Sloppy Zhang

Who says I haven't? Who says that the things I post on this forum AREN'T coming from real world experience? I consider it foolish to assume that someone who disagrees with you is somehow inexperienced, or lacking the "right" experience. But maybe someone will condescend to my level and tell me that I am just throwing a tantrum. That I whine and stamp my feet whenever people don't agree. That one day I'm going to get out into the "real world", "test my theories", and then start thinking about things the right way. Those people need to get over themselves.

Hey, hey, language isn't math(s)! But yeah, pretty much this: So in that case, it doesn't necessarily have to be a majority. It could be many. As center pointed out, many enough to warrant a comment and perhaps their own category. But not necessarily the majority of their said group. Just numerous enough that you notice. And/or associated with particularly strong perceptions (super bitchy, super jackass, super nerdy, etc) which might influence your "counting" even more But I'd be careful Apech, it seems like you're starting to get pretty into this daft argument

I'd say it has more to do with frequency of perception rather than numbers.

Oh how (in)convenient. Don't remember huff'n OR puff'n. Quotes please. I don't recall ever talking about my personal addictions. Quotes please. I mean, for God's sake man- you know what threads those are! Take 5 minutes out of your life, go back, pull some quotes, and show me where I huff and puff and talk about my addictions. Marry your theoretical abstractions to the harsh cold reality of my words. I'm sorry, please tell me where I said that my experience involved sitting in the back? I recall saying this: But it doesn't say whether I was in the back, or was the speaker. I recall saying this: But that doesn't indicate if I was in the back, if I was in the speaker, or if I was watching it on the internet. See, that wasn't too hard, was it? The post I quoted was even on the same page (page 6) So, Stig, when did I tell you that my public speaking experience involved sitting in the back? See, this is why you need direct quotes. Because you come up and make theoretical abstractions about a person, but when you marry those abstractions to reality, you see that those abstractions don't hold up.

Where have I done this? Point to my post. Quote me. Paraphrase my argument. Use a keyword that I have used which can be found in one of my posts. Do SOMETHING that isn't just you stating whatever it is you want to say. We all know what you think. Show us you are willing to marry the brutal reality, and show me some real posts! Then it shouldn't be too hard to find me a quote. Then it shouldn't be too hard to find me a quote. 1. Show me the hypocrisy (by lining up quotes, using some keywords I have used which can be found in my posts, or presenting a thorough analysis of my position) 2. Show me the tantrum (I find it hard to imagine you being able to do this without a quote...) Again, the only evidence that I have "thrown a tantrum" is you saying I did. Where? When? To whom? What conversation? What were my words? Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. I can respond all I want to you by saying "you are a 13 year old girl in real life", but unless I can line up some posts that actually substantiate that claim, I have nothing. You, right, now, have nothing. Despite my repeating asking for some sort of evidence, you have still produced nothing. Where do you see that? Or are you just attempting to belittle, demean, and trivialize my position? It might please a fickle crowd and make you popular. You can use public speaking side stepping and obfuscation tactics in the spur of the moment. But here, your words are on record (unless you decide to up and delete all your posts). I don't go and delete my old posts (even the embarrassing ones). So you go and find some of me throwing a tantrum, and then we'll talk. I've matched each and every one of my points, to one of yours. Now I suppose that, to some extent, EVERYTHING on this board is a theoretic abstraction. Which includes your poll. After all, how could a couple dozen (at most) be representative of the entire English speaking population? Huh. Way to go. I think I'm going to start using that

What about teh wimminz? Here is what I think going into those statements- "In general women are angry"- you see a lot of angry women, and note that you perceive such a preponderance of angry women over such a period of time, when you think of women, you think of them as being angry. "In general, women are not angry"- you see a lot of not angry women, and not that you perceive such a preponderance of not angry women over such a period of time, that when you think of women, you think of them as not angry. "In general, women are angry, but in general, they are not angry"- you need to make up your mind, figure out what you are trying to say, and/or qualify some of your terms. For instance "in general, women I meet at bars are angry", "in general, women I meet picking up their kids from school are not angry", "in general, women I meet in the mall are not angry, but in general, women I mean outside the mall are angry". Like that

Yes to all! Context is important. Context context con to the text If we're talking about eye color, that's pretty broad and we have pretty easy ways of quantifying the number of people with a certain eye color (I mean, in the US it's on driver's licenses). It's why I think your example sounds so ridiculous- because we have hard data on hard, objective facts. The real issue, and the one that this debate (which I also think is daft ) came from, is what happens when you talk about behavior, which is MUCH harder to quantify (again, because in general/many/most/a lot of cases we must rely on tricky things like self reporting). A category in which even our "facts" may not be correct. "In general people masturbate". That's pretty tricky and possibly downright offensive! HUGE reliance on self reporting, and with a subject which is still held to be taboo in many cultures and sub-cultures, most likely under reported. We know humans are pretty damn sexual. We know sexuality is present in lots of forms of culture (music, advertisement, etc). As people grow up, they discover things about their body and its sexuality. So "in general, people masturbate". Is that a hard majority, is it a large portion? Hard to say, hard to say.

Or taze the heckler

How so? And even if you were to cling to that title, those same "theoretical objections" are exactly what are used in the scientific peer review process which has provided our civilization with many of the things that I'm sure the vast majority of us enjoy on a daily basis. So they have to be doing something right, right? Well then you hold yourself accountable to an empty statement. Again, the very premise of your poll was false. You know who else gets lots of face time? Paris Hilton. Strawman? Just using this standard you are bragging about. Personal anecdote! How unscientific! Let's drop the charade, stig. Let's stop all pretenses about this being rigorously scientific, because we both know it isn't. It is an informal discussion on a discussion forum in which we swap personal anecdotes, and occasionally cite external sources. As grandiose as your "scientific" claims may have sounded to an uncritical mind, as soon as you are met with criticism that you cannot answer to, you retreat to something unscientific. And please keep in mind that that is an observation about your argument, not about you as a person this ain't personal. For each of your personal public speaking anecdotes, I can come up with one to corroborate you and one to counter you. I've seen just as many audiences who sat and listened intelligently and patiently as the speaker clarified their point and elaborated their position, even IF they initially misunderstood something, and I've seen just as many audiences take statements with multiple meanings in the intended way. So again, you have done nothing to prove anything. Please do not pretend that you have. I've got a personal experience which says that if that happened, the people in the audience were a bunch of morons, because I've seen audiences who 1) understood the intended meaning of a phrase with multiple definitions and 2) withheld their judgment until hearing the speaker out. So, again, it proves nothing one way or the other. You have demonstrated that with your posts. And it's ironic, because on the one hand you try to pass off your poll as some rigorous, scientific, ethical study, using all the proper procedures, and on the other hand, you "don't give a sod" about logic. And then on your other (you have a lot of hands) you push me to apply the logic I "extol" rather than "flounder" around. Sounds to me like you are calling on "logic" when it suits you, and ignoring it when it doesn't. And again, keep in mind this is an observation about your argument, not you as a person. Remember, not personal And all of your past posts prove this. The reality of my personal experiences as *insert impressive sounding yet still fallacious argumentative tactic (as your self proclaimed experience does not grant you any knowledge of how an audience is going to respond in any given situation, and your "research" does not reliably explore the issue, even by your own admission*, we can say that my argumentative dick is STILL bigger than your little pecker.

And since it remains a viable possibility given the plethora of words with multiple meanings depending on the context which are listed in standard compositions of English language words (like the dictionary) (not to mention the fact that this thread has already provided one such example of reading filling in the proper meaning given the context), I would say that it is a safe assumption to make. Given that, it would still be necessary to further investigate. A proper poll dealing with a term that has multiple meanings would do that. Yours does not. So since any conclusions you would draw from an incomplete poll would be, themselves, incomplete, it's best not to draw any conclusions to begin with. And what a false dichotomy it is. Again, scotty provided a multitude of sources which provided multiple meanings for the phrase. You poll assumes that these definitions are at odds, that they are mutually exclusive. That if you believe one, you cannot change and believe the other. And that's not true. And since your poll does not accurately assess the fluidity of language, it is a poor selection of "data" to draw conclusions from. There are flaws, but it ain't just sample size! And even knowing these flaws, you are still trying to pass this off as a "rigorous" scientific study? You know what happens in a "rigorous" scientific peer review process to a paper with "inherent weaknesses", that the author of the paper KNEW about them going into the project? The peer reviewers rip it to shreds, they say "if you know what the problems are, fix them, THEN come back". Then, before the findings are approved, it is done and redone, over and over again, and the experiments are improved FURTHER, and then done again and again, and THEN the results are passed off as reliable- until something better comes along. So, please, if you KNOW that there are errors, then there is no reason to pass them off as even remotely accurate (no matter how many times you conduct a favorable analysis). You have defeated your own argument. No work required from me. Not when the errors are in the structure and execution for how the data is collected. Such an action is unnecessary, as your "research" is woefully inadequate to begin with! I don't have to jump off a cliff in order to tell the other kids that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea Put your quotes where your mouth is. Then we'll talk.

Wow, what a long-winded response! You could have just said "tl;dr". That isn't what it means, because in a situation in which there are multiple definitions depending on the contexts, people fill in the correct definition as is appropriate. Your poll ignores this, and makes no effort to probe the different contexts which may cause poll takers to respond differently to the same phrase. So your two conclusions that you arrived at based on these polls are completely inapplicable. You are incorrectly extrapolating a population's thought process based on limited data from a limited survey. Will they really though? Will they maintain that even after they are able to take in the full context? You don't know that they will or they won't because you didn't care to include that in your limited poll! You have proven nothing, because people fill in the meaning depending on the context of the situation. You have no way of understanding how people would change their position given the context. Consider this: A poll in which participants could only pick one: What does rape mean to you? A) forced sexual intercourse B ) violation or abuse C) To spoil or destroy (a place) ALL of those definitions can be correct given the context. If the majority picked A, you would have no grounds to say "if you say the Rape of Nanking, nobody would get it!" The poll would be flawed from the start, in the same way that yours is. I get what you are saying. The only problem is, you aren't seeing the whole picture. Your vision is too narrow. You are in a burning building, firefighters are telling you to leave, and you are looking at a cup of water and saying "see, see, it's water, I'll be okay". Why you trying to make this personal? I'm critiquing your thought process. Not you as a person. I'm not going on a vendetta against you. I'm merely pointing it out when I see faulty thought processes. At every turn, you keep trying to weasel out of it. You keep staging a fallacious ad hominum argument, that the reason I disagree with you is that I'm after you "personally", that I am "floundering" around for something. You have not given any indication that you have read my points. You have not responded to ANY of the points and concerns and limitations that I have pointed out. When the fact of the matter is that at each and every moment I have articulated my position in a multitude of ways. And each time you respond with a wordy "tl;dr", then you proceed to talk about me as a person.

Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make

Then you need to go back and read this post and this post. But I shall try to sum it all up: Center/scotty, in the other thread, listed several sources which gave multiple definitions for the meaning "in context". The English language has many words with multiple meanings determined by the contexts. Intelligent readers/listeners fill in the appropriate definition depending on the context. For instance, the word "rape" means forced sexual intercourse. However, violent military campaigns that involve the destruction and general sacking of a city have been referred to as "rapes" for a very long time (though very often, forced sexual intercourse happens). Case in point, the rape of Nanking. I doubt any intelligent person thinks the city itself was forced into sexual intercourse (how can you have sex with a city???). Knowing the context, they supply a secondary meaning, and the message of "the rape of Nanking" is not lost on anybody (anybody educated, that is). Which brings us to your poll. Your poll presents two options which have been demonstrated by Center's sources (see the thread in which this conversation started) to both be valid. However, you poll pits them against each other. That very premise is silly. Why would you even pit two equally valid definitions against each other? Again, it'd be like pitting the multiple uses of the word "rape" against each other. Is any one "more right" than the other? No. It depends on the context. So not only is the premise flawed from the beginning, but you compound the issue further by allowing only ONE of TWO choices. Participants have no option for "it could be either, depending on what you are talking about". They have no option for "neither". They have no option for "this, but only in this instance". So the participants literally have one arm tied behind their back. They must choose between one of two equally valid definitions. Given their limited choices, they are faced with several viable options for how to proceed- they could not vote, they could vote for the one that is most likely the case, they can vote for the one that they (subjectively) have heard most often, they can vote for the one that they think the poll giver wants to hear, they can vote for the one that they believe has the most primacy, they can vote for whichever one is "right" according to test taking tricks (such as "always pick the shortest option" or "always pick the longest option"). But since your poll is so narrow and involves two valid definitions, we have absolutely no manner of reasonably viewing the thought process of the individuals who voted. And that's even when we ignore the fact that self reporting is notoriously unscientific! On TOP of that (and the list is already pretty long!) there are no questions which probe the extent of their answer, such as "in what situations would your answer not apply?" Again, go back to the example of "rape". When you read in a newspaper, "rape occurred" it is very likely it is talking about an act of forced sexual intercourse. Most people get that. "I've been raped" means "I was subjected to forced sexual intercourse at the hands of another". People understand that. However, when they hear, say "the Rape of Nanking", their understanding of the meaning of the term SWITCHES. So even if 100% of the population took rape to be a sex act, they would all understand the different usage of meaning. The same could very well be the case for "in general". We saw an example of this in this thread with the discussion of Limburger Cheese. Apech postulated (and marblehead corroborated) that the majority of the time, the phrase "in general I like Limburger Cheese" would most likely be understood to mean "the majority of the Limburger Cheese that I have eaten, I liked". The italicized bit is the part that is subjected by the reader. It is the implied understanding. It is NOT "the majority of the Limburger Cheese in existence, as to claim to have eaten that much cheese is a rather tall claim, and it is safe to say it can logically be ruled out. So we come at last to your statements that and You have no basis to say either one of these, and your poll does not provide evidence that it is correct. It is very likely, given words with multiple meanings such as "rape", and the habit of people supplying the correct meaning themselves given the context of the situation (as evidenced by our Limburger Cheese discussion), that people would EQUALLY supply an understood, alternative meaning to the phrase "in general, *sentence*" For instance, your poll example, "in general, women act a certain way..." It is nigh impossible for someone to have met at least 51% percent of the population of women in the world, then to categorized their behavior in one way. It is far more likely that the person intends (as in Apech's example with the cheese) to mean that "in the majority of women that I have met, women tend to act a certain way". Which is very similar to the second option of the poll "many, but not necessarily the majority", since it is a large enough portion to comment on, but not so large that anyone can reasonably assume that the speaker was commenting on at least %51 percent of the female population. Now since your poll fails to adequately investigate situations in which the poll taker's response might change, be different, or even be both depending on the situation, it is not (at least, I would not find it to be, for all the reasons listed) suitable to be admitted as evidence that "the majority of listeners will in fact understand it to mean the majority" or "a significant portion of people will understand it to mean many". Because there is yet at LEAST half a dozen valid possibilities which would influence how they would receive such a message which are NOT addressed by your poll. And no, doing a favorable statistical analysis to one side and a harsher analysis on the other will NOT, ever be a substitute for other viable options which were not, in ANY way, addressed by your poll. So there you have it. Your poll is far too limited in scope, and there are far too many unaccounted for, completely viable situations which could significantly affect your findings, for it to have any real bearing in how "the majority" or "a significant portion" of the English speaking population would receive a message of "in general women act a certain way".

And they say something that may reflect a desire to commit an act of violent physical assault. Mix it all together aaaaaannnd.... Yeah, pretty much.

Well with this I agree. If rules ARE going to be enforced, then I think we should know ahead of time. You weren't told until after the fact, and agreed when you found out after the fact. But the reason I think it is a sticky situation is that, since there have been people who have physically tracked down their internet enemies and enacted violent, physical revenge, well, it would be understandable that they would want to remove anybody from a conversation if it seems like they are going that way (even if it is in an unmoderated section). And, I mean, honestly.... you have mentioned that you are taking things personally, that you are going to hold a grudge, you've mentioned your military experience (as a medic, but stiiiiiiill) sooooooooo I think it's understandable that more than someone's eyebrow would get raised when they hear someone like that saying "you don't know how far I'm willing to go".... Be that tickling or.... murder...

Perfect example of one of your comments that goes unsupported. You can SAY that arguments lack substance until the cows come home and you lose your voice. But just because you think it, doesn't make it so. Now if you could, I dunno, review a post which critiques your argument, and explain why that critique is lacking substance at each and every turn, well, you might have an argument Please. Let not center's comments about taking things personally reflect on me, and let not my comments about anything reflect on him. I'm not taking anything personally. Are you? It's interesting that you would jump to that conclusion.... almost as if it was already on the front of your mind... as if that's what you were doing and you were... projecting.... hm....? Or maybe one too many people have said they are taking things personally, and now you see enemies everywhere.... wait, you don't have a reason to... have enemies.... do you? Hmm?

You kidding? I love the pit! It makes me think of the good old days, before the mods got involved! I've thought about starting more threads down there, just to see what peoples' uncensored opinions are. That said, I hear every once in a while that an internet conversation results in one party tracking down the other and attacking/shooting/killing their internet enemy. Soooooooo it is a pretty sticky situation, because some people do make good on their internet threats in a very serious way.

This is what I meant. You responded twice to my same post, but never contribute anything other than your opinion that I haven't done anything (even though, if it were true, you'd have evidence, despite the evidence to the contrary here and here, which, yes, was in response to you asking me to apply the logic that I was extolling). I spent two posts spelling out specifically what issues I had with your poll and your analysis of said poll, as well as your reliance on using it as some sort of credible evidence (this post and this post, for anyone wondering). I went and applied the logic that I was extolling. Quite meticulously. Have you returned in kind? No. The most you said was this: As if the answer to every single problem I pointed out could be washed away with your "stringent" statistical analysis. And, honestly, that is a weak argument. If you have five holes in your boat below the water line, you can't plug just one and declare that you have plugged everything up. You have so many problems in the initial stages (which I pointed out), that doing some numbers work in the final stage is not going to correct it. Yes, my argumentative dick is bigger than yours, even in the snow. I show it again and again and again, whip out my ruler, and measure it, being quite clear about what system of measurement I am using. And you are pointing to your little pecker, and as often as you SAY it's a big fat cock, you never quite manage to put your ruler where your mouth is. So, please, if you expect any reasonable person to have any reasonable respect for your argument, go back (again, to this post and this post) and please address why, despite each point I raised, your current poll still holds any credibility. Then we'll see how you measure up. So there you go, the gauntlet is thrown. I have presented my arguments. You can weasel your way out of answering by trying to demean me or belittle me by saying stuff like "oh, you think you're so smart" or "just because you ask doesn't mean anyone has to answer" or "you think you're so smart, but logic ain't everything" or talking about my age, or my maturity, or my penis, or any number of excuses I have heard over forums over the years whenever someone is cornered. But I'll just have you know- I'll know what you're doing. And... Every other rational person who is following this conversation will know what you are doing. You can do what you want. You can tell whatever lies you want to believe. And anyone else on this forum who wants to believe will believe. But those who will not be distracted by lies will see right through them.

I clearly broke down each and every element that I found flawed with your approach, execution, and appraisal. You respond with conjecture of my personal stance. Telling.

Interesting question. From what I have been told, a "black belt", "traditionally" only indicated that the student had demonstrated a knowledge of each of the techniques within the school. Black belt was not a sign of mastery, but was a sign that the student was now "not a beginner". Training then shifted from learning techniques, to how to use them. Of course, it also safeguarded (in a traditional martial arts framework), the techniques of a school, as by that time the student would have demonstrated loyalty. Some schools have different structures, where advancement in rank was based on skill, not on your technique. My friend was telling me that in his Brazilian JuiJutsu school, they would promote you based on who you could beat. If you beat someone who was a higher rank than you, you deserved to have their rank. You could conceivably fight your way all the way up to black belt using only one technique. This preserved the integrity of the school, and also preserved the integrity of the teaching staff. Instructors in the school were GOOD. Students had to GET good if they wanted promotion. Of course, another implication for their school was that having a low rank didn't mean that you were a poor student, it could just mean that you were in a high caliber school. My friend had told me that low ranking students from his school routinely beat black belts from other schools and other styles in competitions, because the students from his school were used to having to fight hard day in, day out. Another thing to keep in mind is practicality. If you are training for actual self defense against a determined attacker, your strategy is going to vary different from person to person, even within the same school. A 235 lb man is going to have very different self defense concerns and techniques than a 135 lb woman. A 4-6 year old is going to have very different self defense concerns, and capabilities, than a 7-12 year old, which is going to differ from a 13-18 year old, which differs from a 19-25, 26-35, all the way on up the age ranges. There may be serious limitations on what they could conceivably do to be effective, and what their goals are. For instance, a child is very unlikely to be able to "defeat" an adult intent on, say, kidnapping. The child's goal would be to distract, evade, escape, and get help (or attract help to their situation). A 16 year old being harassed by an adult with similar intent may have far more tools at their disposal. So a child growing up in martial arts with the intent of training for an actual encounter will see their techniques and strategies changing and evolving over time. I feel like the vast majority of schools that are in the business (and it is a big business) of promoting kids and rewarding belt ranks are doing it more for the self confidence of the child, while realistically it amounts to little more than creative role play. Strike a pose, do some mock combat here and there, get your belt. Your concern regarding your nieces I think is genuine. Though I'm a guy, and don't know what the group dynamics are with girls, I know that, as a guy and as someone who has been in the martial arts most of their life, people do want to fight you when they find out you are a black belt, or have been involved with some other known martial art. They want to test you out. They want to confront you, and they want to push you. Sometimes it's in the interest of sportsmanship, and sometimes they have an axe to grind, and want to use you as a demonstration to beef up their own egos. I stopped telling people about my martial arts involvement YEARS ago (prior to which I started to throw fights to get people off of my back). It's not worth the risk, and if your actual goal is practical self defense (which mine was, and still is), it actually HURTS you more than it helps you.

Paint trash gold, it's still trash, and it sure ain't gold. Sorry bro. Your strategy of bringing a pit conversation to the general forum AND to facebook? Not only does it lack tact and reek of desperation, but your execution was poor. And even though you admit that there are flaws, you STILL try to pass it off as some "stringent", "scientific" procedure. I hope you impressed whoever it was you were trying to impress. Because it sure as hell wasn't me, and I sure as hell wasn't impressed. But if it helps you sleep at night, knowing you showed us all what a great "scientist" you are, more power to you. This conversation never should have left the pit.

On top of that.... At the time of this posting, the current results on the TTB's forum are 17 votes for "the majority", and 6 for "many). Which means, going by this post: 28 of "the majority" came from facebook 20 of "most" came from facebook So Facebook's results are actually pretty close (just eyeballing it ) Anyway... 40.9% is still a big chunk. Not big enough, I would think, to warrant this statement: As a fairly big chunk (40%) will understand your meaning correctly. Furthermore, if we go by the dictionary definitions, which show multiple meanings, and we take the previous cheese conversation as evidence that people will supply the correct definition given the context, I wouldn't say that any argument would be reasonably "tripped up" in any way to warrant a significant change of speech when dealing with "the public". In light of so many aspects which this current "study" leaves completely unaddressed, I would say that this peer reviewer finds it woefully inaccurate, and would highly suggest AGAINST drawing any conclusions drawn from it. Any conclusions that are drawn from it, I would consider so narrow as to be unrealistic, and completely inapplicable to any discourse. If any study is to be done from which conclusions are to be drawn, it must at least be able to accurately reflect the subjects' thoughts and feelings on all of the above addressed issues.

The problem, as I must reiterate, is the initial poll itself. Center cited several sources in the spicy pit which reveals multiple definitions of the terms. However, the poll only has two options- one or the other. What if people felt it could mean either one? They were forced to pick one or the other. Then there is immediacy presented by the first option, which coincidentally was represented of your position. Given that, poll takers may very well have gone with the option which, in their experiences, was most common. That is not to say that they believe the second interpretation is not correct. But they had no other option. So not only do you have a very narrow sample size, but you also have a very narrow poll! On top of that, the conversation about cheese earlier on reveals how much we take for granted that a reader supplies the own meaning. For instance, "in general, I like Limburger cheese" would usually be taken to mean "most of the Limburger cheese I have eaten was good" not "most of the total amount of Limburger cheese in existence was good". So while they may pick one option or the other, they may correctly supply the secondary definition if the context calls for it. So over all, your "study" shows absolutely nothing.

And 40.9% of the sample will think the other option. So what is your point?

Now, wait, hold on a sec.... Do you mean "in general" is in "most of the ingredients" go to the same place, or do you mean many, but not all, of the ingredients? Because depending on what you meant, I may or may not be okay with that world view