Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Murrey Walker who wrote (171406)	6/27/2006 11:53:35 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793928

We seem to becoming the thread trying to determine the meaning of the word is with someone who is never going to agree. My only regret is that SI doesn't also ignore responses to ignored posters. I'd probably only have 25 posts a day to read here if it did that:)

To: Murrey Walker who wrote (171406)	6/27/2006 11:58:06 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793928

Okay, you parse words, looking for their meaning. I parse your sentences and try to figure out what's more important - playing semantics or carrying on a discussion. I don't get your differentiation between words and sentences. Words have meaning and their arrangement in sentences affects their meaning. It's a package. Without it we can't communicate. It's not words vs sentences. There is an inherent and necessary synergy. You know, Murrey, I'm not playing semantics, at least that's not my objective. Carrying on a discussion requires communication. If there is no clarity, it doesn't work. It's a shame that the communication is often so sloppy and clarity is so poor that we have to deal overtly with the words and sentences before we can get to the substance. Clear words and sentences and careful listening should make the communication process transparent, but instead it can take over the discussion. Now, what were we trying to discuss? <g>