This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Deepthought
FYI guys, it's spelled "clique".
and how!
They aren't even pronounced the same way!
Post by
MyTie
FYI guys, it's spelled "clique".
and how!
They aren't even pronounced the same way!
They can be pronounced the same way. I pronounce them the same way.
click
clique
Post by
Deepthought
FYI guys, it's spelled "clique".
and how!
They aren't even pronounced the same way!
They can be pronounced the same way. I pronounce them the same way.
click
clique
But they should be pronounced differently to prevent the confusion that was just had.
Post by
MyTie
But they should be pronounced differently to prevent the confusion that was just had.
Confusion? No one was confused. We misspelled a word, you went all spelling nazi, and I took it gracefully.
Post by
Deepthought
But they should be pronounced differently to prevent the confusion that was just had.
Confusion? No one was confused. We misspelled a word, you went all spelling nazi, and I took it gracefully.
Attempting to prevent misspellings makes me Hitler, apparently?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Bush and bush are pronounced the same, therefore they are the same thing.
QED
Post by
Deepthought
Bush and bush are pronounced the same, therefore they are the same thing.
QED
They're also spelled the same.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Bush and bush are pronounced the same, therefore they are the same thing.
QED
They're also spelled the same.
B =/= b
Counter-argument denied.
Post by
Deepthought
Bush and bush are pronounced the same, therefore they are the same thing.
QED
They're also spelled the same.
B =/= b
Counter-argument denied.
B = b when it's at the start of a sentence.
(Which it was in your example.)
Counter-counter-arguement denied.
Post by
Adamsm
Bush and bush are pronounced the same, therefore they are the same thing.
QED
Well, Bush is as dumb as a bush so it works.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
B = b when it's at the start of a sentence.
(Which it was in your example.)
Counter-counter-arguement denied.
I will lay your argument here out in full, so that it might be judged in full.
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
Thus, it still stands that Bush =/= bush, whether it is at the beginning of a sentence or not.
Post by
Deepthought
B = b when it's at the start of a sentence.
(Which it was in your example.)
Counter-counter-arguement denied.
I will lay your argument here out in full, so that it might be judged in full.
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
No, in this context there is no indication that you are referring to the surname "Bush" and not a type of foliage, so my point still stands.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, in this context there is no indication that you are referring to the surname "Bush" and not a type of foliage, so my point still stands.
Bush and bush are pronounced the same,
therefore they are the same thing
.
Post by
Deepthought
No, in this context there is no indication that you are referring to the surname "Bush" and not a type of foliage, so my point still stands.
Your point is based on a subjective interpretation and thus is meaningless beyond yourself.
The same is true of your point. You rely on the assumption that the reader has heard of the word "Bush" being used as a surname.
No, in this context there is no indication that you are referring to the surname "Bush" and not a type of foliage, so my point still stands.Bush and bush are pronounced the same,
therefore they are the same thing
.
The only difference between the two instances of "bush" in your example was the capitalization, which could be present for the reason I cited. Where is the indication that it is not and that you are not being ironic?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The same is true of your point. You rely on the assumption that the reader has heard of the word "Bush" being used as a surname.
I rely on nothing, except the fact that if things are pronounced the same, they must therefore be the same in nature.
The only difference between the two instances of "bush" in your example was the capitalization, which could be present for the reason I cited. Where is the indication that it is not and that you are not being ironic?
There is no indication of anything, except that they must be the same.
Post by
Deepthought
The same is true of your point. You rely on the assumption that the reader has heard of the word "Bush" being used as a surname.
I rely on nothing, except the fact that if things are pronounced the same, they must therefore be the same in nature.
The only difference between the two instances of "bush" in your example was the capitalization, which could be present for the reason I cited. Where is the indication that it is not and that you are not being ironic?
There is no indication of anything, except that they must be the same.
Thus, it still stands that Bush =/= bush
?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I will lay
your
argument here out in full, so that it might be judged in full.
...
Thus, it still stands that Bush =/= bush
Post by
Deepthought
I will lay
your
argument here out in full, so that it might be judged in full.
...
Thus, it still stands that Bush =/= bush
I don't get it are you being obtuse on purpose? That post that you quoted contains those sentences, yes, but inbetween them is an attempt to counter my arguement?
My arguement, for instance is not:
However, you have failed to recognize the fact that things are capitalized for other reasons, in this case due to the former being a proper name.
So, no, your premise that "B = b when it's at the start of a sentence" is erroneous.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Every argument has two premises and a conclusion. I argue against your first premise, then your second. I leave your conclusion, because there is nothing left to argue against once your premises are gone.
I don't get it are you being
acute
on purpose?
Post by
Deepthought
I argue against your first premise, then your second.
Would you mind pointing out where? I can't work out where you're being ironic and where you're being serious.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.