Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Nor do you say 'there's no cheese in the store', then say 'oh, when I said there was no cheese, I meant there was no Gouda'.

It's just wrong to say there's no cheese, pure and simple.

"Did you pick up the cheese?"

"No. They sold out."

"They had no cheese at all?" ← asking for clarification

"They did. Just not the one we normally buy."

"Oh. Okay."

This is a perfectly normal conversation. Notice how no one is sperging out about the definition of cheese.

You are retarded.

Come on Stilt, you have to try harder than that for senpai to notice you.

Why was the fridge photo cropped?

It wasn't, it's the format of my phone's camera. Samsung S8.

Originally posted by Astner
No it isn't. Colloquially we suppress terms all the time. That's the difference between formalized languages, e.g. the one used in jurisprudence. That's why legal documents seem unnecessarily detailed, because we're used to things being inferred.

"Did you pick up the cheese?"

"No. They sold out."

"They had no cheese at all?" ← asking for clarification

"They did. Just not the one we normally buy."

"Oh. Okay."

This is a perfectly normal conversation. Notice how no one is sperging out about the definition of cheese.

But that's not how it went, was it?

*Completely unbidden, with no one asking*

"The store had no cheese at all today"

"That's strange, I went in earlier myself and there was plenty."

"Oh, when I said no cheese, I meant no Gouda. You can't tell me what I meant when I said no cheese."

"Aren't you meant to be some kind of cheese connoisseur?"

"When people talk about cheese, they mean Gouda".

That's how it actually went. You came in here, and apropos of nothing made an incorrect assertion based on your bias for a point.

A mistake made more egregious by the fact you're meant to be a repair guy in this field.

Or perhaps even more accurately:

*Astner, contacting his local grocery store to complain*

"Did you know you guys are out of cheese? This is unacceptable!"

"What do you mean? There's loads of cheese on our shelves."

"Right, but I when I said cheese, I meant Gouda. You can't tell me what I meant when I said cheese".

It's just...weird and a bit cringey of you not to just admit you made a mistake, especially since you of all people should know that there are only two types of orbit, and the word 'orbit' doesn't cover both types in this regard.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But that's not how it went, was it?

*Completely unbidden, with no one asking*

"The store had no cheese at all today"

The mistake you're making is not uncommon. You might have heard it in an expressions like: "Men cheat!" to which a common response is "Not all men!" But statements like "Men cheat!" can be either special, general, or universal, e.g. "Some men cheat!", "Most men cheat!", "All men cheat!" All of these are perfectly valid interpretations of "Men cheat!"

But you don't get to correct someone based off your misinterpretation someone else's statement where there's ambiguity. You only get to ask for clarification. Which you did. But then you ignored it, and injected your own interpretation into my sentence so that you could correct it.

Let me give you a more straightforward example. "I bought a pen today." "Oh so you bought a pig farm?" "No I bought a mechanical pencil." "That's not what you said, you said pen, pen can mean pig farm, therefore you're wrong."

Originally posted by Astner
No, that would be equivalent to me saying "it didn't go into any kind of orbit." In this case you would've had a point. But that's not what I said.

The mistake you're making is not uncommon. You might have heard it in an expressions like: "Men cheat!" to which a common response is "Not all men!" But statements like "Men cheat!" can be either special, general, or universal, e.g. "Some men cheat!", "Most men cheat!", "All men cheat!" All of these are perfectly valid interpretations of "Men cheat!"

But you don't get to correct someone based off your misinterpretation someone else's statement where there's ambiguity. You only get to ask for clarification. Which you did. But then you ignored it, and injected your own interpretation into my sentence so that you could correct it.

Let me give you a more straightforward example. "I bought a pen today." "Oh so you bought a pig farm?" "No I bought a mechanical pencil." "That's not what you said, you said pen, pen can mean pig farm, therefore you're wrong."

Except we're not talking about words with more than one meaning. Orbits are orbits - you having a specific version in mind (nondegenerate orbits) and completely ignoring the other, makes you incorrect and your statement wrong.

Originally posted by Astner

- Nightwing Annual (2022) #1

So a quarter of Jon's strength is not quite enough to send the dummy into orbit, which puts an upper bound of Jon's strength that's not particularly impressive. But it's kind of interesting to see these discrepancies between the feats.

Originally posted by abhilegend

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Except we're not talking about words with more than one meaning.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Orbits are orbits - you having a specific version in mind (nondegenerate orbits) and completely ignoring the other, makes you incorrect and your statement wrong.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Under the same writer, he and Clark easily lifted someone with the mass of a fraction of a neutron star.

Originally posted by Astner
That's correct, we're talking about phrases with more than one meaning, and you're selecting a very particular meaning. So it's the same kind of mistake.

No it doesn't. Going back to the pen. The buyer doesn't have to be overly specific as to what they're referring to with "pen" in their initial announcement of its purchase for the statement to be correct.

"Her body density is off the charts. It's like she's bonded to a fraction of a neutron star," may very well be figurative. If we're talking about the gravitational pull of an actual neutron star, the immediate environment would've been spaghettified. Even if it was just magical weight without any gravitational pull, then she would've fallen straight to the core of the planet. So I'm not sure I would take the statement at face value. But as with everything, it's up to interpretation.

I am saying the general meaning 'orbit' is still applicable.

For your analogy to work, I'd have to be correcting you and saying 'Actually, Astner, don't you mean William Orbit, the musician???' and then correcting you on that. THAT would be pretty 'autistic'.

I am merely correcting you on the statement that he can't achieve orbital heights with his strength. Because nothing in your 'proof' backs your statement up. And again, this mistake of yours is more egregious because you of all of us should know there is more than one type of orbit, and in fact that there are only two types.

For a more accurate analogy than your pen analogy, it's like you, a librarian, using the word 'book' to only mean hardcovers, and completely forgetting/ignoring that paperback books exist. Literally the only other type of book*.

Then trying to backtrack and cover your mistake, by saying 'oh, colloquially, when people say the general term 'book', they are referring to hardcovers'.

I'm sure one can point holes in this analogy, but the point here is that you, a practitioner in the field, supposedly had a specific term in mind (out of a mere two types), used a general term instead, and got a meltdown when this was pointed out.

And all this after saying it was fun to be correct, lol. You're right though, I AM having lots of fun.

*Printed, bound book, caveats galore etc etc.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I am saying the general meaning 'orbit' is still applicable.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I am merely correcting you on the statement that he can't achieve orbital heights with his strength. Because nothing in your 'proof' backs your statement up. And again, this mistake of yours is more egregious because you of all of us should know there is more than one type of orbit, and in fact that there are only two types.

But the worst part is that this has nothing to do with the point I made. Even if you were right on my supposed semantic blunder (which you aren't) the point still stands. That's why I'm calling it an autistic tirade.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
For a more accurate analogy than your pen analogy, it's like you, a librarian, using the word 'book' to only mean hardcovers, and completely forgetting/ignoring that paperback books exist. Literally the only other type of book*.

Another example: You're instructed to sort a pile a books in alphabetical order, in this pile there are roughly a hundred hardcover books, but you find one paperback book in the lot. There's a good chance this book could've been misplaced, in which case you should ask "should I sort the paperback too?" To which the answer may be either yes or no.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Then trying to backtrack and cover your mistake, by saying 'oh, colloquially, when people say the general term 'book', they are referring to hardcovers'.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I'm sure one can point holes in this analogy, but the point here is that you, a practitioner in the field, supposedly had a specific term in mind (out of a mere two types), used a general term instead, and got a meltdown when this was pointed out.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
And all this after saying it was fun to be correct, lol. You're right though, I AM having lots of fun.

Originally posted by Astner
No, because I made clear that I wasn't referring to orbits in general.

You're wrong, because in the initial post I didn't make any specifications in regards to what I meant with orbit. In my response to you I did specify what kind of orbits I was referring to. But you decided to dismiss that and instead go for a categorical definition of orbits.

But the worst part is that this has nothing to do with the point I made. Even if you were right on my supposed semantic blunder (which you aren't) the point still stands. That's why I'm calling it an autistic tirade.

No, it's likewise fully accurate to refer to "hardcover books" simply as "books." In some cases it may be unnecessarily confusing, but it's not (in itself) wrong.

Another example: You're instructed to sort a pile a books in alphabetical order, in this pile there are roughly a hundred hardcover books, but you find one paperback book in the lot. There's a good chance this book could've been misplaced, in which case you should ask "should I sort the paperback too?" To which the answer may be either yes or no.

That's a straw-man. I never said orbits couldn't refer to orbits categorically, what I said was that I didn't refer to orbits categorically.

This is something I don't get, why would my profession prohibit me from speaking on subjects colloquially. By this line of reasoning a chef wouldn't be allowed to say "I like fries" unless he's also enjoys the shitty fries from McDonald's.

You might be having fun, but you're not correct.

Well now I see the little sneaky tricks being employed by yourself.

What a faulty example to use, deliberately using extreme examples of 1/100 books! What a straw man to use, trying to make out that I said it was inaccurate to describe hardcovers as books (I made no such argument!).

This all started with you saying something was unable to be done. Using your example, we shall say that....one is too weak to lift a book.

Then I point out well, that's inaccurate - light, thin books exist.

Oh, but you say, I was thinking specifically of heavy hardcover books. Whilst you say you were not referring to orbits in general, your post did not say otherwise. It was poorly constructed and vaguely termed, which is a poor show from one who is in the field. Like a sommelier who uses the catch all term 'wine' but then later, when caught out, tries to make out that they had a specific red/white distinction all the while. Anyone else, it's understandable, but with you, who prides themselves on being exact and scientific, it's....fun to laugh at.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Well now I see the little sneaky tricks being employed by yourself.

What a faulty example to use, deliberately using extreme examples of 1/100 books! What a straw man to use, trying to make out that I said it was inaccurate to describe hardcovers as books (I made no such argument!).

What I did was disprove your claim by providing a counter-example.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
This all started with you saying something was unable to be done. Using your example, we shall say that....one is too weak to lift a book.

Then I point out well, that's inaccurate - light, thin books exist.

Oh, but you say, I was thinking specifically of heavy hardcover books.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Whilst you say you were not referring to orbits in general, your post did not say otherwise.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It was poorly constructed and vaguely termed, which is a poor show from one who is in the field.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Like a sommelier who uses the catch all term 'wine' but then later, when caught out, tries to make out that they had a specific red/white distinction all the while.

Let's do another example, and hopefully it will get through this time:

"The steak goes well with wine."

"Red wine or a white wine?"

"Red wine."

"So it wasn't a any wine? Well then you were wrong because you didn't initially specify that."

...like I said, autism.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Anyone else, it's understandable, but with you, who prides themselves on being exact and scientific, it's....fun to laugh at.

Originally posted by Astner
You didn't make an argument, you made a claim. An argument is what substantiates a claim.

What I did was disprove your claim by providing a counter-example.

If I'm saying "you're too weak to lift [b]a book," I could very well be referring to a particular book, because I'm not saying "you're too weak to lift any book."

I don't have to. It's as simple as that. I'm not writing a dissertation here, I'm having an informal conversation.

It wasn't. And even after our little spat here, I still wouldn't go back in time and reword my phrasing given the opportunity.

What do you mean catch? I explained to you what I meant in the very next post, after you asked me when I meant.

Let's do another example, and hopefully it will get through this time:

"The steak goes well with wine."

"Red wine or a white wine?"

"Red wine."

"So it wasn't a any wine? Well then you were wrong because you didn't initially specify that."

...like I said, autism.

I'm flattered by your high expectations of me. But again, I never corrected myself, I only clarified what I meant. [/B]

Your sentence should, more accurately to reflect your mistake, have been ' you're too weak to lift books'.

'What about a light paperback?' I would reply.

'Oh, I meant a heavy book.'

As I said, your usage of book when you really (ostensibly) meant 'heavy book ' is incorrect when it's you.

To correct (again) your faulty wine analogy:

"You can't drink wine with steak"
"What about red wine?"
"Oh...when I said wine, I meant white wine. You can't tell me what I meant."

See what your imperfect use of language led to? A nonsensical sentence from you. Is white wine, wine? Of course it is. But as a personage in the field of wine tasting, to make such a sweeping generalisation of 'wine' when you (apparently) meant 'white wine' specifically, is just sloppy.

Desiring to do the same again should you be placed in the same situation only speaks volumes as to your character.

Astner is thinking of pulling your pants down, you know.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Again, with the faulty comparison.

Your sentence should, more accurately to reflect your mistake, have been ' you're too weak to lift books'.

'What about a light paperback?' I would reply.

'Oh, I meant a heavy book.'

As I said, your usage of book when you really (ostensibly) meant 'heavy book ' is incorrect when it's you.

To correct (again) your faulty wine analogy:

"You can't drink wine with steak"
"What about red wine?"
"Oh...when I said wine, I meant white wine. You can't tell me what I meant."

Your new book example is different from your previous one. But likewise "you're too weak to lift books," isn't specific. It can refer to any books and any number of books.

Likewise:

"You can't drink (white) wine with steak"
"What about red wine?"
"Oh...when I said wine, I meant white wine."

It's a odd way of phrasing it (and t's nothing like our conversation) but it's not wrong.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
See what your imperfect use of language led to?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
A nonsensical sentence from you. Is white wine, wine? Of course it is. But as a personage in the field of wine tasting, to make such a sweeping generalisation of 'wine' when you (apparently) meant 'white wine' specifically, is just sloppy.

Even then, "not punching the dummy into orbit," is rather clear. It's like if I was talking about sound-speed and you took the liberty to interject that the speed of sound is different in different mediums and I'm not correct because I didn't specify that I was talking about air.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Desiring to do the same again should you be placed in the same situation only speaks volumes as to your character.

And as I said, it's inaccurate, made more so by you being involved in the field.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm just going to tackle the examples here, and I'm going to rely on your structuring of them.

Your new book example is different from your previous one. But likewise "you're too weak to lift books," isn't specific. It can refer to any books and any number of books.

Likewise:

"You can't drink (white) wine with steak"
"What about red wine?"
"Oh...when I said wine, I meant white wine."

It's a odd way of phrasing it (and t's nothing like our conversation) but it's not wrong.

Colloquial language is imperfect.

Sloppy? Maybe? Wrong? No, because there's nothing inherently wrong with the statement.

Even then, "not punching the dummy into orbit," is rather clear. It's like if I was talking about sound-speed and you took the liberty to interject that the speed of sound is different in different mediums and I'm not correct because I didn't specify that I was talking about air.

You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

But it's..... not clear, is it? As he CAN punch things into orbit. If anything, nothing in that scan says he can't. The only thing clear is that your phrase:

...is not quite enough to send the dummy into orbit, .....

is wrong.

Everything else is just you doubling down in a misguided attempt to save face.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
And as I said, it's inaccurate, made more so by you being involved in the field.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But it's..... not clear, is it? As he CAN punch things into orbit. If anything, nothing in that scan says he can't. The only thing clear is that your phrase:

All you can infer from it is that it's not enough to enter a (nondecaying) orbit.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
is wrong.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Everything else is just you doubling down in a misguided attempt to save face.

You, on the other hand, never concede when you wrong, and you do take losing debates personally, as evidenced by the fact that you think giving a concession discredits the debater, when in reality it has the opposite the effect.

I'm right, you're unable to concede when you're wrong, and that's why we're at an impasse.