Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6989370" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, that's your attempt to gloss, choosing words carefully to support your&nbsp; argument.&nbsp; Observed in that sentence still means &quot;saw&quot; with the object being &quot;what everyone took part in doing.&quot;&nbsp; You're on exceedingly weak ground when your entire argument hinges on the exact synonym you advance.&nbsp; Switch the gloss to one of the actual definitions of observe and your point evaporates.That's an impressive bait and switch.&nbsp; Your justification of the rule is entirely based on a semantic argument, but your trying to exchange that for an argument based on the fiction at the table.&nbsp; That's great, if fiction is actually your argument, but you can just say that and chose to ignore Crawford's comment.&nbsp; But, instead you're trying to justify your reading as a clear reading of Crawford's tweet.&nbsp; But it's not clear and you've had to do a semantic 2-step to try to justify it.&nbsp; What I don't get is why you feel the need for the semantics?&nbsp; Just say, &quot;yeah, I don't play that way&quot; and move on (although, again, according to earlier statements by you in this thread you did play that way until Hriston convinced you).Really?&nbsp; There's no way that it could have been more ambiguous?&nbsp; Meals didn't think so.&nbsp; Most of the people in this thread feel that Crawford was perfectly clear.&nbsp; It takes special effort to twist what Crawford said into something ambiguous, and a special effort is exactly what I'd say you've done.&nbsp; Hriston seems to be of the mind that direct observation trumps the tweet and isn't bothering with the semantics games on the meaning of observe and other words. You could do worse than his example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6989370, member: 16814"] No, that's your attempt to gloss, choosing words carefully to support your argument. Observed in that sentence still means "saw" with the object being "what everyone took part in doing." You're on exceedingly weak ground when your entire argument hinges on the exact synonym you advance. Switch the gloss to one of the actual definitions of observe and your point evaporates. That's an impressive bait and switch. Your justification of the rule is entirely based on a semantic argument, but your trying to exchange that for an argument based on the fiction at the table. That's great, if fiction is actually your argument, but you can just say that and chose to ignore Crawford's comment. But, instead you're trying to justify your reading as a clear reading of Crawford's tweet. But it's not clear and you've had to do a semantic 2-step to try to justify it. What I don't get is why you feel the need for the semantics? Just say, "yeah, I don't play that way" and move on (although, again, according to earlier statements by you in this thread you did play that way until Hriston convinced you). Really? There's no way that it could have been more ambiguous? Meals didn't think so. Most of the people in this thread feel that Crawford was perfectly clear. It takes special effort to twist what Crawford said into something ambiguous, and a special effort is exactly what I'd say you've done. Hriston seems to be of the mind that direct observation trumps the tweet and isn't bothering with the semantics games on the meaning of observe and other words. You could do worse than his example. [/QUOTE]

Verification