Re: What is YOUR view?

On 30/04/2024 06:56, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
 

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>

On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:

On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

>
>
So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>

>
You misunderstand.

  <Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>
 

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>

>
Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
involving any aspect of the above.

  Alternate explanation:  Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).
 

That alternate explanation is, I guess, just about plausible enough to justify a misunderstanding by a defensive reader but it *would* be a misunderstanding as it fails on Grice's maxim of quantity. If Kerr-Mudd had wished to commend JTEM for the implication jillery needs meds he would have said "jillery". "It's others" includes jillery but also a much larger group, and is the term that would be used when that larger group is being referenced. The "*it's* others" as opposed to just "others" highlights that "others need meds" is being opposed to the counterfactual "not-others[=JTEM] needs meds". The maxim of relevance suggests that this counterfactual is indeed what the sentence is hinting at.
 > The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
 > as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
 > more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
 > original understanding.
 >
That, or you misunderstood and everyone else understood correctly which is why they are uniformly disagreeing with you. I guess it would hurt your soul to go back through past posts just *trying* the alternate interpretive lens to see if it tracks.
I mean, that's the thing of it you know. If everyone were against you - and on this point, they are! Why would they deny accusing you of needing meds? Who on this board is too precious to make and stand by such an accusation if they mean it? Does anyone talk to JTEM like "no JTEM John Harshman wasn't calling you paranoid or a Russian agent, he was ~on your side~ actually and you misunderstood"?