Are you one of those pretentious blokes who refers to books are "reads"?

[Erik Mesoy]

I do use the fixed expression "a good read", but I don't use "a read" by itself.

 

[Perfection]

Guess what I call women...

Begs?

Just as there are people pretentiously state that there are "full of dumbass pseudo-intellectuals" while not admitting oneself being in that group.

But I'm not! Dumbass or not, I don't disguise myself as an intellectual.

 

[CartesianFart]

But I'm not! Dumbass or not, I don't disguise myself as an intellectual.

I would like to say that I do not do it as well as you say that you do it not.

But anyway I do have to ask you on how can you tell if someone disquises him or herself as being intellectual while in reality they are really demostrating a mere characterization of being a pseudo-intellectual?

 

[Bill3000]

I would like to say that I do not do it as well as you say that you do it not.

But anyway I do have to ask you on how can you tell if someone disquises him or herself as being intellectual while in reality they are really demostrating a mere characterization of being a pseudo-intellectual?

When you cannot comprehend what the person is saying, and the person in question does not actually make intelligent remarks once you blow the wind away, the person is a pseudo-intellectual.

By the way, do you refer to books as "reads"?

 

[LucyDuke]

I would say something like "it's a good read," but I wouldn't refer to a book as a read specifically; just the quality of the actual reading part of it.

Stop taking words out of my mouth! You do this to me all the time!

 

[angeleyes]

only refer to books as writes.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Blokes? .

Why is that I am the only one with a dirty mind? I call women, women but I can think of a few more interesting words based on the premise of this thread.

 

[CartesianFart]

When you cannot comprehend what the person is saying, and the person in question does not actually make intelligent remarks once you blow the wind away, the person is a pseudo-intellectual.

Wow! A new definition on "pseudo-intellectual" have been made right here in Civfanatics! I have to ask you then, what is it that when a person calls another as being a pseudo-intellectual, that it is more of the person using it in a name-calling sense toward someone and not in the traditional meaning such as "demostrating a sense of intellectual knowledge of something fraudulently?"

By the way, do you refer to books as "reads"?

No. Plus I think the meaning of what you guys refer as "reads" is a colloquial one. It is not common in my "neck-of-the-woods."

 

[Bill3000]

I have to ask you then, what is it that when a person calls another as being a pseudo-intellectual, that it is more of the person using it in a name-calling sense toward someone and not in the traditional meaning such as "demostrating a sense of intellectual knowledge of something fraudulently?"

It's done for both reasons, actually.

 

[warpus]

I would like to say that I do not do it as well as you say that you do it not.

Whoa.. That sentence gave me a headache

 

[CartesianFart]

It's done for both reasons, actually.

So the meaning of calling someone "pseudo-intellectual" requires a person who is not a psuedo-intellectual in a way that allows him to show the difference of who is an intellectual and who is fraudulently being an intellectual?

Make you wonder in some cases that there might be a odd occasion when a pseudo-intellectual can accusatively call another person of pseudo-intellectualizing. I can't help laughing on that one.

 

[Phlegmak]

Why is that I am the only one with a dirty mind? I call women, women but I can think of a few more interesting words based on the premise of this thread.

Then I guess you either call them "books" or "reads", neither of which sound dirty. Or do you call them "intellectuals"?

So the meaning of calling someone "pseudo-intellectual" requires a person who is not a psuedo-intellectual in a way that allows him to show the difference of who is an intellectual and who is fraudulently being an intellectual?

Make you wonder in some cases that there might be a odd occasion when a pseudo-intellectual can accusatively call another person of pseudo-intellectualizing. I can't help laughing on that one.

Neither can I!

 

[CartesianFart]

Whoa.. That sentence gave me a headache

That is why I suppose that I sometimes smoke a little reefer time to time.

 

[Che Guava]

My name is Che, and I occasionally use the word 'read' when referring to a book, magazine, or article.

Does that make me a dumbass pseudo-intellectual...?

 

[CartesianFart]

Does that make me a dumbass pseudo-intellectual...?

In some cases - yeah.

I guess when someone does not like you for using a word "read" signifying something about something in a way they think is always associated with person who they have had known to be a pseudo-intellectual, then I guess by habit they will call you that.

 

[GuitarHero]

I use the word read to describe a book, that's not what I call it.

 

[LightFang]

My name is Che, and I occasionally use the word 'read' when referring to a book, magazine, or article.

Do you tell people that "we need to dialogue" too?

 

[eddfire3]

I have not understood more than half of the sentences in this thread, am I a dumbass pseudo-intellectual?

But yea I think most people do not call the actual books "reads" but use the word to refer to the act of reading the book. Like said earlier in the thread, That book was a good read, meaning, reading the book was enjoyable, not quite, that book was enjoyable. I think?

 

[LucyDuke]

I have not understood more than half of the sentences in this thread, am I a dumbass pseudo-intellectual?

No, you're not, because you can admit that you don't know everything.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Stop taking words out of my mouth! You do this to me all the time!

Don't worry, I'm right there with you.