I see again, and apparently I haven't learned my lesson, that jgraham comes thru with the assumption that he doesn't know anything useful.
So now you're the person who gets to say what is and is not useful?
I'm guessing here, but I expect that whatever the issue is it's the result of you using specialized definitions - to the point of complaining multiple times about my use of common definitions, refusing to define your terms and then somehow using that to justify complaining about the conversation not getting very far down the path you want it to go.
If word-play were what I was interested in, I'd play.
See you make this accusation a lot but you don't really seem to have anything to back it up. You change the word you accuse me of (sometimes being apparently contradictory). Can you point me to some evidence that all I'm interested in is word play. Perhaps what you're seeing is that I don't let many of your slights pass unscrutinized? You do have this habit of making ad hominem attacks in a post and criticism will usually be taken as a sign you are willing to talk about something.
Not to mention you could very easily pin that label on you. Aren't you the one who admits to using uncommon definitions for terms? Haven't you used a single term in two different places in the same argument and treated it as if it was the same term?
I gave you a chance to actually contribute something of interest,
Oh hey, that's not condescending.
but I would be wrong on that count. I pity your wife and children (if you have either).
They say: "Thanks".
As a side note, I'm absolutely certain you don't "go off" on your employer like you do here in the forums, as you likely wouldn't keep your job for any more than a few minutes.
Again I have to guess what you mean here. "Go off" on someone to me means to get angry or rage at. I really don't think I'm angry. To me the only things I am quietly insisting on is that your definitions are reasonably clear to me, that your arguments force a conclusion reasonably well and that your premises are well supported. Perhaps the great-organizing-principle-of-the-universe smiled upon me when giving me a job where that is valued. If your job requires the antithesis of that then I wish you luck.
So how about you put on your best "employer-face" and get off your pretend "greater-than-thou" soap box.
So how exactly am I acting "greater-than-thou"? As opposed to say someone who believes they get to say what is or is not useful or that everyone should automatically know their definitions? Just sayin...
Condescending? Condescending?!! Look in the mirror, your excellency (vitriolically sardonic).
Where am I assuming greater knowledge than you? You on the other hand did assume that I had less knowledge than you in Physics.
Of course, you'll probably won't do that.
If you cite the portion of text and make your argument I'll try to be as objective as possible.
You'll accuse me of deftly avoiding your supposed "probing" and self-important "misunderstood/I dunno what you mean/huh?" line of questioning.
Did I accuse you of avoiding the point? I did accuse you of missing it. What is self-important about admitting one's ignorance? Where I am we consider that the opposite.
I'm amazed at how many other people "get it" but you don't.
Using the sample of arguments you've given me as a basis, and the appearance that you think there's something wrong with defining terms. I wonder how confident you can actually be that other people "get it". In software development you really get to see how badly people communicate, that is how frequently two people meet, talk for a few hours and go away with completely different ideas as to what was agreed on. It's one of the reasons that people use agile methodologies.
In any case, why the amazement? Since when is some people agreeing with you intrinsically the sign of a good idea or a lot of people agreeing with you for that matter?
Your self-aggrandizement is unnecessary.
So to you putting aside my own definitions of things (when you said they weren't correct), and using your definitions is somehow self-aggrandizing? How does that work?
However, if you can't draw any inferences, then you're worthless.
I'd argue that you haven't given me much to draw inferences from. Just some definitions and arguments that don't stand up to casual scrutiny.
Define: the words crush, burden, injury, abuse, power, authority, justice, patronizing, standard, maladjustment, offense, condescension, deserve and detriment.
Define or explain the phrases: "simple statement of fact", "light-years away from the idea", "fitting the crime", "hint of social maladjustment", "simply false", "general term", "without context", "sense of justice", "internally inconsistent", "second sense", and "superior attitude".
Tell you what, if you are legitimately confused about what I mean, you can cite the passage where I use that term and add some text like "what do you mean by X here?" and I'll do my best to define the terms in context to your satisfaction.
Oh, and by the bye, don't use any moral references as those would be entirely inappropriate. I'm not interested in your opinions regarding right or wrong, as they are groundless due to their subjectivity. I only want objective definitions. To be a little more precise, but perhaps still obscure and vague in your world, consider the following:
I'm guessing that when I pointed out that when I restated what you appeared to be talking about with regard to physics you didn't like me pointing out that your example was not an example of what I was talking about. It's not a question of Justice (which is the term I used) being 'inappropriate' in a definition but that what I was talking about (and I assume what you were speaking of ) was about how some undesired consequence happened to person or property. That is I was comparing methods, you were comparing outcomes. I think it's pretty clear that these are different things.