seem to destroy the party.

So, just how are these outsiders going to burn Precious down?

And certainly, the conservative of sensitive nature and community feeling will not abandon his beloved party just because it lost one more in a series of elections?

Nothing’s changed in Mr. Sensitive’s his [sic] view.

Now, you can deny any sarcastic intent all you want. No one can read your mind. But that is a sarcastic comment AND a snarky one. I believe that this was part of the point huxley was trying to make.

Your denial is extremely unconvincing.

Actually, I still don’t know what you’re so fired up about. You denied sarcasm in that earlier thread, which seems to indicate that you also denied snark—unless, of course, you are willing to say that you are in fact snarky but not sarcastic (by your narrowly traditional definition of sarcasm, although as I’ve indicated above I believe you were sarcastic even by your narrower definition). Are you saying that huxley had no right to characterize “sarcasm” as a form of “snark”? That he is to be accused of “trolling” for using the more inclusive term “snark” rather than the more narrow one “sarcasm”? Or are you saying your comments didn’t and don’t demonstrate snark or sarcasm?

And is this really such a big deal, when the definition of “snark” includes “sarcasm”? All of us sometimes use sarcasm and snark, especially on blogs.

Here is your original denial of sarcasm in that thread:

LOL Neo … I swear that no sarcasm whatsoever was intended. Not toward you, not even toward those other fellows.

I actually was in a rather elevated mood dashing that response off, and finding the whole thing funny.

Now, I know that many are extremely distressed at what is happening;… But if you think about it for a moment, I am sure that you will see the humor in it too.

Our ancestors laughed at the approaching hordes. We should too. They can only kill you. And if they do, you won’t have to listen to compassionate conservative bleating anymore …

Sounds very snarky to me. “Bleating”:

verb (used without object)
1. to utter the cry of a sheep, goat, or calf or a sound resembling such a cry.

verb (used with object)
2.to give forth with or as if with a bleat:
He bleated his objections in a helpless rage.

3. to babble; prate.

noun
4. the cry of a sheep, goat, or calf.

5. any similar sound:
the bleat of distant horns.

6. foolish, complaining talk; babble:
I listened to their inane bleat all evening.

You snarkily insult people with great regularity, and you often use sarcasm (and that one time you denied the intention of using it, you were using it as well). It doesn’t help your arguments. Why not let your arguments stand on their own, and cut the snark and the condescension? You have plenty of things to say and you would be listened to and respected more if you did that.

You’re probably overthinking things. But even if that was the case, the correct response would be to challenge Huxley directly by asking him, not assuming, whether he was making an argument from another thread again.

From a neutral observer’s perspective, all Huxley said was that you were snarky. The past was still in the past. But if you summon it up, without talking about it, it’s you who is making erroneous assumptions now.

Communication only works if you actually confront issues directly, rather than “talking around things” like you are afraid of each other.

Some people just don’t want to talk about things. I’ve noticed that over the years, as people’s attitude towards me have varied.

It’s pointless trying to get someone to talk about a subject they don’t want to talk about. They may not tell you why, but their attitude or behavior makes it obvious. And it is also obvious online that there’s not much you can do about it. Their resources and intellectual content are theirs, by right, and unless they wrote on some blog of theirs, you can’t get it from other sources easily.

The internet is less of a Shakespear word trading project as it is a market place of the free exchange and trade of personal resources, merit, and content. In summary and conclusion, trying to talk to people that don’t want to talk to you, just wastes both of your time here.

if we still have a country, the democrats will rule it until it either collapses or has a revolution from within.

Mission accomplished for the Left, Ir.

That’s why we’re willing to vote for so flawed a candidate as Trump.

Which is why you have already lost, Ir. Trum and to a lesser extent Clinton, is already an admission of civil war 2. Thus it’s pointless talking about peaceful elections, as that isn’t what people are planning for.

Even if Trum delays or halts the open borders issue of the Leftist alliance, do you think you can keep him in power forever until the Left dies of boredom? Even under Republicans, the Left’s power was Unmatched and Uncontested. So Trum’s only potential future is presiding over the run up to CW2. The American people cannot keep him in power forever to delay the inevitable. Thus war it will be. And since war it will be, your “elections” are meaningless.

This becomes less a marginal victory and more like a Pyrrhic victory.

If you want the GOP to be more conservative, then the remedy is to elect more conservative representatives.-Neo

No, the remedy is to use 4th generational warfare to hijack the GOP from the top down and the bottom up. It’s what the Left did to the Demoncrats. The other option is to burn down the GOP E and start all over, but there’s all kinds of reasons why foreign Alt Rightists and pro Russian consortiums would prefer that option. People for elections, think fighting harder is going to be effective. But as Ir pointed out, fighting harder didn’t produce better results from a patriotic stand point at least.

People need to think global, act local. Fight smarter, not harder. Also, if they aren’t cheating, they aren’t trying. The rules for war, are not the rules for peace.

Taking a personal responsibility to spread the faith or culture of America, would be more effective, even, than political elections. Instead of missionaries converting people to Christianity in Africa, which included the Muslims there, Americans would do the same for each other.

Exposed many of the stars of conservative media as the ratings whore hypocrites they are

You say that like it’s something new in terms of information. For someone like me that’s seen all of this since 2007, either in general or specific scope, it’s hard to imagine or put myself into your shoes any more. Although the Republican stuff, I gained more insight into after 2008, not because of Obama, but because of GOp reaction to Palin. Which, surprisingly, is also the same for VoxDay. It appears VoxDay and his crowd wasn’t originally aligned with the Democrats who went Trum because Trum was Democrats. VoxDay and his followers were the former Republicans and conservatives who felt betrayed by the GOP. Although VD will decry ever calling himself a conservative, as he appeared more like a libertarian, which makes him closer to Glenn Reynolds in pov. Problem with libertarian evangelical zealots, though, is that they can’t do much to influence large organizations and sometimes that doesn’t square well with their beliefs about cultural superiority.

Exposed many so called prinicpled conservatives aa frauds. I’m looking at you Ted Cruz. You endorsed a man who made fun of your wife’s looks and accused your dad of involvement in the JFK assassination. That told me everything I needed to know about you.

Cruz said to vote your conscience, and he followed up his preaching by struggling with his conscience and finally deciding on Trum.

Just because that doesn’t line up with your utopia, Bill, isn’t his problem, but yours. The problem with all totalitarian wannabes and other foolish humans, is that you think you have some kind of Dominion status and right over other humans.

If Cruz was pressured into giving in by his donors, that would be a point against him, but not because you think you’re self righteous Bill.

Exposed the religious right and a significant portion of American evangelicals to be idolaters at the altar of R politics rather than citizens of a more enduring kingdom.

For someone that isn’t involved in religion, either theological debate or hands on, that’s quite a gross lack of detailed conclusion you got there. Maybe I have it wrong, but the impression you give Bill isn’t someone who is working with his own hands to create God’s Kingdom or even the Kingdom of America. It’s a comfortable, American dream like, existence, that is no less a bubble of confirmation bias than California or fake liberal enclaves are.

There are many religious factions, just under the label of Jesus Christ, in this nation. Yet you haven’t covered even one of them in sufficient depth, to be capable of rendering judgment upon them. I see no reason why you are standing in a position to do it to the other branches.

Technically, didn’t that originally have some relation to Marxist revolutionaries?

neo-neocon Says:
October 17th, 2016 at 3:39 pm

DNW:

(1) Why deny being snarky or sarcastic, when you’ve been both?

(2) Why not answer my question about “classical rhetoric” and how we learn word definitions?

Now that the origins of Huxley’s botched reference are clear, you don’t really want to go through this too, do you?

In any event it will have to wait till tomorrow.

Later …