Bit OT: rant on 'semantics' in forum fu.

[Mr Punch]

From another thread: somebody arguing with somebody else...

A says :generic facetious comment:

B says "what do you mean?"

A explains at great length with reference to both scientifically proven fact (as much as anything can be yaddada) and personal experience the reason why it was that he felt justified in making such a comment.

B says "so what do you mean by X? and btw the answer should be Y"

A explains at great length kindly, courteously and with humour, AND with reference to both scientifically proven fact (as much as anything can be yaddada) and personal experience.

B says "oh well, it's all semantics, let's not argue, I know what I mean..."
And ignores the first poster completely!

With regards to semantics...

Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semantics)
Semantics...
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

In case you hadn't noticed, as humans, especially on a notice board, we have no alternative to use of language, however unscientific...! :D

Using definition 1: Is it not like saying;

'science' vs 'eeerrr, I know what I'm talking about'

'sense' vs 'nonsense'

'the richness of human communication through words or NVC forms eg, sign language, kungfu, etc, the honesty of human courteousness through taking the time to explain clearly wtf you mean and to reply to someone addressing you directly, the very essence of humanity through blahdelawhojamafliminny...' vs 'bollocks!'
?

Using definition 1, poster A was correct and poster B's assertion that 'semantics' had something to do with his failure to back up his previous assertions adequately, was nonsense.

Using definition 3, poster A was correct in his meticulous explanation of what he meant by using the words he did, and poster B was once again sodomized by the incorrect in his assertion that semantics was somehow to blame for the breakdown in communication.

This has to be the most pointless, patronizing and pompous post I've ever made, but I'm just having fun with my human capacity for language! It just gets my adducted goat when someone 'argues' that semantics is to blame for anything. Better forum fu please gentlemen/ladies!
We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

:D

Wanders off burbling to self.

[foolinthedeck]

well since you argue with your self, theres no need for a response. perhaps you meant me? i often mention semantics. meaning the meaning of words, like these, which only mean what i mean them to mean or what you mean them to mean or what we collectively as a society mean them to mean, or us as a subculture, but what do we mean by us? or by mean?

and another thing. there are no scientifically proven facts. except for those which then get scientifically disproven and prove to be in flux anyway.

maybe B was just in a bad mood. maybe he just misunderstood A, it happens. maybe he was ignorant, we all are, just of different things. like what semantics means, different dictionaries will give different definitions.

on reread, you sound angry. if you are correct then where does the anger come from? if you have the centre line and i say you dont because of semantics of 'centre' and 'line'. so what?