Things Caleb should never-ever say.

Vuzeth · Post by **Vuzeth** » Jan 6th, 2008, 17:56

Yes, you are that authority who usually wins... how you like it.

Dimebog wrote:You can think the truth is whatever you would like it to be, I'm not going to stop you.

Nice, I have similar attitude towards you.

Dimebog wrote: Isn't that the democracy that you craved for ever since you fled from the oppressive clutches of the RBC?

Very good of you. I wonder that else you might know.

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 18:07

Dimebog wrote:People don't convey irony with their sentences

Again, not according to Oxford: "through the use of language"

Dimebog wrote:And you can't edit Wikipedia, because your changes would be moderated within minutes

Must be something with your account. All the unprotected entries can be edited without having someone moderate them.

Post by **Daedolon** » Jan 6th, 2008, 18:12

He was referring to more known wiki pages like the ones referring to the english language. They are being monitored for changes and any tries to put up any falsified or erroneus information is removed.

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 18:19

Point is, who should decide what's truly falsified and erroneous?, there are so many false claims and mistakes in protected Wikipedia entries it's scary.

Post by **Daedolon** » Jan 6th, 2008, 18:21

Well, why not hook up a wikipedia of your own. I've yet to see any falsified information on Wiki, provided of course that it's not currently under some smartass nerd attack.

Post by **Dimebog** » Jan 6th, 2008, 18:25

Well I'm not blaming the crippled American educational system (they teach us the difference of irony and sarcasm in fifth grade of elementary school), but "through the use of language" is just one instance - there's so much more to it, so apparently the definition is wrong, or severely incomplete. It's not something I quickly learned on Wikipedia, it's something I've already known, and only used Wikipedia as a source.

And no, I don't think that the paragraph explaining the confusion between irony and sarcasm is a false claim because apparently, you are confused.

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:06

Daedolon wrote:Well, why not hook up a wikipedia of your own. I've yet to see any falsified information on Wiki, provided of course that it's not currently under some smartass nerd attack.

Take the entry for this murderous communist drug kingpin: this

Whoever wrote the article passes this scumbag as some sort of international hero, a man with democratic convictions, there's no mention of a decade of state terrorism, international terrorism, genocide, misery, destruction, all sort of crimes against his own constitution, private property and freedom of speech, massive corruption and the electoral frauds that helped him stay in power.

Now try to edit that...

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:11

Dimebog wrote:so apparently the definition is wrong, or severely incomplete

Dimebog wrote:And no, I don't think that the paragraph explaining the confusion between irony and sarcasm is a false claim because apparently, you are confused.

Considering you're suggesting you got it right and Oxford didn't, I'd say you're the confused one here.

Post by **Dimebog** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:13

Yes, there's a master plan behind all that. Edit the linguistic facts on Wikipedia for world domination!

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:21

Dimebog wrote:Yes, there's a master plan behind all that. Edit the linguistic facts on Wikipedia for world domination!

Indeed, some people have a misinformation plan, but I don't think they will succeed to the extend the have planned. Wikipedia is 100% vulnerable to biasing, so this is no surprise.

Post by **Daedalus** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:28

Daedolon wrote:Well, why not hook up a wikipedia of your own. I've yet to see any falsified information on Wiki, provided of course that it's not currently under some smartass nerd attack.

Take the entry for this murderous, capitalistic, swindling kingpin: this

Whoever wrote the article passes this scumbag as some sort of international hero, a man with democratic convictions, there's no mention of years of state terrorism, international terrorism, genocide, misery, destruction, all sort of crimes against his own constitution, private property and freedom of speech, massive corruption and the electoral frauds that helped him stay in power.

Now try to edit that...

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:35

Daedalus wrote:
Daedolon wrote:Well, why not hook up a wikipedia of your own. I've yet to see any falsified information on Wiki, provided of course that it's not currently under some smartass nerd attack.
Take the entry for this murderous, capitalistic, swindling kingpin: this

Whoever wrote the article passes this scumbag as some sort of international hero, a man with democratic convictions, there's no mention of years of state terrorism, international terrorism, genocide, misery, destruction, all sort of crimes against his own constitution, private property and freedom of speech, massive corruption and the electoral frauds that helped him stay in power.

Now try to edit that...

No need to, the entry stands correct.

Post by **Dimebog** » Jan 6th, 2008, 19:47

Nathan Deringer wrote:Considering you're suggesting you got it right and Oxford didn't, I'd say you're the confused one here.

Since when are dictionaries valid scientific resources? Wikipedia entries are not made up by people who write them - they are referenced from various scientific studies. Check the links on the bottom of the page. Check the link explaining the "misuse of the term" by todays kids and uneducated people. Irony is that Beethoven was deaf. It's not irony when Caleb says something. What you referenced is a dictionary entry. If you can fit some complex lingual phenomena in a single sentence from a dictionary, then kudos.

Nathan Deringer · Post by **Nathan Deringer** » Jan 6th, 2008, 20:01

Dimebog wrote:Since when are dictionaries valid scientific resources?

Question is, when did people stop using dictionaries for valid scientific resources?

Dimebog wrote:Wikipedia entries are not made up by people who write them - they are referenced from various scientific studies

Depends entirely on the subject of the entry.

Dimebog wrote:Check the links on the bottom of the page. Check the link explaining the "misuse of the term" by todays kids and uneducated people

The link is broken.

Dimebog wrote:Irony is that Beethoven was deaf. It's not irony when Caleb says something. What you referenced is a dictionary entry. If you can fit some complex lingual phenomena in a single sentence from a dictionary, then kudos.

I'll quote myself:

"irony: 1 the expression of meaning through the use of language which normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous effect. 2 a state of affairs that appears perversely contrary to what one expects"

"sarcasm: noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt"

You can use irony without mockery. Take "this hurts me more than it hurts you" for example, it ain't mocking anything/anyone but it would be funny given the right context"

Sorry but you're not making any sense.

Post by **Daedolon** » Jan 6th, 2008, 20:15

The only way that the sarcasticly used and meant sentence "This hurts me more than it hurts you." could be ironic, is if the the projectiles Caleb fired at his victim actually somehow bounced back into him.