Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_Droopy]

As I said:

Its all B.S. Its all a show with all the props and stage effects in their proper places.

Its contention and argument for their own sake because the TBMs must be argued with, no matter how trivial or silly the argument.

Scratch:

I don't think so, Droopy. Why don't you check out one or more of these books from your local library and look them over? Maybe you'll glean some valuable advice. You're a pretty avid reader from what I can tell, so why not add these to your "To Do" list? Heck, just read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." It's not that long and you can read if for free online.

Why don't you...

Uh, well, never mind.

[_Trevor]

This thread has crossed into the surreal. Wow.

[_wenglund]

Actually, to think is a very broad category encompassing:

1. To have or formulate in the mind.
2. To reason about or reflect on; ponder.
3. To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering. thinking what to do.
4. To judge or regard; look upon.
5. To believe; suppose.
6. To expect; hope.
7. To intend.
8. To call to mind; remember.
9. To visualize; imagine
10. To devise or evolve; invent
11To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation.
12. To concentrate one's thoughts on
13. To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.
14. To weigh or consider an idea.

Etc.

To cogitate connotes a similar body of elements, but its fundamental definition is much more severely circumscribed:

1. To take careful thought or think carefully about; ponder.

So by saying "to think and cogitate," I encompass a wide range of mental activities (thinking) while at the same time focusing on intellectual rigor, depth, and detail (cogitation) with the other term.

Again, above 7th or 8th grade, this would probably not be much of a point of contention. Nor would it be much of a point if I were not both a TBM apologist and settled conservative/libertarian whose views of pretty much everything provoke contention and conflict here no matter what the subject matter.

Hence, my mention of nuances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

This thread has crossed into the surreal. Wow.

It has indeed. It doesn't matter what I do here, I get the ax. I can't cerebrate, ratiocinate, or cogitate in peace here. And if I dare try to excogitate, well...

Indeed, I think I've been excommunicogitated from Mormondiscussion.com!

[_Runtu]

Hence, my mention of nuances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One can communicate nuance and still be concise. Vigorous writing need not be redundant.

[_Droopy]

Hence, my mention of nuances.

I think if I were just to use four letter nuance, such as many here have traditionally done, these arguments over proper literary mechanics could be avoided.

I prefer my own approach, however, which I'm sure will continue to squirt hose water on the hornet's nest so long as I continue in that manner.

[_Droopy]

Hence, my mention of nuances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One can communicate nuance and still be concise. Vigorous writing need not be redundant.

But it wasn't really redundant in any substantive way, at least no in a way such that the sentence itself did not make sense as emphasizing two levels, or aspects of mental activity. Thinking and cogitation are related, but hardly directly interchangeable.

[_Runtu]

I think if I were just to use four letter nuance, such as many here have traditionally done, these arguments over proper literary mechanics could be avoided.

I prefer my own approach, however, which I'm sure will continue to squirt hose water on the hornet's nest so long as I continue in that manner.

It's up to you how you choose to communicate. My considered opinion that your writing could stand more discipline and less verbosity is just that: my opinion. What I think about your writing style does not affect what I think of your opinions and thoughts.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yes: hence why it's redundant. It's like saying that you ate and consumed your lunch today, or that you read and perused your copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

No. Its like saying that you "ate" your lunch today, but that you also savored it.

Droopy: that's a poorly articulated thought. If you "savored" your lunch, you "savored" it. What's the point in saying that you also "ate" it? In what way is that more general descriptor helpful? What do you gain by saying that you also "ate" your lunch?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hence, my mention of nuances.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Cogitate" has a more precise and specific meaning, Wade. If that's what Droopy meant, that's what he should have said. Saying, "think and cogitate" doesn't express "nuance" at all. It just litters the expression with imprecision.