When does many become many?

[Ben]

See what I mean? Back, poodle-like, at my hypnotic well-trained command. Stop fibbing about the whole “bye bye” thing, Fisherman. Makes you look even sillier than you do already.

“Wrong again, Ben! Syntax only relates to the position of the words in a sentence.”

It relates to sentence structure, and as it happens, the word “similar” was in very much the wrong position considering that Leander’s alleged intention was to convey the “meaning” that there were many different explanations for the differences. If you list several dissimilar things, then by adding “and similar things” afterwards, the impression given is that he meant “similar” only to the last mentioned. This wouldn’t amount to conventional phraseology by any means, but it is infinitely better that listing completely different things and then adding “and similar things” afterwards. This most emphatically relates to the placement of words within a sentence, and therefore relates to syntax. The location of the word within a sentence came into play here, in addition to the actual meaning of the words used. If you’re deluded into thinking otherwise, you really are in the wrong profession.

“My own guess would be no - you have displayed such a thick attitude that I genuinely believe that you etiher need a language expert - no.”

Well, the last thing I need is an insufferable fraud who reveals, once again, that is is only capable of resorting to his favourite unsuccessful “all guns blazing” debating strategy, especially when he keeps bombarding other the Swedes and doing his best to encourage them – total strangers – to make a dim view of me. Again, even your mates are embarrassed to agree with you given your ponderous and bombastic style. You make your predecessor look like Shakespeare.

“the natural disasters share the similarity of being destructive in one way or another, and they share the similarity of having beed formed into a group of occurences which we call natural disasters”

But in the case of natural disasters, we know instantly what the central theme is without needing to be informed what it is. They are similar already, and in isolation from any “result” that they just happen to exert on a particular entity. The same is true of your sun, wind, and humidity analogy. Anyone is capable of discerning that the obvious central theme is weather. They’re all similar even when divorced from an obscure “theme”, which is why we’d have no trouble identifying a myriad of other similar things. Age, available space, and pen function are not similar in isolation, so they shouldn’t be described as such, which is why nobody does, except Leander apparently.

“That has afforded you Vic´s wise wording that you are "pedantically correct" - meaning that you are incorrect in practice.”

That’s the filthiest nonsense I’ve seen today. “You’re correct, but because you had to be so damn pedantic about it, you must be incorrect.” Is that an avenue you really wish to pursue? Seriously, spend time with your wife and family. Go on another holiday. Anything but keep stalking me around serial killer message boards with some Ahabian creepy vendetta.

Bye?

Oh, you’re leaving? Are you phuck. Watch…

"Is the sentence "Afro-americans are generally white" factually or syntactically incorrect? Hmm? Am I placing the words in the wrong order making my statement, or am I merely using the wrong term to describe the colour of Afro-americans? Am i faulting FACTUALLY or GRAMMATICALLY???"

You're faulting all over the place, but in the above instance, no, the error is not concerned with syntax since there can be no criticism about the structure of the sentence or the placement of words within a sentence to the extent that it might convey a different meaning. Not so with the Leander sentence, where both the meaning and placement of the words contributed to the confusion.

No, it is not - if we need to be pedantical, we need to realize that natural disasters are totally dissimilar to each other - they involve fire and water, for example - and so, we need to say "related" or "other" instead of similar.

If you're claiming that natural disasters are "totally dissimilar", then you're insane, as well as perpetually ignorant and dangerously obsessed. "Things" become when you can discern the central theme without having to to be told what the theme is. Nobody will ever be confused if, when presented with a list of natural disasters, they are then asked to provide an additional example of a "similar" thing", same with sun and wind. If you're seriously arguing that a tornado and a hurricane have as much similarity with eachother as pen function and age, then you're either delusional or lying.

[Ben]

That post was addressed to Vic, Fisherman, and you needn't be so completely possessed with your burning desire for me that you have to respond to every post I make, including the ones that were never addressed to you. Not only is Vic capable of defending himself, he has been doing a consistently better job at debating the matter with me. Though I disagree with him with some vehemence, he has at least used clarity and insight as opposed to the bombast and bluster that characterizes your failing debating techniques. Same with your Toppy mates who all have more credibility than you. Vic observes that I was correct, whether pedantically so or not, I was still correct, so any crass attemps to obfuscate that glaring reality are doomed to failure. Again, it isn't draconian or strict to observe that different things shouldn't be described as similar.

But by all means, keep stripping, Ben. I´m not going anywhere.

Good! I don't want you to go anywhere. How bored and unimportant I'd feel if you stopped stalking me. Your ignorance and prolix persistence sustains me, attesting as it does to your total fixation with me. I crave the attention, Fish, and delight at the prospect of you following me around and making up the Hutchinson thread numbers. Just makes a refreshing change that you're no longer lying about leaving. That was getting old quickly.

[Fisherman]

Ben, in desperation:

"It relates to sentence structure, and as it happens, the word “similar” was in very much the wrong position considering that Leander’s alleged intention was to convey the “meaning” that there were many different explanations for the differences."

..and sentence structure is about which word ends up where in the sentence without making a GRAMMATICAL error. No grammatical error is about in Leanders sentence, just like Julien tells you. She has also told you, ages ago, how and why we build listings like this, with commas and all, in order to facilitate for the reader to understand it.

Even if you had been right - and you are not, of course - about what Leander meant, that would not mean that the sentence was syntactically incorrect - the syntax is and remains - just like Julien tells us - FLAWLESS! The only error that would have been about - if your interpretation had been correct - and it never was, of course - would STILL have been an error of factuality; the suggested misuse of the word "similar".

Syntax, Ben. Syntax. Read all about it!

"especially when he keeps bombarding other the Swedes and doing his best to encourage them – total strangers – to make a dim view of me."

I did not HAVE TO encourage miss Julien to anything. Syntax is as easy and uninterpretable to her as it is to me. It was the easiest call she had made this decade, believe me. Nor do I need her to make you look dim - you do that nicely all by yourself.

"But in the case of natural disasters, we know instantly what the central theme is without needing to be informed what it is."

Aaahhh! So nobody informed you that the central theme of Leanders efforts was about handwriting? No? You never realized that he used his examples to point to factors that could affect the handwriting? Does that mean that I can use the word "dim" once again? Yes, it does.

"That’s the filthiest nonsense I’ve seen today."

That is what happens to people who combine a blindfold with a pair of blinkers.

The best,
Fisherman
Now? Yeah?

[Fisherman]

Ben, about Vic:

"Not only is Vic capable of defending himself, he has been doing a consistently better job at debating the matter with me. Though I disagree with him with some vehemence, he has at least used clarity and insight as opposed to the bombast and bluster that characterizes your failing debating techniques."

Mmm - I particularly liked it when he pointed one of your posts out as the single most hypocritical one he had seen on Casebook! That IS clarity and insight, I have to admit!

The best,
Fisherman
Enough? No mas? Bye?

[Ben]

..and sentence structure is about which word ends up where in the sentence without making a GRAMMATICL error.

Ah, but read carefully and you'll notice that I never once used the word "error". That was you, inventing a quote, deliberately attempting to manipulate and deceive by pretending it came from me, and then using that as an opportunity to call me "wrong" and claim those desperately cherished points. The confusion in Leander's sentence stemmed from the placement AND meaning of the word similar within that sentence. It therefore relates to syntax, as I'm prepared to reiterate until I outlive you.

if your interpretaion had been correct (and it never was, of course), would STILL have been an error of factuality; the suggested misuse of the word "similar".

Misuse of the placement of the word, which irrefutably relates to the structure of the sentence and thus to syntax.

"I did not HAVE TO encourage miss Julien to anything. Syntax is as easy and uninterpretable to her as it is to me. It was the easiest call she made this decade, believe me. "

I don't disagree with her, as you know. Obviously you phoned her up to lie about what I said and cast negative aspertions, over the phone, about my character and motivations, but that says more about your stalkerish obsession than anything, something Leander must have noticed to, hence his abrupt response to your latest.

Aaahhh! So nobody informed you that the central theme of Leanders efforts was about handwriting? No? You never realized that he used his examples to point to factors that could affect the handwriting?

They're not similar to eachother. If he meant to say that there were lots of different explanations that may account for the differences, he had only to say so. Instead, he opted to say the polar opposite of what you're claiming he meant. The fact that we know what the theme was most assuredly does not bestow any independent similarity upon the three explanations listed. There was no justification for the word "similar" at all.

[Ben]

Mmm - I particularly liked it when he pointed one of your posts out as the single most hypocritical one he had seen on Casebook! That IS clarity and insight, I have to admit!

Oh, I always love it when I get to the stage where Fisherman quotes other people's criticisms of me in an effort to score points. It's reflective of startling maturity. Check out "Kidney - for and against" for some incisive and humourously-phrased observations about Fisherman, if we're playing that fun game.

Come on - next!

[Fisherman]

"It therefore relates to syntax, as I'm prepared to reiterate until I outlive you."

You are ever so welcome, Ben - the trouble is that grammar and syntax will outlive YOU. Not your version of it, though.

"I don't disagree with her, as you know. Obviously you phoned her up to lie about what I said and cast negative aspertions, over the phone, about my character and motivations"

Ahh - and how does that become "obvious"? Hmm? I asked her if she saw any syntactical errors in the sentence, and she said that it was "flawless", and when I added the question about the differing opinions about the meaning of "similar", she said that it did not affect the syntax question. It was a two minute phonecall, and I need much more than that to describe you. The only obvious thing around here is that you are wrong.

"They're not similar to eachother. If he meant to say that there were lots of different explanations that may account for the differences, he had only to say so. Instead, he opted to say the polar opposite of what you're claiming he meant."

But that was not the question, was it? You wrote that "in the case of natural disasters, we know instantly what the central theme is without needing to be informed what it is." Thus it would seem that knowing the central theme was what you lacked in the case of Leanders sentence. And apart from the sad fact that it seems you have missed out on a few interesting bits and pieces, you are thus saying that when the central theme is known, we are at liberty to use the term "similar" in the exact same way that Leander did.

I knew the central theme - it was about handwriting, ´s far ass I can recall. And I feel pretty certain that Leander knew the central theme too.

A pity you did not, Ben - and if you truly did not, I have a little more understanding to offer for your take on things. If you truly were at a loss to see that we were discussing handwriting, then maybe it was not that easy a thing for you to realize in what way age of the writer, writing space afforded and function of the pen were connected. And if you did not understand what inherent common factor they displayed, then ... Oh, God - I may have been unfair to you, Ben!

"he opted to say the polar opposite of what you're claiming he meant."

That, once again, is language à la Ben. You may claim that he spoke Swahili, and you would be just as incorrect.

Oh, and on my quoting Vic; I just got the impression that you were somewhat too enthusistic about his true judgement of the quality of your reasoning. I am sorry if you are offended by my commenting on a post of yours directed to someone else - but to tell the truth, you have done the exact same thing dozens of times, so I was under the impression that such a thing would go down nicely.

The best,
Fisherman
Aaaand there we go; case closed? Come on..?

[Ben]

Ahh - and how does that become "obvious"? Hmm? I asked her if she saw any syntactical errors in the sentence, and she said that it was "flawless",

It's glaringly obvious that you sought to depict me in the worst light possible when approaching these experts because that is precisely what you've been guilty of elsewhere. If you told her that I spoke of a "syntactical error", then either you forgot what I actually wrote or you're deliberately trying to mislead. Leander communicated the opposite of his allegedly intended meaning as a direct result of syntax. The problem concerned both the meaning and the placement of the word similar, and syntax is indisputably concerned with the latter. Sounds like you misrepresented my views - intentionally or not - in order to elicit your favourite "Ben's wrong" reaction, and it's not going to work here, because I'm not.

"Thus it would seem that knowing the central theme was what you lacked in the case of Leanders sentence

Yes, but when we're dealing with truly "similar things", we are able to discern that central theme without having to be told what it is. If you have to be told what that theme is - for example, if you're needing to be told what unites rhinos, hemorrhoids and fire, it's because those things are otherwise very different to eachother. That's the tell-tale barometer. With natural disasters, you can both spot the theme and provide other examples. Why? Because they're similar already. I've explained this an absurd amount of times now, politely at first, but then...

If they're not similar, but have a shared result on a specific phenomenon, they don't get any more similar. They don't lose their inherent dissimilarity courtesy of that shared result, which is why you'd say that a X, Y and Z can impact on a given phenomenon along with many other different things - different being the opposite of similar.

Oh, and on my quoting Vic; I just got the impression that you were somewhat too enthusistic about his true judgement of the quality of your reasoning.

I simply filtered the salient central observation. That's all.

Aaaand there we go; case closed? Come on..?

Please stop that. It's getting tedious. No, I don't agree with you, not remotely, and I feel certain I never will. Have the maturity to take the advice of your fellow Toppy-supporters, who you claim to respect, and stop trying to engage people in semantic cyber-wrangling battles all the time. I imagine most people will have made their mind up by now, and if they haven't, more repetetive drivel isn't going to help them along. It's patronising to everyone else to claim otherwise.

[Fisherman]

"It's glaringly obvious that you sought to depict me in the worst light possible when approaching these experts because that is precisely what you've been guilty of elsewhere."

Exemplify, or stand with the shame.

"If you told her that I spoke of a "syntactical error", then either you forgot what I actually wrote of you're deliberately trying to mislead."

I´m Swedish. She is Swedish. We spoke Swedish. I used the expression "syntaktiskt inkorrekt" which is as close as I can come to "syntactically incorrect". I know you and your linguistic schemes, Ben - I do not fall into any traps by now. I did in the beginning, since I thought I was dealing with an honest poster, but I have learnt my lesson. Of course, syntactical incorrectness is shown in syntactical errors, so the discussion is a moot one, but still ...

"Yes, but when we're dealing with truly "similar things", we are able to discern that central theme without having to be told what it is"

...and did you have to be told what central theme we were dealing with in the Leander case? Did you? Was it not quite apparent to all of us that we spoke of handwriting? Was that not what the whole issue was about? And if so, the context WAS given, and you were not at any loss at all to be able to realize what central theme it was that united the listed things in Leanders sentence.

"If they're not similar, but have a shared result on a specific phenomenon, they don't get any more similar."

You ARE speaking of natural disasters, are you not; things that are NOT similar, but that share the result of causing damage on a large scale?

"I simply filtered the salient central observation. That's all."

Ehrm...no, you did not. You chose the word "correct" in the same fashion that a movie director that has a critic saying "The fantastic thing about this film, was that the celluloid it was made on could be turned into a smashing toilet paper" would choose the two words "fantastic" and "smashing" for the movie poster. Wait a minute; you are in the movie business, are you not...?

But since you prefer Vic´s way to phrase things, and since we are currently speaking of what points are truly salient in his judgement of you, here´s two more favourites that go nicely to show that if you think that Vic´s verdict on your ramblings is a verdict of ”correct”, you need to think again:

”I cannot think of one instance where that sentence could be used unless you deliberate manipulate the situation to force it”

...and

”you are literally and pedantically interpreting each word of a phrase, which is leading you into semantic gymnastics to defend what you've previously said, despite it's obvious inaccuracy”

Now, try and reconcile ”manipulate” and ”inaccuracy” with ”correct” - and then tell me that Vic, just like Leander, cannot make his mind up, but instead reels drunkenly between extremes. That is the only ”salient” observation we can make here, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman
come on, Ben, others have been wrong before you. Yes? Arrividerla?

[Ben]

Gosh, so not much respect for your fellow Toppy-supporters then when they tried to discourage you from resorting to the perpetually unsuccessful "fight to the death" approach, then? Didn't think so, and I'm glad of it. I realise I'm so much more of a priority than anything else ripper-related, and "as for not falling into my trap", you're still here, aren't you?

Good. Keep it that way. I own you.

I did in the beginning, since I thought I was dealing with an honest poster, but I have learnt my lesson.

...By dedicating more time to me and my contributions than any other poster. Flattered though I am, are you sure there is no differentiation in Sweden between "error" and "incorrect"? That would surprise me enormously, but even if that wasn't the case, it still doesn't detract from the calumny of wrapping a phrase I wasn't responsible for in inverted commas, and using it as a basis to claim I'm either wrong, lying, or both.

...and did you have to be told what central theme we were dealing with in the Leander case? Did you? Was it not quite apparent to all of us that we spoke of handwriting?

Of course it was. We were all made aware of the context because we had been discussing it for ages, but if you posit age and "available space" with no reference to any context, you've little chance of identifying the relevant theme. Not so with natural disasters. You don't need any prior background or discussion whatsoever to know that tornados, hurricanes and volcanos are all "similar things" already - similar in isolation from any influence it may exert on a specified phenomenon. Occasionally, a whole array of dissimilar things can have a shared effect, but they'd still retain that dissimilarity, so it would only be circumspect to describe them as such.

Ehrm...no, you did not. You chose the word "correct"

Because that's what he said. It doesn't matter if he then added, "But I still hate your every sinew, and have nothing but contempt for everything else you say", it would not detract from that central observation. I was correct, pedantically so to some, but correct all the same. I realise that may be antithetical to your vendetta, just as I realise why you're insistent upon bringing Vic up at every opportunity - you know full well that his debating style, and those of the others who disagree with me, is superior to your own, which is why you feel the need to reel them in again. That's why you mentioned other participants. You'd sleep better at night knowing there was a whole army of posters all ganging up against me. It would be interesting to see whether or not they fall for it.

[Fisherman]

Tell you what, chum:

Go out into the large, wide world out there. Then find yourself someone - anyone - that is prepared to side with you on the issues at hand:
Was the sentence "syntactically incorrect"?
Has Leander not been circumspect and steadfast?
Should his sentence be interpreted in the way you suggest, or in the way the rest of us out here suggest?
Are you right, or is miss Julien right?
Would Leander be a better judge of what he himself believes than you?

...and so on and so forth. Preferably, use experts when experts are needed, but I am prepared to settle for anything from ventriloquists to gibbon monkey fur tendants, as long as you avoid Crystal, Rose and Jane.

Then, when you can establish that other people share your wiews to at least some extent, return to the boards, and I will talk to you with more inerest than I can offer for the moment. Corroboration is a good thing, Ben - it´s what moves issues forward.

The best,
Fisherman
waiting

[Ben]

and I will talk to you with more inerest than I can offer for the moment

That was Fisherman claiming a lack of interest in my contributions, ladies and gentleman.

Engage with the irony for a moment. Process it.

Having said that, I think you've highlighted an important issue - "the large, wide world out there". If you engage in some rare circumspection for a moment, you'll realise that it is the concerns of that "large wide world" that deter the vast majority from getting involved in a tedious semantic debates that you started out of a transparent attempt to goad me into battle once more. Interpret that as victory if you want - it's your delusion to harbour...chum.

[Victor]

But fundamentally, bottom line, correct would be the central bullet point there. That's really all I was interested in, although I wouldn't agree that there's anything strict or draconian about the basic premise that several dissimilar things shouldn't really be described as similar.

Hi Ben,

I intentionally differentiated "pedantically correct" from "correct" in particular because the reverse is not considered wrong, it is "colloquially correct".

As you are well aware, I did not state anything like what you are implying in the 2nd sentence, I said that enforcing unnecessarily restrictive rules (like this one) was draconian.

KR,
Vic.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I think you've highlighted an important issue - "the large, wide world out there". If you engage in some rare circumspection for a moment, you'll realise that it is the concerns of that "large wide world" that deter the vast majority from getting involved in a tedious semantic debates that you started out of a transparent attempt to goad me into battle once more."

Well, Ben, I think we need to tell two things apart here - the ones who have had access to the ongoing discussion between you and me are very few, but the ones that may potentially agree with your take on how semantics are best twisted amount to a round 6 billion people. And nothing would interest me more than a statistical evaluation of how many followers you could round up with this manifest of yours! My hunch is that it would be very telling.

Besides, Vic has now stepped in and told you that you may have been a tad premature in signing him up as a follower - it would instead seem that he very much dislikes any bending and twisting on your behalf with the aim to "prove" that his "salient" point was that you would have been "correct" (my, how many quotation marks one has to engage when describing your efforts, Ben!). And so I thought it must get bitterly lonely for you at times - admittedly, not very many people have had the stomach to speak up in this issue, but those who have, have all spoken against you.
No delusions there, I´m afraid. But sure enough, they are around aplenty on the thread.

The best,
Fisherman
off to more interesting issues - until you step over the line again. Could be in five minutes time, for all I know.

[Sam Flynn]

The people you listed all agree with your Toppy stance.

That has nothing to do with it, Ben. I'm not agreeing with anyone's stance, but trusting my own judgment; indeed, it was trusting my own judgment that prompted me to flag up the similarity of the signatures in the first place. Furthermore, the Toppy question and the meaning of a sentence (in this case written by Leander, but it could be absolutely anyone) are entirely separate matters. Further-furthermore [sic.] I can, and do, keep them separate - as I'm sure Fish and Mike have done throughout.