whats wrong with this sentence???

[Thapeacekiddo]

Its really sad when I think about it, nobody likes change, not even change itself.

[David L.]

It's really sad when I think about it:nobody likes me, not even me myself.

Think about that and compare, "..not even change itself."

Then think whether substituting 'per se' makes any (logical) difference/sense.

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by Thapeacekiddo

Its really sad when I think about it, nobody likes change, not even change itself.

"Change" has no faculty for either liking or disliking itself. Change is not "somebody", so the phrase "nobody, not even change itself" is absurd.

I'm not sure where David is going with his explanation. His sentence seems OK and quite possible to me. It's possible for a person not to like themself. It's not possible for change not to like itself.

[poorboy_9]

Could this be an anthropormorphic reference to "change", signifying even change hates change?
B.

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by poorboy_9

Could this be an anthropormorphic reference to "change", signifying even change hates change?
B.

Yes it could, but what would it mean to say that change hates change? I can understand sameness not liking change, because there is a certain amount of inertia in sameness that has to be overcome by the momentum of change. But momentum feeds on itself. Change begets change.

[David L.]

I'm not sure where David is going with his explanation. His sentence seems OK and quite possible to me. It's possible for a person not to like themself. It's not possible for change not to like itself.

Some of us try to 'educate' - ducto, I lead - rather than jam potted information down their throat. I'm not surprised you were unable to make the mental budge across the hairline crack, from an instance where 'itself' makes sense to trying it out with..... no, I won't bother trying....

...though you might at least have allowed poorboy the opportunity rather than barging in.

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by David L.

...though you might at least have allowed poorboy the opportunity rather than barging in.

You don't own a thread, David. You know that you have interfered in many of my replies in the past in ways that don't do you credit.
Poorboy was not the original poster. I think you've made a mistake.
Thapeacekiddo, the OP, has apparently decided not to answer your attempt at "ductation". Nothing that I have done has prevented this: you attribute too much power to my influence. Perhaps he made up his own mind not to answer your questions?

[David L.]

How excitable you are!

...and I've only "barged in" when I have so strongly disagreed with your information.

True, that has been so many times!

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by David L.

...and I've only "barged in" when I have so strongly disagreed with your information.

True, that has been so many times!

Indeed, including those times that, in your fervour, you produced some absolute howlers, that I still can't help feeling amused about. - the times when I have been right from beginning, and you jumped in with a clanger. So the fact that you feign to disagree with me so often doesn't worry me excessively.