Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sekhmet" data-source="post: 5987460" data-attributes="member: 97602">[MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION] I have already presented the definitions of &quot;mislead&quot; and &quot;misdirection&quot;, and both Greenfield and I have gone through the major syntax of both skills (Bluff and Sense Motive). &nbsp;Again, without a Bluff, Sense Motive is a minute action. You couldn't perform it after every sentence said unless you plan to sit and stare them down for a minute. At which point, you'd be happy to find that they're ill at ease, probably because you're staring at them like a loon. &nbsp;&nbsp;Defining deception, misleading, misdirection, and prevarication (as has been done in this thread already) is the only way to win an argument that requires definitions to be precise. It's already been done (as noted three times now, in just this post, so perhaps you'll go and find them) in this thread, and it is absolutely amazing how Greenfield and yourself take liberties with language that just don't exist.&nbsp;As an example, if the definition for blue read &quot;the color blue&quot;, your claim is that blue really means &quot;purple, teal, turquoise, aquamarine, and cyan as well&quot;. Yes, they're related, but no, they are not the same. &nbsp;&nbsp;So, no, deception, misdirection, misleading, or prevarication has not occurred when stating a fact that is related, but not the whole and direct truth. You are being honest and trustworthy, but not forthcoming. &nbsp;If you are not able to look at definitions of words and apply them to a situation where they are being used, that is wholly another topic altogether. I've spent the majority of my life avidly studying the language, and find it disgusting and insulting when an intelligent person decides to choose their own definition for a known word.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sekhmet, post: 5987460, member: 97602"] [MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION] I have already presented the definitions of "mislead" and "misdirection", and both Greenfield and I have gone through the major syntax of both skills (Bluff and Sense Motive). Again, without a Bluff, Sense Motive is a minute action. You couldn't perform it after every sentence said unless you plan to sit and stare them down for a minute. At which point, you'd be happy to find that they're ill at ease, probably because you're staring at them like a loon. Defining deception, misleading, misdirection, and prevarication (as has been done in this thread already) is the only way to win an argument that requires definitions to be precise. It's already been done (as noted three times now, in just this post, so perhaps you'll go and find them) in this thread, and it is absolutely amazing how Greenfield and yourself take liberties with language that just don't exist. As an example, if the definition for blue read "the color blue", your claim is that blue really means "purple, teal, turquoise, aquamarine, and cyan as well". Yes, they're related, but no, they are not the same. So, no, deception, misdirection, misleading, or prevarication has not occurred when stating a fact that is related, but not the whole and direct truth. You are being honest and trustworthy, but not forthcoming. If you are not able to look at definitions of words and apply them to a situation where they are being used, that is wholly another topic altogether. I've spent the majority of my life avidly studying the language, and find it disgusting and insulting when an intelligent person decides to choose their own definition for a known word. [/QUOTE]

Verification