Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6989724" data-attributes="member: 61529">You've been very clear about your reasoning, but you've simply failed to respond to substantive criticisms. You've never addressed the observation that many of your &quot;glosses&quot; replace words with completely different words, and you've never addressed the higher-level criticisms about the relationship between the words. In short, I don't dispute that the readings you propose are conceptually possible individually, but they are at best very big stretches, and they don't combine coherently. And your response to complaints about your glosses replacing a phrase with something that has a completely different meaning has been to handwave and not acknowledge that at all.It's been really frustrating, because it doesn't really come across as though you're even processing anything anyone says; you sort of respond to part of the material, but any time there's something you haven't got a good response for, you just sort of emit a ton of unrelated words on previously-argued points and ignore the substantive challenge that you don't have a response to.I can't tell whether it's intentional or not, but it's certainly maddening from the perspective of someone who works really hard to come up with a clear statement of a thing, to have it ignored in favor of you reiterating that obviously in some contexts &quot;vanish&quot; doesn't imply direct observation, while ignoring the fact that it was in this case offered as part of a contrary statement to &quot;normally you can't hide while directly observed&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 6989724, member: 61529"] You've been very clear about your reasoning, but you've simply failed to respond to substantive criticisms. You've never addressed the observation that many of your "glosses" replace words with [B]completely different[/B] words, and you've never addressed the higher-level criticisms about the relationship between the words. In short, I don't dispute that the readings you propose are conceptually possible individually, but they are at [B]best[/B] very big stretches, and they don't combine coherently. And your response to complaints about your glosses replacing a phrase with something that has a completely different meaning has been to handwave and not acknowledge that at all. It's been really frustrating, because it doesn't really come across as though you're even processing anything anyone says; you sort of respond to part of the material, but any time there's something you haven't got a good response for, you just sort of emit a ton of unrelated words on previously-argued points and ignore the substantive challenge that you don't have a response to. I can't tell whether it's intentional or not, but it's certainly maddening from the perspective of someone who works really hard to come up with a clear statement of a thing, to have it ignored in favor of you reiterating that obviously in some contexts "vanish" doesn't imply direct observation, while ignoring the fact that it was in this case offered as part of a contrary statement to "normally you can't hide while directly observed". [/QUOTE]

Verification