Tech Support?

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

You said "same as always".

Which is a direct answer.

If that is a direct answer, what do you call "Sandman"?

Specific and direct.

Knowing the value to ascribe to "same as always" requires that I
already know the answer to the question you have just purported to
answer.

No it doesn't.

How do I already know what alias you have used always?

You read that in a post bearing an alias, which is included in the
"always".

I only know for the last few months.

Which is more than you need to know. All you need to know is what alias
I used when making that statement, which you knew. That statement was
made in the timeframe described by the word "always".

You say that "always" includes the recent past.

No, I say that "always" includes all time.

Eric ignored this part.

However you might also argue that 'Sandman' is your usage at present
but that in the 'recent' past (for a particular value of recent) you
were using XYZ.

No. Same as always includes "now" and "then" and "any time". "Same as
always" leaves *no* room for me using any other alias than the one I am
using when answering the question.

And this part as well...

You would have eliminated this possible wiggle room by saying
"Sandman, as always".

There is no wiggle room. You failed to support your incorrect position
yet again, Eric.

You failed to give a direct answer.

Stop making this incorrect claim, Eric.

snip all my substantiations that Eric is doing his best to ignore post
after post

I have spent many hours in court
listening to people trying to avoid giving a direct answer and it's
amazing how it is possible to twist both language and logic.

Why did you ignore my entire post just to add this non-related comment
on the bottom?

Trolls...

Because I have no intention to contribute to an ever-growing argument
over trivia.

WTF? That's what this entire thread is about - your neverending desire
to argue about trivia.

Either you are going to give a direct answer to what was
a simple question or you are not.

Indeed - and history shows that I did so.

The evidence is that you are not going to.

Now you're lying.

I will abandon this futile discussion.

What discussion? When did you ever *discuss* anything in this thread?



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Not the same thing at all, really.

I nthink it is.

Then you think wrong.

Nah I don't think wrong.

Yes, you do.

It's quite common for people to ask for the usual when it's know that the
barperson knows what the customer wants.

Whether or not that is "quite common" is irrelevant to the topic being
discussed in this subthread.

That requires the barkeeper to have knowledge about me beyond what
is apparent from the statement alone.

No it doesn;t

Yes, for it to be an analogy, he does.

it doesn't have to be an analogy, where do you get that idea from ?

Your usage of the words:

"it's a bit like"

That denotes an analogy.

My usual is a pint a the pub, if asked for the usauly I wouldn;t expect the
barman to hand me a canon camera even though whent taking photos with a
camera it's usauly a canon.

This is still totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed in the
subthread you joined.

if I regually go in there and ask for a pink of spitefire and I know
he knows that as he's served it top me for the last 10 years then if
I saw the usual I wouldn;lt expect him to serve me a cup of tea.

You just described the need for the barkeeper to have knowledge about
your beyond what is apparent from the statement alone.

I expect the barman to know I'm requesting alchol rather than sex or asking
for camera advice, by saying the usual that is a signifier as to what I'm
expecting from that individual.

Which, again, requires the barkeeper to have prior knowledge about your
drinking habits. Just like I said.

He may or may not know what "same as usual" is.

if I said that to a person I would expect them to know, otherwise
I wouldn't have said it.

That's the entire point I just made. Do you just skim posts and then
type haphazardly on the keyboard?

No.

I think you mean yes.

But then I'm not idiotic enough to ask for the usual off someone that doesn't
know what the usual is in that context.

And thus your entire comment had nothing to do with the topic that was
being discussed.

You saying "same as usual" requires that you talk to someone that knows
what your "usual" is.

No **** sherlock.....
You've got there.

Sigh.

Now I drink more tea than beer so it would be a waste of time asking for the
thing I always drink

There doesn't exist one single thing you "always drink".

I had all of 1/2 pint of beer at the weekend and about
20 cups of tea I drink tea everyday a barmen is unlikely to know this.

Your drinking habits doesn't interest me.

Me saying that I posted with the "same as always" nickname in the past
doesn't require that someone reading that need to have ever read a
single post from me, since "always" includes "now", and since they can
see what nickname I am currently using, they then know 100% what
nickname I used in 1996.

I think I was posting before 1996 under a slightly differnt name

I don't care.

in fact I posted under two differnt names for a while. I know some
refer to you as Jonas but I've never seen you post under that name.

Because I haven't.

I also have differtn knicknames in the real world depending on who you're
talking to they know me by differnt names of which they usually use those
name but NOT always.

This doesn't interest me, or have anything to do with my nickname.

From a logical standpoint - the barkeeper now knows that this
particular customer has always (i.e. including "now" and "when
younger") drunk lager beer.

so are you saying if that person went up to the barkeeper the barkeeper
would have no idea what sort of request the customer might have.

Of course he wouldn't.

Why not....you serve beer and someone is in your pub and comes over and asks
and you have no possibble idea of what they might be requesting before they
spea

They could ask for a pack of cigarettes, a cpu of peanuts, keys to the
toilet, road directions, a tissue, a lighter or get some change for a
bill.






--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It's quite common for people to ask for the usual when it's know that the
barperson knows what the customer wants.

Whether or not that is "quite common" is irrelevant to the topic being
discussed in this subthread.

It's not irrelivant because the word usual is linked to probability
and we were discusing whether or not anothe rperson might know what you want
without being told directly.

It is irrelevant due to the fact that the word "usual" was not used in
the discussion you entered. Your analogy used the word "usual" and the
topic at hand was about the word "always".

it doesn't have to be an analogy, where do you get that idea from ?

Your usage of the words:

"it's a bit like"

That denotes an analogy.

So, that has nothing to do with it.

Corect, your analogy had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

My usual is a pint a the pub, if asked for the usauly I wouldn;t
expect the barman to hand me a canon camera even though whent
taking photos with a camera it's usauly a canon.

This is still totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed in the
subthread you joined.

Only from your POV.

Incorrect.

I expect the barman to know I'm requesting alchol rather than sex
or asking for camera advice, by saying the usual that is a
signifier as to what I'm expecting from that individual.

Which, again, requires the barkeeper to have prior knowledge about your
drinking habits. Just like I said.

Which of course he does otherwise otherwise I wouldn;t have asked for
the usual. Some use the term same again which is slightly differnt
from the usual.

You're like a carousel, your posts go around and around and never reach
a point of destination.

He may or may not know what "same as usual" is.
if I said that to a person I would expect them to know,
otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

That's the entire point I just made. Do you just skim posts and then
type haphazardly on the keyboard?

No.

I think you mean yes.

So you admit your thinking is off track.

So you can't read.

But then I'm not idiotic enough to ask for the usual off someone
that doesn't know what the usual is in that context.

And thus your entire comment had nothing to do with the topic that was
being discussed.

So why are you arguing about it ?

I'm not. I'm correcting you. What is there to argue about? You posted
something irrelevant and I am telling you it was irrelevant. No argument
there.

Now I drink more tea than beer so it would be a waste of time
asking for the thing I always drink

There doesn't exist one single thing you "always drink".

So you're saying the word always can't be used.

In relation to what you drink, no, which in turn isn't related to the
topic that was under discussion.

I had all of 1/2 pint of beer at the weekend and about
20 cups of tea I drink tea everyday a barmen is unlikely to know this.

Your drinking habits doesn't interest me.

But it would the barmen which is why I'd ask for the usaul rather than what I
always drink which was my original point, a barmen would know I drink beer in
the pub so I;'d ask for the usual rather than what I always drink.

You can't ask him for what you always drink, since there isn't a single
drink you always drink. Whichi is why your post was totally irrelevant
to the topic being discussed.

What this, the 15th time I've told you this?

Because while I drink far more tea than beer my usaul in teh pub is beer,
don; think I've every had tea in a pub myself.

Again, your drinking habits are of no interest to me, and is not related
to the topic.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It's quite common for people to ask for the usual when it's
know that the barperson knows what the customer wants.

Whether or not that is "quite common" is irrelevant to the
topic being discussed in this subthread.

It's not irrelivant because the word usual is linked to
probability and we were discusing whether or not anothe rperson
might know what you want without being told directly.

It is irrelevant due to the fact that the word "usual" was not used
in the discussion you entered. Your analogy used the word "usual"
and the topic at hand was about the word "always".

So what was you point about the word always ?

No "point" at all other than to use the word "always" to mean "always".
Some people here didn't think that "always" meant what it means and that
my usage could mean "sometimes" or "mostly" - or even "usual". It
couldn't. It was quite telling that the biggest English troll in the
group, Tony, choose not to participate and support his buddy Eric. Eric
should have taken that as a hint.

You joined the thread with an analogy that used the word "usual", which
rendered it irrelevant to what was being discussed.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

No "point" at all other than to use the word "always" to mean "always".
Some people here didn't think that "always" meant what it means and that
my usage could mean "sometimes" or "mostly" - or even "usual". It
couldn't. It was quite telling that the biggest English troll in the
group, Tony, choose not to participate and support his buddy Eric.

Ahhh, you missed me, didn't you?

Nope, and I'm sad to see that you've joined to share your ignorance... :/

My input would be that some words are context-dependent on meaning and
ambiguous without supporting context.

We're not discussing such a word, however, so this is also totally
irrelevant to the thread.

snip rest of trolling



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

My input would be that some words are context-dependent on meaning and
ambiguous without supporting context.

We're not discussing such a word, however, so this is also totally
irrelevant to the thread.

snip rest of trolling

Interesting - or as you would say, "ironic" - that we are not
discussing the word that you were discussing and that I was
discussing: "always".

We were not discussing a word that had another meaning depending on the
context it was written in no.

Or, to put you to the wall - please come clean and outright claim that
when asked the question what alias I used back then, and my reply was
"same as always" that that could mean any other nick than the one I was
currently using.

Oh, *please* claim that, Tony.

If not, then what point do you really think you're able to make here?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Interesting - or as you would say, "ironic" - that we are not
discussing the word that you were discussing and that I was
discussing: "always".

We were not discussing a word that had another meaning depending on the
context it was written in no.

Or, to put you to the wall - please come clean and outright claim that
when asked the question what alias I used back then, and my reply was
"same as always" that that could mean any other nick than the one I was
currently using.

Oh, *please* claim that, Tony.

The clear-answer to the question is "I'm using the same nick today
that I used when I first posted to usenet and I have not changed
since". When we see something that could have another meaning, and
that is posted by a person that has a track record for weaseling
around meaning, it causes suspicion.

You're dodging the question, Tony the troll

Will you make the claim or not? Because if you're not, then you have
nothing to add. Lying about me "weaseling" just shows that you'll stop
at nothing to don't answer a question directly.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

I claim your answer was ambiguous.

Hahaha!

This is CLASSIC.

Thanks for proving that English is something very confusing to you,
Tony.

We have no idea what you consider "always" to mean.

Yes, you do. Either it means what the word means or I am using it
incorrectly.

You could mean "always at that time".

No, "always" can't mean "always at that time" unless "at that time" is
appended to the statement. Adding qualifier's to someone else's
statement is idiotic. No such qualifiers were in the original statement
so no such qualifiers should be added by the receiver as a "could"
scenario. The statement is 100% clear as it was stated.

Always
adverb
at all times, on all occasions

I'm sure your clown dictionary has something like "always: sometimes,
not all times, maybe occasionally" in the definition, but an actual
definition exists for us that know how to use them.

You've dodged the question asked of you by not providing a clear-cut
answer

Incorrect, Tony. Your ignorance of the English language is duly noted.

so the possibility remains of another weasel.

Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add qualifiers to
my statement, which of course you're inclined to do since you know that
as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when you add "could"
qualifiers can it become ambiguous. The fact that YOU are the one adding
them and them not being actually present in the original statement
should be a hint of the thin ice you're threading.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

should be a hint of the thin ice you're threading.
treading.



--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:11:22 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

I claim your answer was ambiguous.

Hahaha!

This is CLASSIC.

Thanks for proving that English is something very confusing to you,
Tony.

I've already tried to point out to you that you interpret English too
rigidly and miss the subtle shades of meaning in the process. I've
trid to point out the possible uncertainty of this specific example.

We have no idea what you consider "always" to mean.

Yes, you do. Either it means what the word means or I am using it
incorrectly.

Shades of meaning.

You could mean "always at that time".

No, "always" can't mean "always at that time" unless "at that time" is
appended to the statement. Adding qualifier's to someone else's
statement is idiotic. No such qualifiers were in the original statement
so no such qualifiers should be added by the receiver as a "could"
scenario. The statement is 100% clear as it was stated.

Possible implied qualifiers are normal. You relied on one when you
made your statement about "same as always".

Always
adverb
at all times, on all occasions

I'm sure your clown dictionary has something like "always: sometimes,
not all times, maybe occasionally" in the definition, but an actual
definition exists for us that know how to use them.

Including the future?

You've dodged the question asked of you by not providing a clear-cut
answer

Incorrect, Tony. Your ignorance of the English language is duly noted.

Are you not being a little arrogant?

so the possibility remains of another weasel.

Incorrect, again. That possibility only exists if you add qualifiers to
my statement, which of course you're inclined to do since you know that
as stated, the claim was 100% clear - only when you add "could"
qualifiers can it become ambiguous. The fact that YOU are the one adding
them and them not being actually present in the original statement
should be a hint of the thin ice you're threading.

As above, you have (probably unwittingly) been relying on a qualifier.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens