to be on

Status
Not open for further replies.

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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!
and
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.
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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!
and
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.

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. :)
 

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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:

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.

Another apt expression (also common in the US) "Can dish it out but can't take it. ?" ;-)
 

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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:

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Easy to hurl abuse - not so easy when you're asked to state your case!

You're on:

David L. said:
Perhaps it takes a lot more courage to venture out of one's home to a cafe in certain parts of the USA, such as Boston, than in Britain generally.

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.

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. :shock: (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:

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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.
 

undeddy

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
David L said:
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.

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.
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.

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.

David L. said:
Not really. As I said in my first posting:
'You're on" is asking a person if they are going to accept a challenge or bet I've just made.
In reply, the person would say, "You're on", said by way of accepting the challenge or bet.
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) --

David L. said:
Perhaps it takes a lot more courage to venture out of one's home to a cafe in certain parts of the USA, such as Boston, than in Britain generally.
-- 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.

Is it time for a new dish? :lol:
 
Last edited:

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
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.
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.

And since when, Dear konungursvia, is discussion or debate synonymous with war? :?:
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I agree those two words are not synonyms, and yet I chose the word "war" to express my emotional subtext, my feelings regarding the tenor of the exchange above. Indeed, we human beings are incapable of using language to denote objective states of affairs without colouring in our own judgments, beliefs and values. So I cannot supply the requested date, with apologies, Monty.
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I agree those two words are not synonyms, and yet I chose the word "war" to express my emotional subtext, my feelings regarding the tenor of the exchange above. Indeed, we human beings are incapable of using language to denote objective states of affairs without colouring in our own judgments, beliefs and values. So I cannot supply the requested date, with apologies, Monty.

hmmm ..., Monty ... I rather like that. :)

Generally speaking, it would be a mistake to transfer one's subjective feelings to another's objective behavior. After all, unless one is clairvoyant or has some key insight(s) based upon past observance, one cannot ascribe one's subjective feelings to the circumstances of another's behavior with any genuine confidence. (Psychology, as you may already know, refers to the act of harboring such ascribed feelings as: projection.)

As for your unfamiliarity with the phrase "You're on." to convey consent, please see: this link on idioms.
 
Last edited:

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
There's an excellent Chinese saying: 旁观者清 ! It means "The view from the sidelines is clearest."

And I'm still quite happy with my word choice, so by my own criteria, there has been no mistake.

And yes, I did have some key insights based upon past observations, as you know.

And yes, you're right, I am aware of the psychological concept of projection. I am sure I was not projecting my own feelings onto another's behaviour: some of the participants told us how they felt, which I observed.

Lastly, you may have misunderstood the original sense of objective, objectivity, and objectification. Wilhelm Dilthey coined the term in the context of the sciences of the mind, and defined it in a manner consistent with the Chinese saying above: relying on another's perspective in order to attempt to eliminate some of the subjectivity involved in in perceptions of matters in which one is personally involved.

There's a great Jewish saying as well: "If everyone says you're drunk, you'd better lie down."

So go get some rest, eh? "Peace out."

A last thought: you may not have intended it, but using references through web links, when the correspondent hasn't asked for them and is in any case likely capable of finding them as needed, sometimes strikes the reader as aggressive, even demeaning. I'm sure you didn't intend to hurt David's feelings, but I feel quite sure he felt badly when you began doing so, as they did appear patronizing and denigrating. From the onlooker's point of view. My suggestion is to do so with less frequency and more economy. And perhaps to limit them, for the most part, to helpful replies to learners who are unaware of them, rather than "shoving the nose" of other helpful teachers into them. Again, I'm sure it's unintentional, but please take it into account.
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
konungursvia said:
There's an excellent Chinese saying: 旁观者清 ! It means "The view from the sidelines is clearest."
...

And yes, I did have some key insights based upon past observations, as you know.
Thanks for the Chinese saying.

Am I now supposed to follow that, based upon such wisdom, together with your own sense of objective criteria (-isn't that a logical contradiction of terms?), you are now a self-professed impartial onlooker?

Please.

Your haste at such self-profession, together with your own past posts, belies any possible claim to your being unbiased here.

konungursvia said:
... you may have misunderstood the original sense of objective, objectivity, and objectification. Wilhelm Dilthey coined the term in the context of the sciences of the mind, and defined it in a manner consistent with the Chinese saying above: relying on another's perspective in order to attempt to eliminate some of the subjectivity involved in in perceptions of matters in which one is personally involved.
How can one possibly misunderstand that which has not yet been (re)defined? Until one has asked for, and received -- by mutual agreement (i.e., not by imposition) -- definitions of key terms, the common language shared by those engaged in discourse is (of course) assumed. In this specific instance, the word (and its forms) in question here is:

[SIZE=+2]objective[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]SYLLABICATION:[/SIZE]ob·jec·tive[SIZE=-1]PRONUNCIATION:[/SIZE]
schwa.gif
b-j
ebreve.gif
k
prime.gif
t
ibreve.gif
v[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE:[/SIZE]1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair[SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE]. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. 4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected. 5. Grammar a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case. [SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]1. Something that actually exists. 2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See synonyms at intention. 3. Grammar a. The objective case. b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case. 4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens. [SIZE=-1]OTHER FORMS:[/SIZE]ob·jec
prime.gif
tive·ly
—[SIZE=-2]ADVERB[/SIZE]
ob·jec
prime.gif
tive·ness
—[SIZE=-2]NOUN[/SIZE]

If one wishes to narrow this commonly accepted definition to some other specific academic meaning, then, in all fairness, shouldn't such redefinition be stated upfront? ( - or does this newly imposed (re)definition absolve one of any such considerations???) Are you still claiming objectivity here? Surely, you cannot be serious.

Once again, as in many previous posts, I will ask you for the courtesy of not changing the context mid-way through an argument, and then using the new context to support your argument. (- If you take away anything from this post/thread, then please let it be this request!)

konungursvia said:
And yes, you're right, I am aware of the psychological concept of projection. I am sure I was not projecting my own feelings onto another's behaviour: some of the participants told us how they felt, which I observed.
When it comes to subjective feelings, I, myself, regard with suspicion any self-assuredness that is based upon such feelings alone -- whether they be someone else's or my own. After all, where is the line to be drawn between a healthy self-assurance and mere smugness or self-deception?

Experience is the best teacher here. The balance can only be maintained by objective feedback. If one wishes to ignore this advice (or seeks to cloud the issue through a quibbling that employs a redefinition of terms in mid-discourse), then: so be it. There is an old adage, its venerability derived from its proven wisdom: Pride goeth before a fall.

konungursvia said:
There's a great Jewish saying as well: "If everyone says you're drunk, you'd better lie down."

So go get some rest, eh? "Peace out."
I see.

So now, correct me if I'm wrong, but please let me get this straight now. I am to understand and believe in: (1) your self-professed objectivity as an impartial "view[er] from the sidelines;" (2) your omniscient ability to know another's internal thoughts and motives based simply on your "objective" (which here now assumes a newly imposed definition to suit your argument) viewpoint; (3) your ability to be not just omniscient but also, by implication, metaphorically "everyone."

I am to believe and understand all this based simply on your "objective" say-so? :?::?::?: Surely, Dear konungursvia, you can't be serious. :shock: If you wish to continue with such muddled thinking, no one can stop you. -Just forewarn you and try to help you back on the path of "the rational."


P.S. The links that I include within my posts are never intended to patronize or denigrate anyone! Such links are provided as a means for appealing to objective sources and criteria in support of the points I offer here in the threads of these forums (fora?). Such information allows viewers to exercise their independent critical judgement and reasoning in regard to the veracity of any issue that may be at hand.
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I'm turning this thread off as it's producing more heat than light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top