Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[Perfection]

See now that is not in the definition? Einstein would have been barred as not an intelectual as he only ever got a third class degree, and was admitted to Universities on the merit of his papers alone in fact he got refused from all the universities because of his crappy pass, so that's plainly false.

Eistein got an advanced degree. So he fits. So you can't object.

many scientists of history were self taught so they're out too, some of the greatest thinkers in history such as Aristotle, Plato and Nietzsche.

That's because way back then the university system wasn't like it is today. This is a definition for modern peeps, people back in ye olden get a different one.

That's a pointless definition

How's it pointless?

and it's also completely at odds with the dictionary.

100% compatable

Again are you saying you are have trouble understanding me?

Noone understands you.

 

[Gogf]

What was wrong with it? Are you a bit slow? Is that what the problem is?

The problem is that you write nonsensical run-on sentences that don't use any semblance of grammar, punctuation, or spelling. I don't mean any offense by that, but it's extremely hard to discern the meaning from a lot of the word salad that you churn out.

You also end every other non-question sentence with a question mark which is EXTREMELY confusing.

And if you keep being a spelling and grammar nazzi I'll report you, if you don't understand a sentence fine I'll talk you through it. But I refuse to be questioned on when I'm making a questioning statement? Or am puzzled, that's just pedantry no?

Huh? If you want to report me for not understanding you, go ahead. Regardless of whether or not you do, I will continue to assert that a large amount of what you write is incomprehensible. I don't mean to troll you, but you asked if I understood...

 

[Sidhe]

Why do they manage to respond coherently then? If they don't understand me, and anyway your definition counts out some of the greatest thinkers of the last 4000 years so it's rubbish.

 

[Fifty]

Oh my mistake I didn't realise you were ********? Sorry? Sincerely since everyone replied to them, you seem to be the only one having problems do you think you might be a bit slow mentally then?

The problem is that one has to actually consciously decipher what the heck you are trying to say, rather than just reading the post.

Oh and by the way, Sidhe. "everyone" did not reply to them. This is a horrible and infantile logical error. There are 6 billion people on earth, and only a few people replied to them. Not even all OTers replied to them. Not even everyone who has thus far participated in this thread has replied to them. So no matter what your domain of discourse, you are committing a horribly elementary logical error. Unless you define your domain in terms of "those who have replied" which would of course be another logical effor in begging the question.

 

[Perfection]

Why do they manage to respond coherently then?

We're just going off stereotypes.

If they don't understand me, and anyway your definition counts out some of the greatest thinkers of the last 4000 years so it's rubbish.

IT'S A MODERN DEFINITION FOR MODERN PEEPS! K? I accept that as a limitation! It's still useful for sortin' modern peeps!

 

[Gogf]

Oh my mistake I didn't realise you were ********? Sorry? Sincerely since everyone replied to them, you seem to be the only one having problems do you think you might be a bit slow mentally then? Sincerely as you seem to be the only one with a problem with comprehension, do you think you might have a learning disability?

Obviously people replying to your posts does not mean that they understand what you mean. For example, as you can see, I have replied to your posts, yet I do not understand what they mean.

I challenge you to find more than one person of CFC who will testify that they understand everything you say.

hattery of the finest ass that's just a joke lighten up.

Well, it may be a joke, but I have no idea what it means.

 

[Sidhe]

Obviously people replying to your posts does not mean that they understand what you mean. For example, as you can see, I have replied to your posts, yet I do not understand what they mean.

I challenge you to find more than one person of CFC who will testify that they understand everything you say.



Well, it may be a joke, but I have no idea what it means.

Well then they are welcome to point out the sentence and I'll clarify.

We're just going off stereotypes.

Or more correctly you are just lying for the sake of it.

IT'S A MODERN DEFINITION FOR MODERN PEEPS! K? I accept that as a limitation! It's still useful for sortin' modern peeps!

I disagree, it sorts out people based on a non dictionary definition and a non historical definition, therefore it's rubbish.

 

[Gogf]

Well then they are welcome to point out the sentence and I'll clarify.

I already did here .

 

[Gogf]

I disagree, it sorts out people based on a non dictionary definition and a non historical definition, therefore it's rubbish.

So let me get this straight: you're saying that every new definition of a word is "rubbish"?

 

[Perfection]

I disagree, it sorts out people based on a non dictionary definition

The dictionary is not the sole judge of meaing, Sidhe.

and a non historical definition,

What's wrong with a soley modern definition?

 

[Sidhe]

So let me get this straight: you're saying that every new definition of a word is "rubbish"?

No not necessarily but a definition that only exists in Perfection world is liable to lead to all sorts of confusion if he uses it in the real world, where everyone else does not understand the new meaning. If everyone starts using it in that sense no doubt it would end up in the dictionary, you can't just fiftify every word you come across because you feel like it.

What's wrong with a soley modern definition?

Nothing you have one use it.

There's no need to make up new definitions just to make a point and then claim that you have classified the whole world based on a non definition you just made up, no ones going to agree with you doing that, it'll just make any discussion meaningless as you can just change the meanings of words whenever you like. This is why English dictionaries exist, to show the concensus meaning to avoid confusion.

 

[Perfection]

No not necessarily but a definition that only exists in Perfection world is liable to lead to all sorts of confusion if he uses it in the real world

Can you think of a single case where it would cause confusuin?

 

[Fifty]

I disagree, it sorts out people based on a non dictionary definition and a non historical definition, therefore it's rubbish.

If you honestly think that's a sensible reply to what Perfection was saying, that alone pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of your "I'm an intellectual" thesis.

An advanced degree, in these times, is a good prerequisite for being an intellectual. Why is that not true other than simply saying "cuz the dictionary sez so", especially when I've already debunked your precious criterion #7 (which you've mysteriously refused to reply to).

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Thread in Nutshell:

Sidhe: "Blah blah balh bahl bhal bhaal (run-on sentence) oh and I'm intellectual."
Poster: "You're not making sense."
Sidhe: "I'll report you you you gammer nazi!"
Everyone Else: "What a bunch of douchebags."


Fifty, why does Folding@Home suck?

 

[Sidhe]

adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the intellect.
b. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3.
a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
n.
An intellectual person.

This'll do, can we agree to the real dictionary definition or are we rewritting English today.

Erik stop acting like a five year old. If you want to make a point without resorting to insult do so.

 

[MjM]

yea im an intellecuatual but you dont agree with me asshats and im not good speller so yea

 

[Fifty]

adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the intellect.
b. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3.
a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
n.
An intellectual person.

This'll do, can we agree to the real dictionary definition or are we rewritting English today.

That's, for the fiftieth time, a stupid definition. So an intellectual is anybody who does anything "of or related to the intellect"? HUH!? So I guess EVERYONE is an intellectual then, even people who can hardly articulate themselves in sensican sentences.


@Erik: Because it made my comp sucky.

 

[Sidhe]

yea im an intellecuatual but you dont agree with me asshats and im not good speller so yea

Ah more sycophants to the pumps, this should be fun anyone care to make a point?

Adjective

intellectual

1. Belonging to, or performed by, the intellect; mental; as, intellectual powers, activities, etc.
2. Endowed with intellect; having the power of understanding; having capacity for the higher forms of knowledge or thought; characterized by intelligence or mental capacity; as, an intellectual person.
3. Suitable for exercising the intellect; formed by, and existing for, the intellect alone; perceived by the intellect; as, intellectual employments.
4. Relating to the understanding; treating of the mind; as, intellectual philosophy, sometimes called "mental" philosophy.

This do you.

The best one has already been done, I don't write definitions of words, I do know what they mean and I don't try and rewrite their meaning to avoid admitting I'm wrong.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I have already done so, but it seems to me that you insist upon seeing events that reflect unfavorably on you as "insults".

An "insult" would be along the lines of "You suck", or "You're acting like a five year old". Stones in glass houses, anyone?

 

[Sidhe]

I have already done so, but it seems to me that you insist upon seeing events that reflect unfavorably on you as "insults".

An "insult" would be along the lines of "You suck", or "You're acting like a five year old". Stones in glass houses, anyone?

You just called me a douchebag, yes? "Everyone else thinks, douchebags", that would include me right?

I think you are being childish, it's an opinion.