[falco10291029]

No it isn't.

*Look at definition of it* Damn english teachers and their false teachings >=O

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Are you sure? It seems to me that you fixated on one of the words in one of the descriptions - the word 'explain' - and ignored all else.

I looked at the part of the definiton where it summarizes the rest of it with a synonym. You never see something like (this definition obviously made up)
"Human:
Fits under category homosapien;mammal"
And then
"Mammal:
Warm blooded life form;animal."
Ect.

I did not.

Of course it does. But all language has a finite degree of flexibility, or it becomes useless. Poor articulation cannot simply be blamed on the reader.

Maybe not exactly, but it was implied that what i said wasn't within flexibility.

I cited my text as an example thereof. But we moved on from there, and you evidently didn't keep pace. The definition of criticism is not relevant to the discussion over how meaningful my comments are.

Whatever, but i agree the definition of criticism is irrelevant to the overall conversation, so let's end that argument.

Incorrect. I asked you a simple question about flexible, subjective meaning. These two things are not equivalent.

Aren't you the one arguing for flexible, subjective meaning?

Implying that what you said should be in that flexibility.

1) No it isn't.
2) Your sentence wouldn't make sense even if you did choose to invoke your imaginary definition.

1. To decide; to judge; to sentence; to condemn.

Similar to "to subject to" (So it doesn't say subject to, but to sentence is a sunonym to that), which works since you subjected what i said to criticism. read all of the definition before deciding I am wrong. Since deem has above definition, the context thus shows that you are wrong:

which means that my comprehension doesn't deem "Criticism"

Implying that you are subjecting my comprehension to criticism.

I think this entire discussion stands as testament to the inaccuracy of those claims.

Only mistake i've made here is improper wording, caused becase i rushed most of my arguments, since i am simultaneously doing homework when on the forums. Still, such a minor mistake usually won't influence the person's comprehension of what i said much, since the person knows what I am getting at if they were paying attention.

Do you think you can realistically call this a well-constructed sentence?

Doesn't look like that with your wuote only, but with the rest of that post and my quote of you there, it suits the purpose. I am not out to impress people with fancy word uage, i am arguing here like i would in a rl conversation, and am not going to change my ways to show you i can contruct a sentence better than that. Summary: What i said suits the purpose of the post, and doesn't need to be made better because you wouldn't say it like that.

You are not listening. From whence comes this restriction of scope?

based on earlier definitions

2. To possess, as something which appertains to, is connected with, or affects, one.

Saying it affects pnly one object, and would be the definition used in that insult. Please don't make me quote quotes, go back and read when i say based on earlier definitions if you forgot what i put.

No. Learn to read. I said that the disagreement did not stem from conflicting definitions, which is true. We apparently agree on the definition 'to own', but you insist on inserting some specification of scope somewhere between defining the term and using it. This is the cause of the disagreement.

I thought you said the conflicting definition was "have". Surely i shouldn't rely on you to explain what an argument is when you aren't even consistent. Also, the cause of the disagreement is that i say have can mean the definiton i posted, and youhave been saying it must be purely on the context. That is the argument.