Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(10-05-2014 07:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Thank you, have a miserable day.
Well, I hope that you have a good day. I may not agree with some of your views, but that is not good enough a reason to wish anything undesirable happening to you.

Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(10-05-2014 09:40 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(10-05-2014 07:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Thank you, have a miserable day.
Well, I hope that you have a good day. I may not agree with some of your views, but that is not good enough a reason to wish anything undesirable happening to you.

Have fun!

It's a parody of your mildly annoying posting style. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(10-05-2014 12:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's a parody of your mildly annoying posting style. Drinking Beverage
Thanks for an unnecessary clarification, Chas, the resemblance to my own posts was obvious.

Do you really want to turn this thread into a thread about me? I brought up a subject that you may find interesting or boring, I don't really care, but instead of focusing on the topic you've chosen to mention things about me; how incredibly pedantic I am, or how mildly annoying my posting style is. May I ask you why seem interested in taking about me, rather than about the topics I may bring up?

If you find my posting style annoying, you probably have your good reasons and I do not wish to argue them, I can only recommend that you stop reading whatever I may write; you will be less annoyed and I will waste less time. My mildly annoying posting style reflects my mildly annoying personality and I am not going to change my personality just to make it more agreeable to you.

Once again I thank you for your contribution, although once again you haven't really added anything to the topic under discussion.

Have a great day, Chas. Enjoy the company of whoever is around you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 05:16 PM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(10-05-2014 04:38 PM)living thing Wrote:  
(10-05-2014 12:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's a parody of your mildly annoying posting style. Drinking Beverage
Thanks for an unnecessary clarification, Chas, the resemblance to my own posts was obvious.

Do you really want to turn this thread into a thread about me? I brought up a subject that you may find interesting or boring, I don't really care, but instead of focusing on the topic you've chosen to mention things about me; how incredibly pedantic I am, or how mildly annoying my posting style is. May I ask you why seem interested in taking about me, rather than about the topics I may bring up?

If you find my posting style annoying, you probably have your good reasons and I do not wish to argue them, I can only recommend that you stop reading whatever I may write; you will be less annoyed and I will waste less time. My mildly annoying posting style reflects my mildly annoying personality and I am not going to change my personality just to make it more agreeable to you.

Once again I thank you for your contribution, although once again you haven't really added anything to the topic under discussion.

Have a great day, Chas. Enjoy the company of whoever is around you.

Let's see. I responded to your OP with a substantive view and you called me presumptuous.

So go fuck yourself you pedantic, arrogant, annoying twat.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-05-2014, 07:47 PM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
Hello Chas, thanks for your colourful opinion.

In your initial contribution to this thread (post #15) you replied to post #14 -in which I did mention Thomson and so-called "atoms"- by saying that "he [Thomson] didn't actually redefine the word [atom] as much as correct the understanding of what the word referred to". But please note that my original post had nothing to do with Thomson nor "atoms"; I only brought those notions into post #10 in response to DLJ's suggestion that "the scientific community has no problem with creating new words" (because the scientific community sometimes seems to prefer redefining terms in use over inventing new terms, for whatever reason). Every time you've written about Thomson, so-called "atoms" and my incredible pedantry, you have not addressed my original post with any degree of substantiveness. Your first contribution that can be taken as an answer to my original question ("it is more convenient to just use the word and refine the meaning") came only in post #30, and my reply was not calling you presumptuous, but wishing you a good day.

So no, you didn't respond to my OP with a substantive view and I didn't call you presumptuous; in post #16 I literally wrote "that is a little presumptuous" and not "you are a little presumptuous". The difference in the subject is clear.

Is there anything you'd like to add about the topic under consideration or even about myself? I'm sure you can think of more adjectives!

Thanks again for your view, Chas. Please do have a good day and don't be annoyed by the thoughts of a random stranger on the internet; it's not worth it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(10-05-2014 07:47 PM)living thing Wrote:  Hello Chas, thanks for your colourful opinion.

In your initial contribution to this thread (post #15) you replied to post #14 -in which I did mention Thomson and so-called "atoms"- by saying that "he [Thomson] didn't actually redefine the word [atom] as much as correct the understanding of what the word referred to". But please note that my original post had nothing to do with Thomson nor "atoms"; I only brought those notions into post #10 in response to DLJ's suggestion that "the scientific community has no problem with creating new words" (because the scientific community sometimes seems to prefer redefining terms in use over inventing new terms, for whatever reason). Every time you've written about Thomson, so-called "atoms" and my incredible pedantry, you have not addressed my original post with any degree of substantiveness. Your first contribution that can be taken as an answer to my original question ("it is more convenient to just use the word and refine the meaning") came only in post #30, and my reply was not calling you presumptuous, but wishing you a good day.

So no, you didn't respond to my OP with a substantive view and I didn't call you presumptuous; in post #16 I literally wrote "that is a little presumptuous" and not "you are a little presumptuous". The difference in the subject is clear.

Is there anything you'd like to add about the topic under consideration or even about myself? I'm sure you can think of more adjectives!

Thanks again for your view, Chas. Please do have a good day and don't be annoyed by the thoughts of a random stranger on the internet; it's not worth it.

Thank you for your pomposity and smugness. They are such a pleasant and constructive addition to this forum. I hope your stay here is brief.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(10-05-2014 09:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  (...) I hope your stay here is brief.
Why don't you simply ignore my threads?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(11-05-2014 08:32 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(10-05-2014 09:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  (...) I hope your stay here is brief.
Why don't you simply ignore my threads?

Or you could ignore mine. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Is it wise to redefine words that are already in use, to accommodate new notions?
(03-04-2014 04:01 AM)living thing Wrote:  Hello everyone.

Making up words is easy, and it is free. Glasterizer, jorndes, sincorate... there still are many combinations of sounds that few people, if any, use in reference to anything.

As I've said elsewhere, I often consider the notion of something occupying a specific volume at a specific distance in a specific direction from a specific reference point, and I call that notion "to exist".

However, I realise that the term is already in use by other people, and very often in relation to notions that are not the one I just described, for example when someone suggests that Santa Claus exists in our minds.

So I sometimes wonder whether I should simply make up a new term to summarise the notion (I don't know... to besist, or something like that), in order to avoid engaging in endless discussions about the meanings of words. What do you think is most adequate?

Thanks. Have a good day.

Yes, you should make up a new word. Your use of the word 'exist' (or any word) with a meaning that is idiosyncratic not only does not enhance communication, but hinders it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: