test topic, please ignore [#1095]
: test topic, please ignore
(2007-08-05 14:11) [#3737]
blah blah blah
220.127.116.11: I refute your claim
(2009-02-21 09:28) [#5798]
Really? You may think "Blah blah blah"... but how do you actually prove your aforementioned philosophy?
It seems that Blah Blah Blah builds the logical framework of this theory. However; other meta words, being intentionally left out of this discussion, result in an aspect of an incomplete and one-sided argument. Could we raise the issue of pro/con in stating "blah blah blah"?
Careful consideration needs to be made before introducing new words for comparison. If a weak argument is put forward, debators are able to attack a strawman and result in it stregthening the influence of the statement. When the weak argument put forward by the "debator" is actually a tactic deployed by sympathisers of "blah blah blah"...
But please do not think me hostile to your "Blah blah blah". There are just certain things that I don't agree with, for how it is used. I think that perhaps you really do understand a valid perspective on truth... but the way it is said makes assumptions and logical reasoning that doesn't sit right with me.
We could hold talks about the way that interpretation is the key element in giving your words meaning. And I would understand that your interpretation of "Blah blah blah" mightn't need adjusting just to please other people. However, also remember that when you are stating "Blah blah blah", you are communicating with other people. They do not hold the same values and beliefs as you do. Semantics is the art of constructing understanding through the use of the words themselves. Semantics is a tool. Explanation of someone's point of view is also a tool. Wouldn't it be better to pave understanding by using both tools simultaneously?
: Capitalizing on the error?
(2009-02-21 13:23) [#5802]
Before I can address these points, I need to know: do you consider "Blah Blah Blah", "blah blah blah" and "Blah blah blah" as being mutually exclusive? They are certainly not synonymous. Please specify which many-valued logic frames your discourse.
(2013-04-01 19:03) [#9598]