Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 cauk Jul 23, 2008 9:03:53	This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone who has expressed his/her POV, but it also seems to be the most common way to derail a thread into a pedantic argument over semantics. I've encountered the same thing IRL but the discussions on these forums seems particularly infected with the semantic didactics. It seems to generally go like this: OP: I've created this thread to discuss X... P1: I too have noticed X, and this is how I feel... P2: Indeed, X is basically Y in Z form. P3: [quoting P2] I disagree, you can't compare X and Y at all... P2: [quoting P3] What I'm saying is that in Z situations, Y is analogous to X.. P3: [quoting P2] Well, in my personal experience people don't generally consider X the equivalent of Y... P1: Your personal experience is irrelevant, do you have any published studies? OP: Does anybody else have any opinions about X? P2: [quoting P3] If you had read what I posted you would see that's not what I'm saying at all... P3: [quoting P2] That all depends on how you are using the term "Z", because the dictionary defines "Z" as... P2: I'm using "Z" to refer to situations such as this... P3: That's fine, but that contradicts what you said in the OP and isn't logical. OP: Actually, I started the thread about X and would like to hear people's opinions on X specifically. P2: [quoting P3] You are totally missing the point of what I'm trying to say and misinterpreting my words. Please pay more attention. P3: [quoting P2] Actually, you are the one misinterpreting the meaning of "Z", and I am just trying to understand your point. Don't get angry with me for assuming you are using the definition in every dictionary that has ever been written and are designed to reflect the meanings of words as well as their definitions. I shouldn't be expected to pause my internetting for a few moments to consider in what sense your POV would make sense. I majored in Z-ology in college and you should do your reading before you start using words. Here's a link "http://www.extremelybriefgooglesearch.org/argument/from/authority.html" OP: Could we please get back to the subject of X? To me, P3 was baiting. It is a fine distinction, but I feel capable of identifying the trolls who are only concerned with being right about something and not particularly concerned with the community. My proposal is to caution both the P3's and the P2's on the boards to keep their debate topical. If you can't make punctilious statements within a response to the OP, then you are derailing the thread. I would also like the P2's of the community to be especially conscientious about not getting sucked in by this. If someone responds to your post with a disagreement and asks you for clarification, they are baiting you.
#2 Brom_Blackforge Jul 23, 2008 9:23:47	I too have noticed the tendency for threads to become derailed by off-topic tangents. I feel that, in many cases, it would be preferable for the tangent to be spun off as a new thread in itself. (I think that just such a capability exists on the EN World forums.) I've encountered the same thing IRL but the discussions on these forums seems particularly infected with the semantic didactics. I think you mean didactic semantics. "Didactics" is defined as "the art or science of teaching or instruction." However, one potential meaning of "didactic" is "inclined to teach or moralize too much; pedantic." Meanwhile, whether used as a noun or an adjective, "semantic(s)" has to do with meaning and the study of meaning in language. ;)
#3 lord_karsus Jul 23, 2008 10:18:23	-That's the way conversations go. They're still talking about, more or less, what the OP wanted to talk about, so it's not Off-Topic. Personally speaking, I hate when the OP of a thread begins complaining that people aren't focusing on specifically X, Y, or Z, because the ongoing conversation has taken a different (but on topic) turn. Like I said, that's just how conversations go. -That's pertinent to this topic, but the gist of it is two people bickering. That's always happened, and will always happen.
#4 krownhunter07 Jul 23, 2008 12:32:27	-That's the way conversations go. They're still talking about, more or less, what the OP wanted to talk about, so it's not Off-Topic. Personally speaking, I hate when the OP of a thread begins complaining that people aren't focusing on specifically X, Y, or Z, because the ongoing conversation has taken a different (but on topic) turn. Like I said, that's just how conversations go. -That's pertinent to this topic, but the gist of it is two people bickering. That's always happened, and will always happen. Define 'on-topic'. I see it as a borderline derailing of the thread based on the dictionary definition of an on topic conversation! ;)
#5 lord_karsus Jul 23, 2008 12:53:23	-Actually, you are the one misinterpreting the meaning of "On-Topic", and I am just trying to understand your point. Don't get angry with me for assuming you are using the definition in every dictionary that has ever been written and are designed to reflect the meanings of words as well as their definitions. I shouldn't be expected to pause my internetting for a few moments to consider in what sense your POV would make sense. I majored in On-Topicology in college and you should do your reading before you start using words. Here's a link "http://www.extremelybriefgooglesearch.org/argument/from/authority.html"
#6 eldritch_lord Jul 23, 2008 13:33:47	-Actually, you are the one misinterpreting the meaning of "On-Topic", and I am just trying to understand your point. Don't get angry with me for assuming you are using the definition in every dictionary that has ever been written and are designed to reflect the meanings of words as well as their definitions. I shouldn't be expected to pause my internetting for a few moments to consider in what sense your POV would make sense. I majored in On-Topicology in college and you should do your reading before you start using words. Here's a link "http://www.extremelybriefgooglesearch.org/argument/from/authority.html" Could we please get back to the subject of the thread?
#7 krownhunter07 Jul 23, 2008 14:11:55	*chuckles*
#8 eldritch_lord Jul 23, 2008 14:47:55	*chuckles* What exactly do you mean by that!?
#9 krownhunter07 Jul 23, 2008 15:32:08	I suppose it depends on your definition of exactly...
#10 zombie_babies Jul 23, 2008 15:50:20	I suppose it depends on your definition of exactly... Exactly.
#11 eldritch_lord Jul 23, 2008 19:17:40	Exactly. And just what do you mean by that!?
#12 trobon Jul 23, 2008 19:28:17	I think we are getting off topic here. The Original Post was about how the general tenor of threads seem to go. I see that everyone here who is getting off topic is a fan of *th edition and I realize now that this happens because all of the fans of *th edition are simple fools who have no idea what they're talking about. The point is that I agree with the OP point. I think that we need more discussions staying on topic and if all of these noobs would leave we could do that. And just what do you mean by that!? Yeah. That makes sense. You know that's the exact attitude that makes you people look like an idiot. I guess someone with your sort of intelligence would post like that though. I mean your entire post is invalid because of your ugly avatar and user name. :D
#13 eldritch_lord Jul 23, 2008 20:54:41	Yeah. That makes sense. You know that's the exact attitude that makes you people look like an idiot. I guess someone with your sort of intelligence would post like that though. I mean your entire post is invalid because of your ugly avatar and user name. :D Oh, I'm an idiot? At least my username means something instead of being a meaningless collection of syllables. And don't get me started on your avatar.
#14 trobon Jul 23, 2008 20:59:36	Oh, I'm an idiot? At least my username means something instead of being a meaningless collection of syllables. And don't get me started on your avatar. Ok, I'll give you the avatar thing. But I'll have you know that the name Trobon has been a name of reckoning in D&D for ten years. ;) But I guess you need to resort to ad hominem in order to win your arguments.
#15 zombie_babies Jul 24, 2008 8:07:51	And just what do you mean by that!? Well, that all depends on what you meant when you asked me what I mean, doesn't it?
#16 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 8:49:58	But I'll have you know that the name Trobon has been a name of reckoning in D&D for ten years. ;) Not in MY D&D! But I guess you need to resort to ad hominem in order to win your arguments. Y'know, I hate to break it to you, but ad hominem doesn't exactly apply when we're dealing with eladrin. ;) Well, that all depends on what you meant when you asked me what I mean, doesn't it? Perhaps; what did you think I meant when I asked you what you meant?
#17 Steely_Dan Jul 24, 2008 8:54:54	Well this thread is quickly drifting into the arena of the unwell.
#18 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 9:05:51	Well this thread is quickly drifting into the arena of the unwell. If you had read what I posted you would see that's not what I'm saying at all.... :D
#19 zombie_babies Jul 24, 2008 9:16:17	Perhaps; what did you think I meant when I asked you what you meant? That's the issue. What I think you meant when questioning my meaning means nothing. I need a meaningful meaning given of what you meant by "mean" in the post in question. Without knowing exactly what you meant by mean, I have no way of issuing a meaningful response. I don't mean to sound so mean, but I'm only interested in discourse with meaning, here. Meaningfully yours, Winden* *Sorry, couldn't resist! It's just too similar to that old (and fun) game.
#20 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 9:27:49	That's the issue. What I think you meant when questioning my meaning means nothing. I need a meaningful meaning given of what you meant by "mean" in the post in question. Without knowing exactly what you meant by mean, I have no way of issuing a meaningful response. I don't mean to sound so mean, but I'm only interested in discourse with meaning, here. Meaningfully yours, Winden* *Sorry, couldn't resist! It's just too similar to that old (and fun) game. Why are you questioning my questioning? I think you think you mean well, but I think you mean ill while thinking you mean well. The meaning of meaning means a lot to me, and your overthinking of it means I think your questions don't reflect what you mean. Now, I think I hear what you mean here, but what I think here has no meaning if it isn't what you think you mean here.
#21 zombie_babies Jul 24, 2008 9:44:53	Why are you questioning my questioning? I think you think you mean well, but I think you mean ill while thinking you mean well. The meaning of meaning means a lot to me, and your overthinking of it means I think your questions don't reflect what you mean. Now, I think I hear what you mean here, but what I think here has no meaning if it isn't what you think you mean here. Whoa. The only thing I meant can be gleaned from my meaning in my last statement. There's no hidden meaning to be discussed. I meant what I meant and I still mean what I mean. I never thought my meaning could be taken as meaning something I never meant it to mean. The thinking behind my meaning meant nothing more than I intended it to mean. I didn't mean to sound mean when questioning your questioning and the meaning behind it. But I am now forced to question the importance you place on the meaning of meaning. Thinking I don't think I mean what I think I mean implies that you don't think enough of me (or my meaning) to meaningfully think through what I meant to find what I mean. If you can't be bothered to bother to think through the meaning of what I bothered to be bothered enough to think to write, I can't meaningfully bother to think through what you may be meaning here. EDIT: I understand that you did not mean to appear to be so mean, but appearances can make it difficult to understand what was meant. I mean to understand what you mean and to give a meaningful understanding of what I meant, too.
#22 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 9:53:22	Whoa. The only thing I meant can be gleaned from my meaning in my last statement. There's no hidden meaning to be discussed. I meant what I meant and I still mean what I mean. I never thought my meaning could be taken as meaning something I never meant it to mean. The thinking behind my meaning meant nothing more than I intended it to mean. I didn't mean to sound mean when questioning your questioning and the meaning behind it. But I am now forced to question the importance you place on the meaning of meaning. Thinking I don't think I mean what I think I mean implies that you don't think enough of me (or my meaning) to meaningfully think through what I meant to find what I mean. If you can't be bothered to bother to think through the meaning of what I bothered to be bothered enough to think to write, I can't meaningfully bother to think through what you may be meaning here. EDIT: I understand that you did not mean to appear to be so mean, but appearances can make it difficult to understand what was meant. I mean to understand what you mean and to give a meaningful understanding of what I meant, too. I didn't mean to mean that there was a hidden meaning that you meant to mean (or worse, didn't mean to mean). I think, though, that your questioning of my meaning is questioning what I think, and if you mean to question what I think about a given meaning, I mean to be mean to you until you mean to stop questioning my meaning. I mean, do you think I meant to question your thinking and meaning? I'm not mean enough to mean something mean like that--with the questioning, I mean. I didn't mean to appear mean, and I think you know I didn't mean it, but I think you mean to be mean and questioning because you think being mean in return means something.
#23 zombie_babies Jul 24, 2008 10:10:40	I didn't mean to mean that there was a hidden meaning that you meant to mean (or worse, didn't mean to mean). I think, though, that your questioning of my meaning is questioning what I think, and if you mean to question what I think about a given meaning, I mean to be mean to you until you mean to stop questioning my meaning. I mean, do you think I meant to question your thinking and meaning? I'm not mean enough to mean something mean like that--with the questioning, I mean. I didn't mean to appear mean, and I think you know I didn't mean it, but I think you mean to be mean and questioning because you think being mean in return means something. Being mean in return for being treated meanly does have great meaning. Fight mean with mean, I've always meant to say. Questioning the thinking of the meaning behind what a person meant when they said it questions the very meaning of their thinking! You may not have meant it, but this is precisely the meaning I found when thinking about the questions asked of my own thinking and meaning. Questioning my meaning is one thing, but questioning the thinking behind the meaning of my questioning the thinking and meaning behind your questioning, sir, is quite another! And it is not one I mean to abide. Be as mean as you like when rebutting my meanness. But please refrain from meanness of your own in response to my meaning. That's just mean thinking. Off Topic Gods. Methinks Heller would be proud of our banter. Hemingway, not so much ...
#24 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 11:08:18	Being mean in return for being treated meanly does have great meaning. Fight mean with mean, I've always meant to say. Questioning the thinking of the meaning behind what a person meant when they said it questions the very meaning of their thinking! You may not have meant it, but this is precisely the meaning I found when thinking about the questions asked of my own thinking and meaning. Questioning my meaning is one thing, but questioning the thinking behind the meaning of my questioning the thinking and meaning behind your questioning, sir, is quite another! And it is not one I mean to abide. Be as mean as you like when rebutting my meanness. But please refrain from meanness of your own in response to my meaning. That's just mean thinking. Off Topic Gods. Methinks Heller would be proud of our banter. Hemingway, not so much ...
#25 krownhunter07 Jul 24, 2008 11:40:37	WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Meaning to think about questioning the questions people think they mean is just as bad as thinking to question the meaning behind mean thinking questions! Suppose for a moment you stop to think about the meaning of your own questions, and whether or not you think those questions are mean. Then, after you realize you both don't know the true meaning of the mean questions you're thinking, you may just realize that the questions you think mean something mean are not the others intended mean meaning questions they think, but your own!
#26 zombie_babies Jul 24, 2008 12:07:44	I think I should clarify my meaning. I do not mean to be mean to you just because; I think meanness for meanness' sake is just plain mean, and I question its utility. What I meant (and what I think I said) was if you mean to question what I think about a given meaning, I mean to be mean to you until you mean to stop questioning my meaning. If you mean to stop questioning my meaning already, then of course I would not me mean and you need not think me mean. I mean to do no such thing. The meaning I seek requires questioning the meaning you meant when you thought to question my questioning of your question to me of my meaning. I still don't know what you mean by "mean". I think you're being mean in response to my meanness in questioning your thinking behind your use of the word mean in the question you posed to me about my thoughts of your meaning in your use of the word of issue - mean. That meanness aside (and I do understand - I am being mean myself), I would appreciate it if you were to do some serious questioning of your thinking behind your use of the word "mean" in that question. I do mean to find the answer to this question and will be as mean as it takes in response to your meanness to my questioning your questioning of my thinking behind your use of mean in your question to me about what my thinking behind your use of mean was. Mean begets mean, after all. I mean to tolerate your mean thinking and overly mean line of questioning to ascertain the meaning I seek in order to provide you with the meaningful answer you deserve. I fear that if we were to quit now, though we have become quite mean in our questioning and response, the above discourse would be meaningless. And I do not think I could mean to allow that to happen - no. And that is without question.
#27 zombie_babies Jul 24, 2008 12:12:51	WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Meaning to think about questioning the questions people think they mean is just as bad as thinking to question the meaning behind mean thinking questions! Suppose for a moment you stop to think about the meaning of your own questions, and whether or not you think those questions are mean. Then, after you realize you both don't know the true meaning of the mean questions you're thinking, you may just realize that the questions you think mean something mean are not the others intended mean meaning questions they think, but your own! I disagree. You cannot compare the meanness of Eldritch_Lord to the meanness I have exhibited. I mean, it's just not the same type of mean. I think we'd all be best served by getting back to the topic. In my personal experience, I think it's questionable - at best - what can be gained when things get this mean. No question. ;)
#28 Brom_Blackforge Jul 24, 2008 13:48:17	We appear to have moved from semantics specifically into semiotics in general....
#29 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 14:02:10	We appear to have moved from semantics specifically into semiotics in general.... And that's...bad?
#30 krownhunter07 Jul 24, 2008 14:05:46	Why question the intent of his words... exactly? Do you think he meant it in a mean way? Frankly, I find your thinking to question his meaning, rather mean.
#31 eldritch_lord Jul 24, 2008 14:08:59	Why question the intent of his words... exactly? Do you think he meant it in a mean way? Frankly, I find your thinking to question his meaning, rather mean. His implication is meaner, as he doesn't say what he meant (or even mean what he meant), but simply thinks he can be mean to us about our questioning meanness, no question.
#32 Brom_Blackforge Jul 24, 2008 15:38:45	His implication is meaner, as he doesn't say what he meant (or even mean what he meant), but simply thinks he can be mean to us about our questioning meanness, no question. I think you misunderstood my meaning. I meant no meanness in commenting on the development of the ongoing discussion about the meaning of meaning.
#33 CoarseDragon Jul 24, 2008 16:12:51	Well, I for one do not agree with what the OP was implying rather I agree with what he did not imply.
#34 Brom_Blackforge Jul 24, 2008 16:19:26	Well, I for one do not agree with what the OP was implying rather I agree with what he did not imply. You inference about what the OP wrote does not necessarily correspond with what the OP meant to imply.
#35 trobon Jul 24, 2008 22:31:11	Well forgive me for not reading ALL of the posts here, but I am too busy to really find out what's going on so I'll just repost an opinion that was brought up back in the first page, but its ok because I'll say I'm sorry I didn't read it all.
#36 grim420 Jul 29, 2008 14:38:58	This thread is kinda like watching a Monty Python sketch. Nice work!
#37 zombie_babies Jul 29, 2008 14:51:14	This thread is kinda like watching a Monty Python sketch. Nice work! While I do mean to appreciate the compliment, I think we'd better get back on topic. ;)
#38 kittenstew Jul 29, 2008 15:03:45	None of you know what you are talking about! I have a PHD in On-Topic-ology and a Minor in Internets. I have written numerous papers on this topic and you are all DOING IT WRONG! Of course you can't continue this debate without taking into consideration the employment of: 1) Counter-Counter Attack Tactics to avoid discussing your original attack on another poster: "Hey, I wasn't attacking you, I was just stating my case and now your attacking me!" 2) Victim Power Play in an attempt to cause others to feel sorry for you and make the other person look like a Jerk: "Well, I'm sorry I'm the stupid one here that can't understand why you won't try to see things my way." and 3) The Empathy Feint to make yourself seem more reasonable, but only to get the other person to agree with you: "I thought we had a discussion between reasonable people happening here, and now you have become so hostile to my position. I understand where your coming from, but can't we be more reasonable?" There are numerous other tactics used as well, but without including all of them in a logical debate structure the OP's original post is a waste of time for everyone. Stamp, Stamp, no erase-ies.
#39 krownhunter07 Jul 29, 2008 15:58:26	Seeing as there is no proof that you are, indeed, educated on the topics of On-Topic-ology and the Internets, I refute your fallacy and ask that you either provide proof or throw out your entire augment for the lack there of... Really... trying to ply the use of authority on this subject without proof.... how gastly...
#40 CoarseDragon Jul 29, 2008 17:01:32	As I recall proof is not required as long as you stand your ground and remain firm in what you post.
#41 kittenstew Jul 29, 2008 17:02:46	Really... trying to ply the use of authority on this subject without proof.... how gastly... I totally Stamp-Stamped my thread. Your argument is the one without basis. But if you must see my Doctoral Degree I have posted it below for all to see: It's a good thing I keep a picture of this handy for people that question my Ah-Thor-Ah-Tay. See? I even wrote my Thesis on “How whining on the Internets will get you Nowhere/Everywhere!” It’s true and you can’t disagree with that because I said it’s true.
#42 krownhunter07 Jul 29, 2008 18:48:18	If you're trying to imply your meaning of truth outweighs my own... well, I believe you don't really exist. There... it's true because I said it's true... :evillaugh
#43 kittenstew Jul 29, 2008 18:56:06	Could you please define "Exists?" I don't think we are on the same page here... I also feel the term "Truth" is a little vague. It makes you sound ostentatious and decietful. Using ambiguous terms like Truth and Exist is just a way to hide your lack of knowledge on the subject behind meaningless words that don't have clairity. I'm sure you are doing this intentionally. Troll. :D ... Another one of my favorites is: DON'T TELL ME HOW TO PLAY D&D!
#44 krownhunter07 Jul 29, 2008 19:40:04	Exists; Anything I deem worthy of being. Truth; Anything I deem worthy of being factual and existing. Aside from the meaning of these words, I have chosen not to exclude you from existence (or else I'd be talking to myself on the internet...) But I still chose not to believe your 'truth' on this subject. Seeing as your 'truth' has no 'existence', you are wrong and I am right. and Troll.... me... NEVER!!!!
#45 toastedamphibian Jul 29, 2008 21:31:35	...................... Tehe.
#46 kittenstew Jul 30, 2008 11:39:10