Being a fan.

Originally posted by The Pict
yeah they are a fan of the music but you said the band at the beginning. i am confused by your first paragraph as you are explaining two different "fans" here.

If you like something, you are a fan of it. That's about as deep as we need go.

Originally posted by The Pict
I have been to many concerts and the people who go there know the band pretty well, most of them wear items of clothing with the bands name on it, they know the lyrics and they go because they are fans. someone who claimed they weren't a fan of a certain band would be unlikely to go to their concerts.

What? Yes, of course. They go because they are fans, that was my point. Not all of them love the band, some of them just like the band, they're still fans.

Of course people who aren't fans wouldn't go. What are you on about?

Originally posted by The Pict
i like some of the pop music i hear in the charts but i am not a fan of those groups and certainly wouldn't go to one of their gigs.

Fine, but you're a fan of the music. So either way, you're a fan.

Originally posted by The Pict
and don't call me stupid. i don't think that someone who doesn't buy bands merchandise isn't a fan i was using it as something fans do as a non fan would be unlikely to buy it.

Of course a non-fan wouldn't buy it, why is that...what? What does that have to do with anything?

Originally posted by The Pict
One dictionary definition of a fan pretty much answers this argument:

an ardent follower and admirer

Been over this about a million times. See the other pages.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So now you're resorting to telling me? I have said I agree with the definition, I have said it's correct, because it is. Factually, though, it's not the be all and end all of being a fan. Fact, undeniable fact.

I'm living proof, so are many millions of others. If you like a band, a song, an album or anything like that, you're a fan. This can mean "I like that song, yeah.", or "So and so are my favourite band ever and I love them.". Both people are fans, just different degrees.

The dictionary can't list all the possible degrees of fandom because that's nigh impossible as there are so many, it's impractical. So what do you do when you want to illustrate something? You make it really, really clear. The dictionary did that by using an extreme.

Then if we agree there are different degrees of fandom, one of which being ardent following (the extreme), then why are you acting like it's the one true definition and anyone who happens to fall in with another degree, is not a fan? Makes no sense.

-AC

They don't have to list every degree of fandom, they could list the lowest form of fandom and everything more extreme than that would be included. If they said what you said, that anyone who likes any band/team/whatever to a any degree is a fan, that would include "ardent admirers" and just "mild listeners" alike. The fact that they didn't use this definition and said ardent admirer alone speaks for itself.

2.) I agree there's different degrees of being a fan, because there's different degrees of being an "ardent admirer." Doesn't mean that the degrees of being a fan stretch below the degrees of being an ardent admirer.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
1.) You don't agree that the definition actually sums up what being a fan is according to what you're saying, you agree that it's a degree of fandom. That would make the defintition somewhat inaccurate/only partially correct. They make no mention of the definition that you seem to use.

They don't have to list every degree of fandom, they could list the lowest form of fandom and everything more extreme than that would be included. If they said what you said, that anyone who likes any band/team/whatever to a any degree is a fan, that would include "ardent admirers" and just "mild listeners" alike. The fact that they didn't use this definition and said ardent admirer alone speaks for itself.

2.) I agree there's different degrees of being a fan, because there's different degrees of being an "ardent admirer." Doesn't mean that the degrees of being a fan stretch below the degrees of being an ardent admirer.

2) AC's right. If you like the music, YOU ARE A FAN. I like Slayer. Do I own an album of their's? No. Do I have their music on my MP3 player? No. But am I a fan if I like them? Yes, I am. It's a simple formula.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
1.) You don't agree that the definition actually sums up what being a fan is according to what you're saying, you agree that it's a degree of fandom. That would make the defintition somewhat inaccurate/only partially correct. They make no mention of the definition that you seem to use.

I've explained why they don't, but that doesn't mean I am incorrect. I have proven countless times why the definition I use is correct, and so is the dictionary one.

It's correct, but it's not all inclusive. It's a synechdochical definition.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
They don't have to list every degree of fandom, they could list the lowest form of fandom and everything more extreme than that would be included. If they said what you said, that anyone who likes any band/team/whatever to a any degree is a fan, that would include "ardent admirers" and just "mild listeners" alike. The fact that they didn't use this definition and said ardent admirer alone speaks for itself.

That's right. "Fan" applies to ardent admirers and mild listeners alike. That's exactly the way it goes, and the dictionary doesn't suggest there aren't more degrees, does it? No. Who does? You.

You think this way: "I am a fan of the Giants, and I LOVE the Giants. So...anything I like less...means I'm not a fan.". False, you're simply not as much of a fan. You're still a fan.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
2.) I agree there's different degrees of being a fan, because there's different degrees of being an "ardent admirer." Doesn't mean that the degrees of being a fan stretch below the degrees of being an ardent admirer.

They do, though. I've continually given many examples and suggestions that prove such. You're ignoring them simply because you're wrong.

-AC

You have explained why but your reasoning is terrible. If they meant it to include mild listeners they would've used the definition you use, and that would've included ardent admirers too. Why do you insist on ignoring this fact?

That's not how I view it. It's not just not liking a team as much as the Giants.. it's that the Giants are the only team that I follow. I may prefer some other teams over others, but that doesn't make me a "fan" by any means.

You've yet to prove anything. You're insisting awfully hard, but it's not proving a thing. The bottom line is if you weren't so matter-of-fact about what being a fan means, none of this would matter. But since you are, we resort to the dictionary and the result is you pretending that "ardent admirer" as a definition is meant to include those who aren't "ardent amirers?" That makes sense, how?

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
You have explained why but your reasoning is terrible. If they meant it to include mild listeners they would've used the definition you use, and that would've included ardent admirers too. Why do you insist on ignoring this fact?

They do use the definition I do, just not verbatim, they use it partially, they use the furthest extreme of fandom to depict what it is. It doesn't change the fact that it's still only one extreme. You say they DON'T include every degree of fandom, you know what else they don't have? Any suggestion that there are no other degrees.

Do you know what a synecdochical definition is? I'll assume not, because otherwise you'd have got it by now. A synecdoche is describing the part of something with the whole term, or the whole of something with a part. The dictionary uses synecdocichal definitions within it's pages, and "Fan" is one of them. So before you come to me with that bs, I suggest you go and do research.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
That's not how I view it. It's not just not liking a team as much as the Giants.. it's that the Giants are the only team that I follow. I may prefer some other teams over others, but that doesn't make me a "fan" by any means.

You assume that you're a fan because you follow them, though. That's not what differentiates between fandom and non-fandom. You said you like their team, their roster and their play. Therefore you are a fan of their team, their roster and their play. It doesn't mean you follow them. It means you are a fan of those elements.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
You've yet to prove anything. You're insisting awfully hard, but it's not proving a thing. The bottom line is if you weren't so matter-of-fact about what being a fan means, none of this would matter. But since you are, we resort to the dictionary and the result is you pretending that "ardent admirer" as a definition is meant to include those who aren't "ardent amirers?" That makes sense, how?

I am proving it and you're either ignoring it or you don't understand it. You're a bit miffed at the fact that you waltzed in here like Hulk Hogan, as if you had some debate changing ideas to present, and all you've done is provide more silliness. "Fan" in the dictionary, is a synecdochical definition, Aid. That's how it makes sense.

It's describing the whole using a part. See:

synecdoche

n : substituting a more inclusive term for a less inclusive one or vice versa.

Yes. Substituting a more inclusive term for a less inclusive term, or in this case, definition. They are still correct, but it saves all the time of typing out the varying degrees to which people (of which there are over 5 billion) are factual fans. So they substituted all the possible billions of variations, for a much less inclusive one that is no less correct, leaving the rest to simple common sense.

The common sense being that if you like something, you're a fan of it.

I think you should waddle along out of the thread now.

-AC

How does the fact that there are figures of speech in which a part is referred to as a whole or a whole as a part prove that this literal definition of the word fan is meant to depict something more broad?

Let me ask again, why would they use a more extreme example of a fan when using the least extreme example would more clearly make the definition all inclusive, if that was their intent?

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
How does the fact that there are figures of speech in which a part is referred to as a whole or a whole as a part prove that this literal definition of the word fan is meant to depict something more broad?

It's not a figure of speech, it's a factual term that describes a techique in the English language.

It proves it because there are obviously people in the world who do not ardently follow things, yet are still fans. There are many degrees of fandom, of being a fan, and one of those (just one) is ardent following. It's ONE meaning, and in the dictionary, the use a synecdochical explanation to define the word "Fan". This is a fact.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Let me ask again, why would they use a more extreme example of a fan when using the least extreme example would more clearly make the definition all inclusive, if that was their intent?

More clearly to who? It's perfectly clear to me, to many others and also many others who have posted in this thread. So they've already made it perfectly clear. More clearer to people who simply fight tooth and nail for a reason to disagree? Like you? Well people like that simply don't matter, because when you're making statements like "I like them, like their team/band, like the way they play/their music, but I'm not a fan.", then you simply won't ever get it. Because the problem there is not grammatical, it's mental.

It's not a word problem, or a usage problem, it's a person problem. I'm not questioning the dictionary, because I know what it's about. You are, because you don't get it. The words and definitions are fine, but you simply can't wrap your head around the bigger picture.

"Fan" isn't a word that simply applies to ardent followers, and the combination of knowing that it's a synecdochical reference, plus real world common sense and observation, shows us that.

If, despite all this, you will simply continue to ignore everything and say "I'm not a fan!", then do it, but you're wrong, and I've proven so. It's clear I can't convince you to admit fact, nor do I need to, so if that's what it's going to come down to, we may as well end this, because that's not what I'm going to do.

-AC

1.) I wasn't saying the actual term synecdoche is a figure of speech. It's just used in figures of speech. Ex: referring to money as "paper," or referring to a cop as "the law."

2.) It would be more clear in general.

Saying "ardent admirer" doesn't include less extreme "admirers."

If they were to simply say "admirer" then it would include all extremes and variations.

Disagree?

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
1.) I wasn't saying the actual term synecdoche is a figure of speech. It's just used in figures of speech. Ex: referring to money as "paper," or referring to a cop as "the law."

...which you didn't know and just copied from the net.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
2.) It would be more clear in general.

Saying "ardent admirer" doesn't include less extreme "admirers."

If they were to simply say "admirer" then it would include all extremes and variations.

Disagree?

If if's and but's were candy and nuts, everything would be sweeter, wouldn't it?

The fact is, it is how it is, and once explained, it's clear as to what the overall definition is and that the dictionary one is synecdochical.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...which you didn't know and just copied from the net

You have no way of knowing what he does or does not know.
So please actually use logic.

Calvin

Originally posted by calvs
What is your proof?
You can't just say he copied it, cause you yourself didn't know that, or he uses different terminology as you.

You have no way of knowing what he does or does not know.
So please actually use logic.

Calvin

Because he clearly didn't know what the word even meant before, hence why after the first time I said it, he misunderstood me. Then, when he mysteriously "gets" it, he uses the two examples they list in the dictionary. Irrelevant anyway.

-AC

Oh, ok, I see your point, but still fail to see what the problem is with looking up something you don't know to educate yourself.

Calvin

Originally posted by calvs
Oh, ok, I see your point, but still fail to see what the problem is with looking up something you don't know to educate yourself.

Calvin

I don't either, I was just pointing it out.

-AC

Yeah, I looked it up. Just like I looked up the definition to fan. I didn't know off the top of my head that they'd describe it as an ardent admirer..

The definition isn't really a synecdoche, but it is deficient.

Here's something which may be useful to the discussion.

Dictionary.com's thesaurus entries:

Main Entry: fan
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: enthusiast
Synonyms: addict, adherent, admirer, aficionado, amateur, buff, devotee, fiend, follower, freak*, habitué, hound, lover, rooter, supporter, votary, zealot

I think we can't be sure whether the definition of fan is a synedoche. I also think that this argument is being fractured. I honestly don't feel like going back to the first post, even though I've read the whole thread. I thought the orignal post was about being a fan of a band musically. However the idea of being a fan of a band, song, and album has also come up. I believe in AC's definition of fan and is the one that I use. I do feel that being a fan is something more personal then a defnition. I think if you think you are a fan you are a fan and that this also implies AC's definition.

Originally posted by phantomwolff85
I think we can't be sure whether the definition of fan is a synedoche. I also think that this argument is being fractured. I honestly don't feel like going back to the first post, even though I've read the whole thread. I thought the orignal post was about being a fan of a band musically. However the idea of being a fan of a band, song, and album has also come up. I believe in AC's definition of fan and is the one that I use. I do feel that being a fan is something more personal then a defnition. I think if you think you are a fan you are a fan and that this also implies AC's definition.

Right.

-AC