Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3609992" data-attributes="member: 20239">I disagree.&nbsp; I think the problem is that some people are way too quick to believe they can read someone else's intentions based on a two word phrase.Well, that was my original point before we got sidetracked into the discussion of euphemisms.&nbsp; IMO the OP's understanding of the term &quot;Magic Wal-mart&quot; is flawed.&nbsp; As a result, his points about the inaccuracy of the term are also flawed.Of course it addresses the OP.&nbsp; He says &quot;I see no evidence of this thing, it must not exist.&quot;&nbsp; I respond by saying, &quot;The thing does exist, you are looking for the wrong kind of evidence because you misunderstand the nature of the thing.&quot;&nbsp; That is a constructive response to the OP's post.&nbsp; He may not agree with me, but it is a direct and useful response to his original point.&nbsp; For example, I said &quot;You are mistaken in calling &quot;Magic Wal-marts&quot; an inaccurate term.&nbsp; It is a euphemism, it's not supposed to be interpreted literally.&quot;&nbsp; Doug McCrae responded by pointing out the definition of euphemism and arguing that my use of the word didn't fit the definition.Now, I happen to disagree with Doug, but that doesn't mean his post doesn't address me and my point.&nbsp; If it didn't I wouldn't agree or disagree with him, I would simply be confused by his response.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 3609992, member: 20239"] I disagree. I think the problem is that some people are way too quick to believe they can read someone else's intentions based on a two word phrase. Well, that was my original point before we got sidetracked into the discussion of euphemisms. IMO the OP's understanding of the term "Magic Wal-mart" is flawed. As a result, his points about the inaccuracy of the term are also flawed. Of course it addresses the OP. He says "I see no evidence of this thing, it must not exist." I respond by saying, "The thing does exist, you are looking for the wrong kind of evidence because you misunderstand the nature of the thing." That is a constructive response to the OP's post. He may not agree with me, but it is a direct and useful response to his original point. For example, I said "You are mistaken in calling "Magic Wal-marts" an inaccurate term. It is a euphemism, it's not supposed to be interpreted literally." Doug McCrae responded by pointing out the definition of euphemism and arguing that my use of the word didn't fit the definition. Now, I happen to disagree with Doug, but that doesn't mean his post doesn't address me and my point. If it didn't I wouldn't agree or disagree with him, I would simply be confused by his response. [/QUOTE]

Verification