In the US we have an expression that begins: "If you can't take the heat ...". Maybe it's time to move on to a new dish.
Again, please review.
What ivory tower do you imagine you are looking down at the rest of us from?
I mean, am I supposed to obediantly run and do this? Your attitude of such intrinsic superiority in this forum...leaves me without words!
Chill out, dudes.
...and 'cool' ways of expressing some worldly, street-wise, brittle attempt at coming the 'referee' make my skin crawl.
I apologize for my attempt to (originally) chip in to clarify the meaning of, "You're on." I do learn from experience - undeddy, you have found your mentor. I withdraw from piping up in any of your future threads.
One minute I'm admonished for my affrontary in this forum:
Based upon his past posts, David L. appears to enjoy these kinds of exchanges. Perhaps it's his UK version of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry's "Go ahead, make my day."
The next, I'm gutless: In the US we have an expression that begins: "If you can't take the heat ...".
I prefer to offer: It's time to recognize the futility, and absurd total unimportance of this discussion, particularly when someone resorts to throwing a website at me when unable to express some purported failing in my logic himself. At least, my words are my own.
As someone who, by default of their own words, 'can stand the heat', then perhaps straight from the oven, you might, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, point out the 'fallacy' in my logic yourself, so that I can address you personally.
Last edited by David L.; 24-Apr-2009 at 11:19.
Easy to toss out snide comments (though again, I note, merely another parroting of schoolyard talk) - not so easy when you're asked to state your case.
Stop fudging, ducking behind the words of others, and simply - state your case! Where, in your own words, was my 'fallaciy of logic".
YOU ANSWER THAT, AND I'LL REPLY.
Otherwise, I'll leave you to make whatever disparaging retorts you can find in books.
Last edited by David L.; 24-Apr-2009 at 11:36.
Your above statement, though qualified by the word "perhaps," is based on just one interpretation -- what you yourself have implied as being the only meaning in the UK (please see your post #12 in this thread) -- of the phrase in question here in this thread, i.e., "You're on." In so doing, you have (1) assumed that there is not a secondary meaning known and used outside the UK; (2) implied an alternative meaning than the one that I intended in my reply to undeddy in post #11; and (3) inferred that, since the use of the phrase in question must be constrained to just what you in the UK understand, some "courage to venture out ..." (or, by implication, a lack thereof) must be extant.Originally Posted by David L.
Your conclusions expressed in (1) & (3) are logical fallacies. Having highlighted your illogic (without mentioning your impertinence) in this and previous posts, the onus is on you now to explore these logical fallacies in regard to your own words posted here in this thread and defend them accordingly.
Throwing the onus back at me to explain what is in fact self-explanatory (by means of the aforementioned link and pertinent sections within that link) might be viewed by some as exceptional, if not evasive. (Please see: A Code of Conduct for Rational Discussion: The Burden of Proof Principle)
Once again: logical fallacies. Please review. (As noted above, please pay particular attention to these two categories: (1) Hasty Generalization; (2) Faulty Cause and Effect.)
Last edited by Monticello; 24-Apr-2009 at 12:44.
I don't believe this. I don't believe it.
All this...all this ...when the supposed fallicy in logic (which I took to be directed at the thrust of my attempt at addressing the issue of this thread)...all this ...over a flip remark, so preposterous in its suggestion that it is unsafe to go out for coffee in your city of residence - Boston - that it never occurred to me that you were actually referring to THAT!
Struth - that any mind would, could, take that ...not only seriously...but to the point of thinking it worthy of scrutiny by the rules of logic.
I plead no contest when now confronted with how your mind works.
Dear David, you must have forgotten that it is just a web-forum and it is intended for English learners firstly and not for expressing your wise logic or any of your theories. Just help other people and do not begin a wrangle. If you are so easily offended, then merely do not post here.Originally Posted by David L
When one cannot defend an argument on rational grounds, the resort to the ad hominem is commonplace. And thus the weakness of any such argument becomes increasingly transparent.
Clearly, the issues since post #12 have been based upon this statement, i.e., one of confining (or not) the expression "You're on." to the meaning expressed above. The ensuing statement (which I once again quote) --Originally Posted by David L.
-- was made within that same post. Clearly, post #12 seeks to nullify the affirmative response I had provided for undeddy in post #11, and at the same time, just as clearly, is based upon and has within it the aforementioned logical fallacies.Originally Posted by David L.
Is it time for a new dish?
Last edited by Monticello; 24-Apr-2009 at 14:18.
I've always seen the phrase "You're on" the way David is describing it. To me, it calls up the image of a stage or camera, an invitation to perform, a colourful way of saying "Show me" or "let's see this." I have also heard it used in non-confrontational situations, but I feel such usages are by extension, and have always felt the expression well chosen when some skepticism is present in the demeanour of the person using it.
I have never seen a confrontation over its use, until today. Glad I'm not really a part of this war. It's so much more fun to give peace a chance.