No. I think you’re using colloquial terms.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 12:58:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872628224972476581
Reply addressees: @Johnny2Fingersz
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872545401611722968
RT @Claffertyshane: @curtdoolittle @RichardArion1 In many ways, the sentence structure helps teach intellectuals how to think and communica…
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-23 18:13:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871257742390030755
Words mean what we say we mean unless someone is trying to engage in deception. That’s why “at first you must define your terms” is essentially a declaration of premises. I’ve defined my terms. I”m arguing according to those terms. If you disagree with the term that’s irrelevant. All that matters is that you disagree with the term as defined and used. I’m not incorrectly defining or using the term.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 23:15:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869521950567276544
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869520999215141018
Well I’ve described the issue as one of labeling and you’re a bit fixed on this so I mean, I don’t care. Come up with a word for the temporary deviation from consequence over time, and great. Use that. Until then you have nothing to say that’s meaningful other than “i personally don’t like this term” yet you won’t solve the problem by creating a term or using a term that describes the process.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 23:13:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869521459821125632
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869520999215141018
I have, all along, disambiguated terms and ether refined their definition, narrowed their definition, or redefined them as needed precisely because we cannot ‘count on’ the perceived meaning of terms by individuals, when, for example, my most humorous example is ‘christianity’ or ‘morality’ which are expressed universally personal definitions showing the utility of ambiguity in false confidence in one’s frames of reference.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 22:36:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869512204351127552
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869508604661002729
The city is known as Київ in Ukrainian and Киев in Russian. The transliteration to Latin alphabet results in different spellings because of differences in pronunciation and spelling conventions between the two languages. “Kiev” is a transliteration from the Russian pronunciation, while “Kyiv” reflects the Ukrainian pronunciation.
The campaign for using “Kyiv” has gained traction internationally, especially after the 2014 Maidan uprising which sparked a shift towards more pro-Western policies.
I’ve lived in Moscow (Moskva), Kyiv(Kiev), and L’viv (Lvov), and my experience is that the pronunciation is closest to “Keeve”.
Reply addressees: @MyGardenLady
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-17 16:08:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869051946545692673
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869036548106371443
Most of what we do is similar to a contextual mathematics in operational prose. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1868806923849715911
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 23:55:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868807191211462843
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1868806923849715911
James. That definition holds no meaning. My explanation of your meaning did.
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-12 20:24:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867304655044456508
Reply addressees: @ConceptualJames
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867031511733596458
RT @WalterIII: I never tire of thinking about this and the Jewish question.
Grok, what does @curtdoolittle ‘s Table of Grammars tell us?…
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-11 09:26:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866776486629478674
Q: Curt: –“Speaking as a friend. Your usage of advanced technical vocabulary restricts what you write to people like me used to reading advanced philosophical books. You will never reach a wide audience that way.”–@ArionWise11
Of course. However, a couple of questions arise:
1) I have to produce work that can survive competition in legal forum over at least two centuries, and against the enemy who is equally sophisticated as I am despite the unsophistication of both populations we serve.
2) Who has power and who will always have power? Whether it be power to advance popular and national interests or collective international interests?
3) What audience do I speak to then? In my understanding I speak to those who will at sometime soon have power.
4) Are those you suggest I might reach capable of understanding what I’m communicating without adapting it to their (lesser) frames of reference (theology, fascism), or will they adapt to the frame of reference (greater) that I’m providing?
5) I’m quite happy if others communicate to their audiences on their terms what I suggest. And it happens consistently if slowly and without attestation.
I am quite aware of the minority of young men who are producing content that informs their bases. The question is whether those bases (y’all) have or will have any power – the answer appears to be no. Instead, those bases can only reduce impediment to those with power, amplify the power of those with power, and if necessary apply force in mass to enforce those with possibility of, possession of, and skills in weilding power.
This is the primary problem with the internet generations – they understand that they can have a voice, that they can counter the voices of propaganda, and that they can shift democratic opinion ‘somewhat’, and they can make a bit of money doing it. Weakening the power of the past generation of power structures.
But that is not power. It is only influence. Power requires the capacity to organize incentives to apply some means of coercion whether moral or immoral.
And the means by which power is engineered is the law.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @ArionWise11
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-09 18:05:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866182468468129792
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866178135512727558