Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6904080" data-attributes="member: 16814">Perhaps you can help me understand how asking you a question about your statements is somehow misrepresenting them?Regardless, you said there wasn't a specific decibel threshold, which I took to mean that you didn't assign a threshold, but I wasn't certain that's what you meant, so I asked a question on that.  Since it seems you're a mite nonplussed about that, should I assume there is a threshold, and, if so, what would you say it is?  Because, if you say there's not one again, I'm back to being thoroughly confused.Very much not irrelevant, and, yes, I'm quite aware that not every list is exhaustive and that this one is clearly inclusive.  However, the things they choose to represent as noises being both very loud noises is indicative of intent.  Now, they could just suck at examples, and have meant other things, like whispers, are the same as shouting for revealing your hiding place, but that's not a normal or natural reading of a list that only has loud examples on it.I will concede that you are trivially correct -- they could suck at example lists -- but your trivially correct point is just semantics and unhelpful.  If the designers meant something other than loud things, what did they mean, how can we tell, and why do they suck as examples?See, it's statements like this that are confusing.  Do you mean that you consider triple dashing to be clearly running?  If so, then why didn't you state that rather than the vague action declaration bit above?  And does dashing alone qualify, also?Or, are you maybe, possibly trying to weave a careful statement that could be interpreted to be trying to imply that someone could, maybe, determine that triple dashing is maybe, possibly, running, but that you aren't exactly staking out a position that could, maybe, be interpreted to actually mean that, or something?Or is this just your version of 'I know it when I see it?'I'm terribly uncertain of your intent here because your choice of phrasing is full of weasel words (e.g., could, maybe, might) and you haven't staked an actual position -- just illuminated a possibility.  If that's your intent, thank you and good day -- I really have little interest in playing semantic games with someone unwilling to stake a position.  If you just poorly presented yourself, okay, no problem, that happens. Please elucidate but maybe lay off getting snippy at others when your poor presentation leads to confusion and question asking.</blockquote>

Verification