Charity for your name in aMoL

[septac]

I'm against this. For one reason, if Chuck Norris were to donate and win the contest the incorporation of him in the  WoT universe could drastically change the ending. His presence could create a new ending in which Rand has to do nothing but stand back and watch him seal the bore and kill the forsaken in a fraction of the time it would have taken Rand thus causing a much shorter book.

[benr]

 

 

To Mr Ares point; G W Bush needs something to occupy his time, and he has been living in a fantasy world, so maybe he could get in the book.  It'd probably come at taxpayers' expense, though.

George Bush in Wheel of Time? I thought he was.

 

 

I get your point, but W is at worst a DF.  The part you are referring to is actually played by Dick Cheney.

[Mr Ares]

Even though this is a meaningless argument, and you've already lost, you still want to carry on? Good luck.

You are childish, thinking of this as a game and claiming you've won.

What's the point of growing up if you can't be a little childish sometimes? Also, sheer stubborness is hardly a mature reason to carry on with an argument you acknowledge as meaningless, is it?

 

So you admit you weren't actually addressing his point?

That is not what I said.

It is exactly what you said - what he said and what you responded to were completely different, therefore you did not respond to the point he made, rather a completely different point, which you hoped he was making. You admitted that the point he made was not the one you responded to - that you decided to reinterpret what he said in line with your own agenda, rather than respond to what was actually written.

 

The reason you gave for him being wrong was that you could also get in by making a smaller donation and having your name drawn out of a hat

I merely supplied a quote. You misinterpreted my post. I wasn't trying to prove him wrong.

You said nope, thus disagreeing with what was said. You then provided the quote. Either the quote was intended to back up your point, or it was an unrelated aside. If it was the latter, your "nope" was utterly unsupported. Whether or not you were correct to say he was wrong is beside the point - if the quote you provided was not there to back up your point, your argument was that he was wrong "just because", not a very convincing argument. On the other hand, if the quote following the "nope" was actually there for a reason - that it was there as a part of your argument, not just because you thought it would look good - then it your argument should be assessed as a whole. And your argument, as a whole, is flawed. Because the reason you gave - that others will be in as well - does not adequately counter the point of the original post. Because there was nothing in your post to demonstrate that the richest fan would not be in AMoL. Therefore, you were wrong.

 

which does not disprove the statement, nor does it truly disprove the intent - because it is still true that the person who makes the largest donation gets in the book

The claim was that the richest fan will get in the book.  That is completely unsupported, and I indicated that in my post.

No, you didn't. Either you said the richest fan will not get in but the reason you gave to support that did nothing to prove that the richest fan would not get in. Your argument was wrong.

Where do you get this idea that I need to prove what I said?

That's what people do in arguments. They make statements. They back them up.

So what if the quote I supplied didn't prove that the statement was inaccurate?

So what if you put forward an argument that did nothing to prove your point, you mean. Now, where would arguments be if everyone used the same method? "Nuking Iran is a bad idea, because I don't like the Welsh". Starting a nuclear war with Iran might be a bad idea, but the reason given is flawed. So with this argument. While the richest fan might not be in the series, saying the richest fan will not be in there because there is also, in addition to the silent auction, another, separate competition that involves names being drawn out of a hat, is a meaningless argument.

 

Now, if you wish to carry on with this argument I am happy to oblige. It is, after all, quite amusing. But given that my point is that your argument was a bad argument, then you can either show how you put forward a good reason why your bad argument was no such thing, or you can concede the point.

 

Chuck Norris

How long will it take before the Wheel turns back to the point where Chuck Norris jokes were actually funny?

[septac]

lol was trying to break all the tension in this topic. When I was thinking of who could donate and be in the story chuck just came up :P

[CUBAREY]

lol was trying to break all the tension in this topic. When I was thinking of who could donate and be in the story chuck just came up 

 

septac:

 

There is a long history of  Chuck Norris jokes on DragonMount those of us that have haunted these boards for a while sometimes react negatively to the mention of his name, similarly to how high school students feel about knock-knock jokes.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

what he said and what you responded to were completely different, therefore you did not respond to the point he made, rather a completely different point, which you hoped he was making.

I responded to what I read, which was frustration and cynicism.

 

You admitted that the point he made was not the one you responded to - that you decided to reinterpret what he said in line with your own agenda, rather than respond to what was actually written.

No I didn't!  I did not reinterpret anything, had no agenda, and DID respond to what was written.

 

While the richest fan might not be in the series, saying the richest fan will not be in there because there is also, in addition to the silent auction, another, separate competition that involves names being drawn out of a hat, is a meaningless argument.

True, but that isn't what I said: I didn't say "because", and I didn't mean "because".  You read it that way, even though I didn't intend you to.  When you look at the words, what I said was not wrong.  Here is the entire conversation in question:

Yey!  The richest wheel of time fan gets to be in the series.  Maybe the cameo character's name will be Waryn Buffyt or Wilem Gates.

 

Nope:

Quote

All fans who donate will get a chance to be in the final book in the series, “A Memory of Light,” regardless of the amount given.

 

The first quote makes a claim, that "the richest wheel of time fan gets to be in the series".  The second quote is a response to the first.  It denies the first quote with the word "Nope".  It also has a quoted fact, that "all fans who donate will get a chance".

 

The question is, "is the second quote wrong?"  The only way the second quote would be wrong is if the first were right (making the "Nope" inaccurate).  Is the first quote right?  No, because the claim "the richest wheel of time fan gets to be in the series" is not true.  Therefore I was not wrong when I said "Nope".

 

You offer the idea that the quote after the "Nope" does not adequately explain why the first quote is not true.  That is debatable, but it does not make my post wrong.  You also say that "just because" isn't convincing, which is moot because we all know unconvincing != wrong.

 

Finally, you say: "there was nothing in your post to demonstrate that the richest fan would not be in AMoL. Therefore, you were wrong."  First, lacking evidence is not the same as being wrong.  Second, I offered evidence in later posts by quoting the rules of the charity, which are distinctly lacking any mention of "the richest fan".

 

Whether or not you were correct to say he was wrong is beside the point

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!

 

As for your "nuking Iran" example, it is not the same.  There is no moral weight to the "argument" that the richest fan will not be in the series (it is not actually an argument, it is a statement).

[benr]

I wonder who the "richest fan" on the Dragonmount (or Sanderson) discussion board is.  It sure ain't me! Not the poorest, either, I'm sure.  Anyways, if this draws donations for this worthy cause, I'm all for it.

[Mr Ares]

I responded to what I read, which was frustration and cynicism.

But you didn't, because the words that were written were not what you responded to.

 

You admitted that the point he made was not the one you responded to - that you decided to reinterpret what he said in line with your own agenda, rather than respond to what was actually written.

No I didn't! I did not reinterpret anything, had no agenda, and DID respond to what was written.

No, you didn't. Responding to what was written would be pointing out that it is the biggest donation, not the richest fan. You didn't. You pointed out that there was a separate competition, where lesser donations would allow the chance of appearing. As it was apparently the former competition, not the latter, that was being referred to, you thus failed to answer his point.

 

When you look at the words, what I said was not wrong.

Yes, it was. The reason you gave for the richest fan not appearing in the series did not explain why the richest fan would not be in the series. Thus, your argument was wrong, even if your conclusion wasn't. The richest fan will not appear because of a different competition which will not affect the first one is not a good argument.

 

The second quote is a response to the first. It denies the first quote with the word "Nope". It also has a quoted fact, that "all fans who donate will get a chance".

Which is a different competition to the silent auction. Therefore unrelated. Therefore not answering the point. Therefore wrong.

 

First, lacking evidence is not the same as being wrong.

Your argument was wrong.

Second, I offered evidence in later posts by quoting the rules of the charity, which are distinctly lacking any mention of "the richest fan".

Later posts are not the issue. The issue is your initial incorrect argument.

 

Whether or not you were correct to say he was wrong is beside the point

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!

No, it isn't. The point is not your conclusion, it is the argument you used to back up that conclusion. The argument does not prove the conclusion. Your argument was wrong. And you don't even know what you are arguing about now! Good old Dragonmount, always good for a laugh.

 

I wonder who the "richest fan" on the Dragonmount (or Sanderson) discussion board is.

Turning this thread into a "who's the richest" argument would make a change of pace.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

You think that by supplying a quote of the charity rules I was somehow using that as an argument for why the post I was responding to was wrong.  I understand that you can interpret it that way, but it is just your interpretation.  In reality, all I did was deny the accuracy of the previous post.  Doing so was not incorrect, because the claim was in fact inaccurate.  The quote's purpose wasn't to prove that the richest fan would not be in aMoL, though you seem to think it is.  Perhaps the colon I used was misleading.  However you look at it, I never stated an intention to prove anything.  You seem to think that any statement (or argument as you call it) must be backed up with evidence or it is wrong.  Good for you for demanding proof, but you must admit that something can be right without any evidence to prove it.  Also, to be fair I had previously linked to the charity website which has all of the rules listed, so the evidence was only a couple of clicks away for the curious.

The argument does not prove the conclusion. Your argument was wrong. And you don't even know what you are arguing about now! Good old Dragonmount, always good for a laugh.

Can you see now that the above is simply your opinion?  Because, there was never an 'argument' for what I wrote.  I never said, "you are wrong, because there is another separate competition".  You read my post in a way I had not intended.

 

It's like when people call you Mr. Ares.  Even though they have a valid interpretation of your name (the full stop is used in some countries), you did not intend them to see it that way, you did not actually write it that way, and they are wrong if they try to claim that is what you meant.

[CUBAREY]

you must admit that something can be right without any evidence to prove it.

 

For a statement to be believed to be correct either evidence showing its valaidity must be shown, the statement is a tautology (the statement defines itself) or the reader can deduce the evidence from generally known facts.

 

Perhaps the colon I used was misleading.  However you look at it, I never stated an intention to prove anything.

 

The colon you used stated the intent. At most all you can argue is that the intent shown by the structure of your statement was not your purpose. The explains the reason for your error it does not mean you did not make one.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

For a statement to be believed to be correct either evidence showing its valaidity must be shown, the statement is a tautology (the statement defines itself) or the reader can deduce the evidence from generally known facts.

I believe that "the richest fan will be in the book" is evidently false, because that is not how an auction works.  Therefore the "Nope" does not need to be backed up.  Also, your definition of a "correct statement" is too narrow: if I correctly guess an answer on a test, with no evidence or logic to back up my answer, it is right (even if I don't deserve credit).

 

The colon you used stated the intent. At most all you can argue is that the intent shown by the structure of your statement was not your purpose. The explains the reason for your error it does not mean you did not make one.

From the beginning my intent was to deny that it would require lots of money to have a chance.  That is why I supplied that quote, because it addressed that issue.  Therefore the colon was appropriate.  Here is a rephrasing of what was said:

 

1-"there's a charity to get in aMoL"

2-"oh great, the richest fan will be in the book"

3-"no: everyone gets a chance to be in it"

 

Viewpoint 1: The third line is wrong because the statement to the right of the colon must prove the one on the left, but it does not.

 

Viewpoint 2: The third line is not wrong because it merely points out that the second line is inaccurate.  The quote is there to address the frustration in the second line, which comes from the fact that the poster assumed that only the highest bidder would win a cameo.  You might say that the "no" (or "Nope") means "that sentiment is not true", rather than "that statement is not true".  In this (intended) context the colon works.

 

Honestly I think the 1st viewpoint is nitpicking, and I am a huge nitpicker so when Mr Ares said I was wrong, I felt compelled to defend my words.  The 2nd viewpoint is obvious to me (hence this discussion), but I can't seem to get my point across.

[CUBAREY]

The quote is there to address the frustration in the second line, which comes from the fact that the poster assumed that only the highest bidder would win a cameo.

 

Except that the poster may have meant that he disapproved of any event that would guarantee that a wealthy fan could insure himself a place in AMOL by making the highest bid while the rest of us would be relegated to having to win a lottery. He could be commenting on the unfairness of that system.  Your statement in the third line is totally unresponisve to this concern. Therefore, I repeat again your statement was as written incorrect as it did not directly reply with the concern voiced by the poster.

 

 

Honestly I think the 1st viewpoint is nitpicking, and I am a huge nitpicker so when Mr Ares said I was wrong, I felt compelled to defend my words.

 

This forum is haunted by lawyers and others who by aptitude or profession are nitpickers. You are being unreasonable to expect that someone will not nitpick a nitpicky response to a nitpicky post. :D :D

 

 

 

 

I believe that "the richest fan will be in the book" is evidently false, because that is not how an auction works.  Therefore the "Nope" does not need to be backed up

 

Depends on how you define "richest fan". You presume that "richest fan" means the fan with the most money. A plausible argument could be made that if you did not bid as much as you could in the auction you would not truly a fan, as all true fans would pay any price they could afford to be in the books. Since the richest person could afford to make the highest bid then the "richest fan" would  be in the book.

 

Also, your definition of a "correct statement" is too narrow: if I correctly guess an answer on a test, with no evidence or logic to back up my answer, it is right (even if I don't deserve credit).

 

While taking a test the only reasonable reason to give an answer is to get it correct. In an internet forum the only reason to reply to a post by saying "Nope, ..." is to express disagreement and to show how the poster was incorrect (Unless you mean to argue that if a poster  states "apples are green or red", you can legitimately state "nope: bananas are yellow").

 

[Mr Ares]

The quote's purpose wasn't to prove that the richest fan would not be in aMoL.

So what was its purpose? Either it is there to back up the nope, hence flawed argument, or it was just a random aside, hence no supporting argument. Either way, it proves my point.

It's like when people call you Mr. Ares. Even though they have a valid interpretation of your name (the full stop is used in some countries)

Some countries are wrong. There is only one correct way to punctuate my name, and it doesn't involve a full stop.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

This forum is haunted by lawyers and others who by aptitude or profession are nitpickers. You are being unreasonable to expect that someone will not nitpick a nitpicky response to a nitpicky post.

I don't expect that; I just think that your position is not the most obvious one.  Believe me, I relish this.

 

So what was its purpose? Either it is there to back up the nope, hence flawed argument, or it was just a random aside, hence no supporting argument. Either way, it proves my point.

I already answered this:

From the beginning my intent was to deny that it would require lots of money to have a chance.  That is why I supplied that quote, because it addressed that issue.

The quote does back up the nope.  Again and again I have said that the poster was being cynical.  He says so himself in a later post.  I was essentially telling him that his cynicism was unfounded, and that you don't need lots of money to get in the book.

 

Except that the poster may have meant that he disapproved of any event that would guarantee that a wealthy fan could insure himself a place in AMOL by making the highest bid while the rest of us would be relegated to having to win a lottery.

Except, when I explain more about the rules (specifically the drawing), he says:

You totally deflated my cynicism.

(Thanks for correcting me).

That does not make sense if he knew about the drawing in his first post.

 

Depends on how you define "richest fan". You presume that "richest fan" means the fan with the most money. A plausible argument could be made that if you did not bid as much as you could in the auction you would not truly a fan, as all true fans would pay any price they could afford to be in the books. Since the richest person could afford to make the highest bid then the "richest fan" would  be in the book.

Lol, I define "richest fan" as the person who has the most money among WoT fans.  It is not plausible to say that a person would bid thousands of dollars to be in a book that they are not a fan of.  It is also implausible to say that someone who does not bid as much as possible is not a true fan.

 

While taking a test the only reasonable reason to give an answer is to get it correct. In an internet forum the only reason to reply to a post by saying "Nope, ..." is to express disagreement and to show how the poster was incorrect (Unless you mean to argue that if a poster  states "apples are green or red", you can legitimately state "nope: bananas are yellow").

That isn't fair, because in your example the reply "nope" would be wrong (apples are green or yellow).  However, if they said "apples are black", I would be allowed to correctly say "nope".  Also, bananas have nothing to do with apples, but "the richest fan wins" is related to "everybody gets a chance".

 

What do you think of the 2 viewpoints I outlined in my last post?  I admit, the first one is valid, just not what I intended.  Will you admit that the second one is valid as well?  If not, do you have a reason that you have not stated yet?

[CUBAREY]

Except, when I explain more about the rules (specifically the drawing), he says:

 

Quote

You totally deflated my cynicism.

(Thanks for correcting me).

That does not make sense if he knew about the drawing in his first post.

 

Except that we must judge his statement (like yours) at face value and not what was meant subjectively. His statement shows unhappiness that a rich person (because of his ability to bid a higher amount) will get to be in AMOL. Your statement does not answer the obvious (if unintentional) point in his statement as whether we all have a chance to enter a lottery to be named in the book does not answer the objective point made in the first post and thus is at best unresponsive.

 

Lol, I define "richest fan" as the person who has the most money among WoT fans.  It is not plausible to say that a person would bid thousands of dollars to be in a book that they are not a fan of.  It is also implausible to say that someone who does not bid as much as possible is not a true fan.

 

And I define "true fan" as consisting of the subset of "fans" that would spend all they reasonably can to guarantee their inclusion in AMOL. Thus the richest "fan" would bid the amount that he reasonably believed would get him named in AMOL. You focus on the definition of "Rich" I focus on the definition of "True Fan"

 

Lol, I define "richest fan" as the person who has the most money among WoT fans.  It is not plausible to say that a person would bid thousands of dollars to be in a book that they are not a fan of.  It is also implausible to say that someone who does not bid as much as possible is not a true fan.

 

It is valid only if the posters intent can be objectively interpreted on its face as only lamenting that average fans have no hope of being named in AMOL. If however the post can be objectively read as protesting the inclusion of a rich fans name (based on his ability to bid the highest) then your statement is unresponsive and thus invalid.

 

That isn't fair, because in your example the reply "nope" would be wrong (apples are green or yellow).  However, if they said "apples are black", I would be allowed to correctly say "nope".  Also, bananas have nothing to do with apples, but "the richest fan wins" is related to "everybody gets a chance".

 

Again depends on the objective meaning of the posters words. Moreover, bananas and apples are both fruits so they have a lot to do with each other.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

So what was its purpose? Either it is there to back up the nope, hence flawed argument, or it was just a random aside, hence no supporting argument. Either way, it proves my point.

I already answered this:

From the beginning my intent was to deny that it would require lots of money to have a chance. That is why I supplied that quote, because it addressed that issue.

The quote does back up the nope.

No, it doesn't. Your argument is thus: No, the richest fan will not get into AMoL, because there is a separate competition which will also allow you to get your name in, which fails to answer his point as written. Unless you were not responding to what was written, thus were not responding to his point, but reinterpreting his point and then answering that. Thus the argument fails because it does not address what was said. You have already claimed that you did respond to what was written, and that you did not reinterpret what was written. Thus your argument fails. Either way I am right. But you have denied that you reinterpreted, you have claimed you did respond to what was written, so if the latter is true, you are also a liar.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

I was not wrong when I said "Nope".  So, you move on to the quote I supplied.  However, the quote is not wrong, it is merely a quote.  So, you move on to the structure of the post - the juxtaposition of the "Nope" and the quote.  You say that the only possible way for my post to be right is if the quote proves the "Nope".  That is a made up rule.

 

No, it doesn't. Your argument is thus: No, the richest fan will not get into AMoL, because there is a separate competition which will also allow you to get your name in, which fails to answer his point as written.

That is not what I said.  That "argument" is your incorrect interpretation of my post.  I was not responding to the literal statement on the page because that literal statement didn't make much sense.  It made much more sense as cynicism, so that's how my brain interpreted it at first.  That is not "reinterpreting" the post.

 

You have already claimed that you did respond to what was written, and that you did not reinterpret what was written. Thus your argument fails. Either way I am right. But you have denied that you reinterpreted, you have claimed you did respond to what was written, so if the latter is true, you are also a liar.

  Oh, of course.  That makes perfect sense.

 

Except that we must judge his statement (like yours) at face value and not what was meant subjectively. His statement shows unhappiness that a rich person (because of his ability to bid a higher amount) will get to be in AMOL.

I think the statement shows cynicism and frustration at the idea: "the only people who get a chance to be in the book are the rich ones".  To which I said "Nope: everybody gets a chance".  Your interpretation of the statement does not take it at face value - where is the "unhappiness" you mentioned, or the explanation "because of his ability to bid a higher amount"?  You have just as subjective a view of that post as I do.  Also, why should we abandon subjectivity and only look at "face value"?

 

And I define "true fan" as consisting of the subset of "fans" that would spend all they reasonably can to guarantee their inclusion in AMOL. Thus the richest "fan" would bid the amount that he reasonably believed would get him named in AMOL. You focus on the definition of "Rich" I focus on the definition of "True Fan"

But we aren't talking about a "true fan"; you have introduced this term.  The quote is "richest fan".  I am confident that the poster meant "the WoT fan with the most money".

 

It is valid only if the posters intent can be objectively interpreted on its face as only lamenting that average fans have no hope of being named in AMOL. If however the post can be objectively read as protesting the inclusion of a rich fans name (based on his ability to bid the highest) then your statement is unresponsive and thus invalid.

Correct, although I disagree with your use of the word "only".  The posters cynicism is obvious to me (hence my response which relies on that cynicism to make sense).  It is obvious that he doesn't actually think the richest fan will be in the book - who would think that?  That isn't how an auction works.

[CUBAREY]

Your interpretation of the statement does not take it at face value - where is the "unhappiness" you mentioned, or the explanation "because of his ability to bid a higher amount"? 

 

Replace "unhappiness" with cynasism then Either word works for my point. Moreover, the poster was being cynacal because in an auction the prize goes to the highest bidder and the "richest fan" can logically be presumed (all other things being equal) to make the highest bid.

 

It is obvious that he doesn't actually think the richest fan will be in the book - who would think that?  That isn't how an auction works.

 

See my prevous point.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

But all other things are not equal, that is what makes an auction fun.  The richest fan is not the winner of the auction, nor is the winner of the auction necessarily the richest fan.

[zzyzx_scarecrow]

Yes, peasants.  Study my words carefully and have intense debates on semantics and forum logic.

 

But the real question is "Does any of this really exist?"

 

<(^-^)> you seem like a nice person.  I think you understood I was joking and you pointed out something I didn't know about the auction.  I'm happy.  Does anyone else need anything to let this die?

[Mr Ares]

I was not wrong when I said "Nope". So, you move on to the quote I supplied. However, the quote is not wrong, it is merely a quote. So, you move on to the structure of the post - the juxtaposition of the "Nope" and the quote. You say that the only possible way for my post to be right is if the quote proves the "Nope". That is a made up rule.

You fail to understand. Still. It is your argument, not your conclusion, which is at issue. The nope may or may not be right, that is beside the point. But what have you said to back up that nope? In the post in question, there was only one thing said which could be considered back up, which you yourself admit is the case. The quote is there to back up the nope. So, your argument is that the post you were responding to was incorrect - hence nope - followed by a reason why it was incorrect - the flawed argument. Whether or not the conclusion is right, the argument used to back it up is flawed, which is the point. So, what is your argument? No, the richest fan will not get in because of a different competition. It might be true that the richest fan does not get in, it might be true that there is a different competition, but the one does not back up the other. It is a flawed argument. Much like the point about apples - no, apples are not green or red, because bananas are yellow. While any given part of that may be true, the argument as a whole does not work. The point about bananas, much like your point about the different competition, is a non sequiter. That your argument is flawed and does not address the initial post is the point. You did not respond to what was written. You reinterpreted what was written and responded to that. Which has been the point all along, and has long since been proven. However you slice it, you are wrong. If you're going to nitpick, do it well.

 

No, it doesn't. Your argument is thus: No, the richest fan will not get into AMoL, because there is a separate competition which will also allow you to get your name in, which fails to answer his point as written.

That is not what I said.  That "argument" is your incorrect interpretation of my post. I was not responding to the literal statement on the page because that literal statement didn't make much sense. It made much more sense as cynicism, so that's how my brain interpreted it at first. That is not "reinterpreting" the post.

Yes, it is. What was written and what you responded to are not the same thing. Therefore, you reinterpreted what was written and responded to that. You did not respond to what was written. If you did, then the argument is as I laid out above, therefore you lose the argument. If you did not respond to what was written, you still lose the argument, because the point has been made many times that you did not respond to what was written and you claimed you did. That you claim it makes no sense is irrelevant. It does make sense. And you did not respond to it, you responded to something else, or you did respond to it, and did so badly. Either way, the point is proved. You have lost.

 

You have already claimed that you did respond to what was written, and that you did not reinterpret what was written. Thus your argument fails. Either way I am right. But you have denied that you reinterpreted, you have claimed you did respond to what was written, so if the latter is true, you are also a liar.

Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense.

Yes, it does. You claim you did not reinterpret what was written, yet you also claim you did not respond to the literal statements. You can't have it both ways, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you responded to what was written - thus, the literal arguments, which you say you didn't. Or, you reinterpreted what was said into the argument that you thought he was making and responded to that - thus did not respond to what was written, but reinterpreted, which you claim you didn't do.

 

Except that we must judge his statement (like yours) at face value and not what was meant subjectively. His statement shows unhappiness that a rich person (because of his ability to bid a higher amount) will get to be in AMOL.

I think the statement shows cynicism and frustration at the idea: "the only people who get a chance to be in the book are the rich ones". To which I said "Nope: everybody gets a chance". Your interpretation of the statement does not take it at face value - where is the "unhappiness" you mentioned, or the explanation "because of his ability to bid a higher amount"? You have just as subjective a view of that post as I do. Also, why should we abandon subjectivity and only look at "face value"?

Exactly. You did not respond to what he said, but what you wanted him to be saying. You reinterpreted. You responded to what you thought it said, not what it said. That is what we disagree with.

 

I am confident that the poster meant "the WoT fan with the most money".

Define fan. It comes from fanatic. So, the richest person with a fanatical love of this series. So, someone with a fanatical love who will do anything to get in the series. Anyone who lacks that devotion - are they really a fan? Hence, the fan with the most money getting in.

 

Yes, peasants.

I'm not a peasant.

Study my words carefully and have intense debates on semantics and forum logic.

The logic we use is not different to that used elsewhere.

 

But the real question is "Does any of this really exist?"

Well, unless anyone wants to go down the solipsistic route, then let us say that the world we interact with via our senses really exists, and is not just a figment of my imagination, then the answer is yes. The forums exist. The charity competition exists. A Memory of Light exists, albeit in unfinished form. The posts we are debating, they exist. The chance to get in AMoL really exists.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

Exactly. You did not respond to what he said, but what you wanted him to be saying. You reinterpreted. You responded to what you thought it said, not what it said. That is what we disagree with.

You are wrong to imply that the only valid interpretation of a post is the literal one.  Sometimes, the words are not meant to be taken literally, like in this case.  For example, if someone says: "Oh god we are screwed", would it be a reinterpretation of that statement to assume the person meant: "we are in big trouble" and not: "there is a screwdriver turning us"?  No, that is not a reinterpretation.  Likewise, "The richest fan will be in the book" is a cynical statement, which, in context, is really saying: "only rich fans will have a chance to be in the book".  At least, that is how I read it.  You could argue that I read it wrong, but that is purely a matter of opinion.

 

Still. It is your argument, not your conclusion, which is at issue.

You cling to the idea that my argument is flawed.  However, I don't think the "argument" you claim I am making is really there:

So, what is your argument? No, the richest fan will not get in because of a different competition.

That is not my argument.  My argument is "No, the charity is set up so everyone gets a chance to be in the book".  My post doesn't even mention the "other competition", it just says that everyone has a chance to win.  You have constructed an argument out of my post that was never intended.

 

You claim you did not reinterpret what was written, yet you also claim you did not respond to the literal statements. You can't have it both ways, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you responded to what was written - thus, the literal arguments, which you say you didn't. Or, you reinterpreted what was said into the argument that you thought he was making and responded to that - thus did not respond to what was written, but reinterpreted, which you claim you didn't do.

Your logic that "either I responded to the literal words or I reinterpreted the post", is wrong.  Maybe you don't mean "reinterpret", as in "to interpret again"?  It occurs to me that you might mean just "interpret" and not "reinterpret".  I did interpret the original post, but that is allowed.  I did not respond to the literal words in the post because they were obviously not intended to be taken literally.

 

Define fan. It comes from fanatic. So, the richest person with a fanatical love of this series. So, someone with a fanatical love who will do anything to get in the series. Anyone who lacks that devotion - are they really a fan? Hence, the fan with the most money getting in.

I don't think "fan" should be defined as "person willing to to anything to get in the series".  That is too narrow.  A fan is someone who identifies themselves as a fan.  It doesn't matter if they wouldn't give a dime to get in the books.

 

<()> you seem like a nice person.  I think you understood I was joking and you pointed out something I didn't know about the auction.  I'm happy.  Does anyone else need anything to let this die?

Thanks, you also seem nice.  I do feel sort of guilty for having this discussion in the open forum, now that it has become so drawn out.

 

However you slice it, you are wrong. If you're going to nitpick, do it well.  Either way, the point is proved.  You have lost.

[Mr Ares]

For example, if someone says: "Oh god we are screwed", would it be a reinterpretation of that statement to assume the person meant: "we are in big trouble" and not: "there is a screwdriver turning us"?

The word screwed means more than just there is a screwdriver turning us. So the first example you give would be a valid, literal interpretation. Thus your example fails. In actuality, all you have said is that where there is a choice of literal interpretations, you can choose which one. No-one is disagreeing with that.

No, that is not a reinterpretation.

If you initially interpreted it as one, subsequently disregarded that in favour of another interpretation, then yes, that is exactly what it is. You dismissed a literal intepretation of his words.

Likewise, "The richest fan will be in the book" is a cynical statement, which, in context, is really saying: "only rich fans will have a chance to be in the book". At least, that is how I read it. You could argue that I read it wrong, but that is purely a matter of opinion.

How you read it. Exactly. You did not respond to what was written. You disregarded the literal interpretation of those words on favour of what you thought was being said. If you were a judge, would you say that the literal words of a piece of legislation should be disregarded in favour of what you thought the Act meant to say? Because here, that is not the done thing, to many. Our (UK) legal system prefers the literal interpretation. Judges should look at what legislators said, first and foremost, not what they meant. And if this means that a man with a knife in his shop window with a sign on it saying FOR SALE is not guilty of offering it sale, then legislators should take a bit more care in future. (True story - Fisher v Bell [1961] - the defendant had a flick knife in his shop window, but this was considered an invitation to treat, and thus not offering for sale, which would have been illegal under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. He did not offer it for sale, thus was not guilty.)

 

My argument is "No, the charity is set up so everyone gets a chance to be in the book".

Which does not adequately respond to the initial post. If the person in question had been opposed to rich people getting in by way of their riches, then this would not have addressed his point. You decided to speak for him, to say he said something other than what he said. The argument presented in your post was thus flawed because it didn't adequately address the post it was responding to. You read it as saying what you wanted it to say, and responded to what you wanted it to be referring to. Thus flawed. Or, you were responding to what was written, in which case your argument is as I laid out above, thus still flawed. Either way, your argument is flawed.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

The word screwed means more than just there is a screwdriver turning us. So the first example you give would be a valid, literal interpretation. Thus your example fails. In actuality, all you have said is that where there is a choice of literal interpretations, you can choose which one. No-one is disagreeing with that.

Perhaps that was a bad example.  Here is a better (famous) one: "All men are created equal"

Literally, that is not true.  However, the sentiment is "everyone deserves some equal rights", which is true.  Most people will read the sentiment and ignore the literal words.

 

You dismissed a literal intepretation of his words.

Yes, because that interpretation makes no sense.

 

You did not respond to what was written. You disregarded the literal interpretation of those words on favour of what you thought was being said.

You claim that I read the post, interpreted it literally, then interpreted it another way, then decided that the second one was better and stuck with that.  That did not happen.  I did not chose between the two interpretations.  I only read the one.

 

You decided to speak for him, to say he said something other than what he said.

"What he said" (the literal interpretation) is obviously not true.  "What he said" (the cynical interpretation) makes sense.  Therefore I responded to the cynical interpretation.  I never even considered answering him as if he actually thought that "the richest fan will be in the book".

 

You read it as saying what you wanted it to say, and responded to what you wanted it to be referring to. Thus flawed.

My interpretation of the post is not wrong, nor is it unfounded.  Also, it did not come from my desires, wants, or fantasies.  It was my honest initial reaction.  Further, there is good reason to believe that the poster was being cynical.  Is my interpretation of what was said wrong?  Or is it a flaw to answer the contextual meaning of a statement instead of the literal meaning?

 

Consider this alternate exchange, which I have made up:

"There is an auction to get in the book"

"Yay, the richest fan will be in the book."

"I assume you don't actually think the richest fan will be in the book, but are being cynical because auctions generally favor the rich participants.  Well, that cynical sentiment is unfounded because everybody who donates will have a chance to be in the book."

The qualifier that "I am not looking at the literal meaning of the statement" is unnecessary.  Leaving it out does not make the post wrong.

 

If you were a judge, would you say that the literal words of a piece of legislation should be disregarded in favour of what you thought the Act meant to say?

I will repeat that I did not disregard one meaning in favor of another: I read the cynical interpretation without considering the literal one at all.  As to your question, a judge must consider the intent of the law.  I think that a purely literal view of the law will lead to injustice, because the framers can not cover every possible loophole.  On the other hand, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and "the letter of the law" is where we draw it.  That is not true of more colloquial discourse.  In a discussion such as this one, the literal interpretation can be just as wrong as the non-literal one, both may be equally valid, or one can be more correct than the other.  It is not illogical, or a flaw, to decide for oneself which interpretation makes the most sense.  In fact, we very often do this without thinking about it - we jump to one contextual meaning without actually considering the other ones.  I never considered that the poster might have been literal.  That does not make me wrong.

[CUBAREY]

"The richest fan will be in the book" is a cynical statement, which, in context, is really saying: "only rich fans will have a chance to be in the book".

 

Or at least as plausible is " a rich fan will get his name in the book simply because he is willing and able to outbid the rest of us and that's unfair."

 

In which case your statement that there will be a lottery that all who donate $20 will be eligible for does not respond to the posters statement.

 

  In a discussion such as this one, the literal interpretation can be just as wrong as the non-literal one, both may be equally valid, or one can be more correct than the other.

 

In such a case the approriate thing would be to respond to all reasonably possible (or at least probable) interpretaions otherwise you are simply creating a strawman instead of responding to another's post.

 

I think that a purely literal view of the law will lead to injustice, because the framers can not cover every possible loophole. 

 

The fact that they did not cover all or a particular loophole indicates that they did not view themselves as dealing with such a "loophole". A constitutional principle, law or argument does not require that the author considered all possible scenerios before writing it. That a principle, statute or argument does not seem to apply on its face to a particular scenerio can be inferred as not meant to cover that scenerio since if the author really intended for it to be covered he could have easily covered it. That is why constitutions, laws and arguments can be amended to reflect scenerios not originally imagined by the author. To infer an interpretation not clearly made by the author is the hight of arrogance that in the field of law is termed Judicial Activism and in debate shows a lack of respect for a participent to make the argument he wants to make (no more or less).