Stigweard

For the purpose of this discussion, may I ask if you can provide some support to your argument please?

Oh, oh!!! And this: Second, wu 巫 could be cognate with wu 舞 "to dance". Based on analysis of ancient characters, Hopkins (1920, 1945) proposed that wu 巫 "shaman", wu 無 "not have; without", and wu 舞 "dance", "can all be traced back to one primitive figure of a man displaying by the gestures of his arms and legs the thaumaturgic powers of his inspired personality" (1945:5). Hehehehe Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_(shaman)#Etymologies

Ahh ... and there is this: "The first Chinese dictionary of characters, the (121 CE) Shuowen Jiezi defines wu as zhu 祝 "sacrifice; prayer master; invoker; priest" (祝也 女能以舞降神者也 象从工 两人舞形, tr. Hopkins 1920:432) and analyzes the Seal graph, "An Invoker. A woman who can serve the Invisible, and by posturing bring down the spirits." Let me reemphasize: A woman who can serve the Invisible. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_(shaman)#Characters

Just looking at the Seal Script similarities between 無 and 舞 and 巫: 無 "none, nothing": 舞 "dance": 巫 "shaman, sorceress": I believe that all three are close enough to each other to make some very interesting connections.

Hehehe ... I am heartened to hear so on both counts

I actually agree with your sentiment and am of a similar mind to you on this one I believe there are a few translations of Laozi ch3 floating around that says "Do nothing and nothing is left undone". Or sometin like that. That's where it has all come from in my observation.

Thank you

Mal ... I demand you revoke your suspension of center immediately!!!! This is The Pit which is a moderation free area, as such you have absolutely zero mandate here to effect any moderation action at all. Zero, zilch, nada, zip, none !!!! I will hail you down with protests all over the board if you don't rescind! In here I will virulently defend center's right to insult, abuse and threaten me however he wishes because this is THE PIT!!!! Also you have denied me the fun of the response that I have been working on all morning because what's the point if center can't respond to it Specifically it says "Off topic ranting and raving. Careful, it can get scary in here. (Unmoderated)" So please Mal take your moderators paddy-whacker back to the main forum where it belongs and leave us to our fun!!!

Mal, Why is it painfully apparent that in all your deliberations you have avoided the obvious that it clearly says "Unmoderated" for The Pit thus meaning you had zero mandate to intercede in the first place. Please address this.

It's cool matey, I've been picking up what you are laying down all along.

Listen Slops, it's obvious that you aren't going to agree with me and I certainly don't need you to. My reality and experience tells me that my hypothesis is the practical truth and I am willing to believe the validity of my little survey because it coincides with my observations. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. If you think that my survey is so fundamentally flawed that the results have no relevance to you at all, that OK as well. I have to admit that there is nothing more I can bring to the argument that might convince you one way or the other. But I certainly would recommend that you get amongst the real world and test your theories.

Yes absolutely they do things right. But only when they marry their theorizing into the brutal reality of life. Otherwise they are just abstracting for its own sakes which is what you are doing. Actually you are going beyond this because it is obvious you are pulling whatever theory you can out of your ass in your vain attempts to be objectionable for its own sakes. This is actually quite laughable, because on more than one occasion on this forum you have thrown one of your tantrums based on assertions that if a person didn't have experience in an area than they couldn't claim greater knowledge than a person who did have experience. And yet, also in more that one occasion, I have seen you throw your tantrums claiming that your theoretical knowledge was greater than the person who actually did have practical real-life experience. This is just another example of one of your hypocritical tantrums. So no matter how furiously you stamp your feet and pout, the reality, where the rubber meets the road, is that only rookie orators or complete idiots will leave themselves open to misunderstanding by using such terms as "In general blah blah blah". For the reality is that people can and will misunderstand even the slightest of vague statements, and an audience who misunderstands will not move in the direction you are wishing to take them. Yes you have given some spirited counter-points, but they are all just theoretic abstractions. If you don't believe my statements with the support I have provided then there is simply nothing further I can possibly say other than... Get your ass out in front of a bunch of people, use your generalizations and find out for yourself. I would be willing to lay odds on the fact that within 50 hours of real face-time (I am talking about actual contact time up in front of an audience) you would have gotten so frustrated with people interrupting you with their misunderstood objections that you would be singing an entirely different tune. Probably a tune closer to the one I am whistling Now now, don't misquote me here. In the last instance I quite specifically said "I don't give a sod about the logical theorizing YOU are carrying on with."

LOL ... sorry but trying to just ignore a heckler in a crowd is perhaps the worst thing you can do, it's like gambling against someone who is using a loaded dice. The best way is to make sure you don't say anything that could possibly meaning anything other than what you want it to mean.

In spite of all your theoretic objections to my survey (which is all they really are), I will stand accountable when I say that it demonstrates to more than a satisfactory degree the practical reality that enough people would misunderstand a statement like "In general women act a certain way" for it to be a foolish statement to make when presenting an argument. I will also add that I am a professional speaker who in the last 5yrs has clocked up over 2500 hours of real-time, face-to-face public speaking. With that experience I can tell you straight that if you stood up and made a generalization like that to a bunch of folks then I can guarantee you that, at best, a good portion will misunderstand you. At worst you would have given someone looking to object all the ammunition they need to tear your presentation apart and you would spend the next hour arguing semantics when you should have been delivering your message. And even if you finally convinced them of your logical correctness, you would have lost the rest of the audience anyway. Which brings me back to saying that I don't give a sod about the logical theorizing you are carrying on with. The reality of my experience as a teacher, entertainer and a professional speaker is that you most certainly would be a bloody idiot if you make non-specific generalizations and expect people to somehow automatically get what you are saying. If you don't believe me then go out and try it for yourself.

This is your ASSUMPTION, and without proper data to back it up that is what it will remain. I responded to Scotty's challenge to produce data to support my initial claims, you are now obliged to do the same to provide support to your claim. My poll, as you will recall, arose because Scotty and I had polarity views between whether people understand "in general" to mean the majority or just many. This poll was simply testing that basic dichotomy, and the results are in. I understood from the outset that there were inherent weaknesses in the poll including sample size, which is why I included the adjustment of results by the Standard Error Adjustment which is an acceptable statistical instrument to cater for inherent errors. If you want to prove my conclusions wrong then by all means go conduct your own research and come back with the results. Your claim is that "people will fill in the correct definition as is appropriate to the context." This a generalized statement implying "all people," "all of the time," will act in the way you believe they will act. There is a certain degree of naive arrogance in this statement and, if this was true, then no one would misunderstand the correct context of what each other are trying to say. If such a utopia would exist there would be no wars nor conflict between individuals. Obviously this is not the case therefore you blanket statement has fundamental flaws. Oh ... and in terms of personal comments, please don't try and appear all coy. I have plenty of your comments to refer to that demonstrates you give as good as you get.

Wow! Your long-winded response futher demonstrates your seemingly inexhaustible capacity to simply not get the simple logic of the initial hypothesis and has in fact seen you arguing FOR my point The very fact that there are different contexts for the term IS the point! This on it's own means you should avoid using it for either context. But I have taken it further to show that it would be twice as foolish to use the term "in general" to mean "many but not necessarily the majority" because the majority of people, as seen by my snap-shot survey, will believe it means "the majority". In no way am I trying to invalidate the minority-use context because Scotty correctly showed in the other thread, and I have also likewise proven it in my afore-mentioned survey, that a significant percentage of people will indeed believe to be mean the context of "many but not necessarily the majority". I am just saying, for the sake of presenting a clear argument, you would be a bloody idiot for doing so! But your continued blinkered diatribe adds more weight to my secondary theory that you have blinded yourself to what I am really saying because you are desperate to fulfill your self-justified vandetta against me. At every turn you have tried to establish a "Got Ya!!" moment, but in each case you have failed dismally principally because you are so desperate to do so.

Alright o' Sloppy one, you are wanting to claim ascendancy in the argument. OK, now please detail how any of your flounderings have countered this statement which has been the point all along (which you have shown an incredible capacity to simply not get): It is counter-productive to one's argument to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "many but not the majority" because the majority will in fact understand it to mean "the majority". Furthermore, it is likewise counter-productive to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "the majority" because a significant portion of people will in fact understand it to mean "many but not the majority". That my friend has been the logic of this debate from the outset and so far I have seen nothing in your statements that would detract for my hypothesis.

+1 for you !!! If you think it has been fun to watch imagine the enjoyment I have had being a part of it Look I will fully admit I have stirred this one up. I was intentionally looking for a good hearty debate and the topic matter didn't really matter. It's nit-picking and probably a little trivial but it's a debate none-the-less. And good on Scotty and Sloppy for hoeing in, what they have lacked in substance they have well and truly made up in exuberance, though I do think they need to not take it all so personally But I am glad the Scotty, Sloppy, Stiggy Show has brought you some mirth. Y'all come back now! There's more to come!

Actually your arguments in general have lacked in substance.

Bahahah ... I will do better Sensei Cobra

Bahahaha ... ain't that just the pot calling the kettle black Should I drag more elements of our conversation out of The Pit??

Ahh more mud-slinging in the absence of valid argument. Keep going ol' chap