None of the above. I know what they mean and never tried to tell you differently.
You said:
"The nature of your statement was condescending and this reader has no idea what your <shrug> is supposed to mean or furthermore what your <snort> is supposed to mean."
That doesn't exactly fit very well with you knowing what they mean.
In your typical smart aleck nature you stated:
No need to be rude.
You then claimed that your statement was lighthearted based on the nature of your words plus the shrug.
Correct, it was light-hearted in nature. You didn't infer it that way. That's the way it goes sometimes. <shrug>
Then you changed your mind and claimed that the shrug had nothing to do with the preceding text:
Originally Posted by
Turtle
I'm glad it's finally clear to you now that the <shrug> doesn't indicate anything at all about the text which preceded it.
I didn't claim any such thing. Reading comprehension. I claimed that
I was glad that it was finally clear to you that the <shrug> doesn't indicate anything at all about the text which preceded it. The reason I was glad is, because it doesn't, and you finally appeared to understand. But, alas, my gladness was soon trodden upon...
If the shrug has nothing to do with the preceding text then how is it instrumental in conveying lightheartedness to the preceding text?
It's not. Never said it was.
As I tried to explain on an elementary level, your <shrug>type turtlisms seemed to be a practice similar to emoticons. When something immediately follows a statement that signifies an emotion (facial expression) or a body movement ( shrug) it is normally associated with the statement that precedes it.
Example: Turtle would never imply that someone may be stupid in a post <sarcasm>
Yes, you do keep trying to explain to me what my <shrug> means, despite not knowing what it means. I then told you exactly what it means when I said,
"<shrug> is the written illustration of what someone does when they physically shrug and give you that quizzical look."
To which you responded with,
"Thank you for providing that excerpt from the Turtle Urban Dictionary.
It is clear now that <shrug> does not in any way indicate that the preceding text was light hearted in nature. Got it.
"
...which is correct - and I was glad.
But you're continuing to tell me what they mean when I use them. Since I'm not likely to change how I use them, I'm not sure why you are continuing to do so.
I can't believe we are having this conversation. Whatever happened to NSAIDs and ice?
I can believe it. You went off topic to attack me about what you perceived to be my use of arguing semantics, I tried to bring the thread back on topic, but you won't have any of it, and you want to continue to argue, for reasons I do not know.
I never said it happened in the reverse order. I tried to explain that if the writer failed to write in such a way to convey the desired context to the reader then it is wrong to blame the reader.
It depends on whether or not the writer created the context which the writer wanted to create. In this case the writer did.
I said this after you tried to sell the concept that you meant for your post to be in a certain context that it wasn't.
When a reader fails to grasp the context which the writer created, and then the writer explicitly gives that context to that reader, and the reader still refuses to accept the context, then the reader is the only one to blame for the reader refusing to accept it.
Your context was easily understood.
By everyone other than you, yes.
I simply responded in regards to your post where you were using the term anti-inflammatories following your lecture about medications.
When I made the statement:
" I do not want an anti-inflammatory at all if it can be avoided."
Oh, that's a blatant lie. Just a flat out fabrication. You quoted me out of context in order to create your own context, and then made your statement within your new context. The quote you pulled was not in the context of a lecture about medications (although that characterization is in and of itself telling), it was in the context of using an ice pack.
Now we're circling. You keep pounding away at the same incorrect things, thinking that eventually someone will believe your newly created reality. I'm beginning to wonder if that's the root of the problem here... your created realities. You keep insisting I said things which I did not, insisting that I mean things which I do not mean, you keep insisting that you haven't said things which you indisputably said, you attacked me and then accused me of attacking you, and you hijacked the topic of the thread for the expressed purpose of that attack and then accused me of taking the thread off the subject. These are the manifestations of someone with a mental illness who is delusional.
it was obvious to even the most casual observer that I was referring to medications and not ice. You understood that as well.
Apparently, you take offense to opinions that are contrary to yours so you decided to focus on semantics to discredit my post.
Due to your arrogance coupled with the belief that you are smarter than the average E.O. member, I must assume that you really believed that I would go away having been corrected.
You were wrong this time.
I find it astonishing that you know what the casual observer thinks, that you know what I understand, that you know what I take offense to, that you know what I believe. The reason I find it so astonishing is that you are so incredibly wrong in every instance, yet you apparently believe you are right.
Can we please get back to the subject of the thread??
That's hilarious coming from the person who took it off topic in the first place.
Oh my! The reading comprehension thing again, do we really need to do this?
No, we don't. If you can demonstrate that you can comprehend what you read, instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you cannot, then we won't need to do any of this.
Fortunately, your opinion does not apply to my education outside of your posts.
Somehow I was able to earn 3 college degrees with honors and the right to put Dr. in front of my name. I have read, comprehended and been tested on volumes of written material for many years.
The appeal to authority logical fallacy! Excellent! "I'm a doctor with three degrees so you should bow to my smartness and not question anything I say." Nicely done. It's lame that someone with three college degrees would stoop so low in a debate, but nicely done nevertheless. If you want to get into a college degree pіssing contest, I give up, you win right out of the gate, as my doctorate is only supported by a measly two masters degrees, not three. I bow to your greatness.
Your conclusion that because someone disagrees with your explanation of how your written context should be perceived, they must have a reading comprehension problem is flawed logic.
Yes it is flawed logic. It's also a logic that I have never used, and the stated conclusion above is one that I have never reached. I can conclude someone has a reading comprehension problem when they demonstrate their inability to comprehend the written word as it was written, regardless of context, particularly when that text is written to be intentionally plain, clear and orderly so as to be non-confusing. When someone disagrees with the writer's explicit explanation of how the context should be perceived, that's not a reading comprehension problem, it's a problem with one of three possibilities; it's either an intelligence problem of the reader; the reader intentionally refuses to accept the context as given for the purpose of being argumentative; or it is a problem with delusional reality on the part of the reader. The only other possibility is that the reader's own experiences are such that the context expressed by the writer is a context which is utterly foreign in every possible way to the reader, and the reader cannot relate on any level to the context. But that last possibility is generally for a reader who was raised by wolves and has spent their entire life in wooded isolation, or for recently arrived extraterrestrials who are unaware of our electromagnetic radio and television transmissions.
It is a rude distraction from the original subject of the thread.
In the context of who made that statement, that's funny.
Heparin does not have a role that I can think of?
It allows the blood to pool at the affected area without clotting.
I do admit that as a layperson you have a fairly good grasp on the physiology of swelling.
High priase indeed from a fellow truck driver. Thank you.
There are just a few minor details that we disagree on.
No doubt, I'm sure, due to my failure to be even more long-winded and detailed than I was.
What is all of that about? Someone has a slight disagreement with you and they are out to get you?
For anyone without a reading comprehension problem, that's a question that can be answered by reading what I wrote.
That is quite the laundry list of imaginary reasons why I dared to have a different opinion than yours regarding NSAID use.
The use of medications in any form and circumstance is an issue that by its very nature practically demands differing opinions, and thus they are not only expected, but welcome to all but the most extreme zealots on either side of the issue. The fact that you have a different opinion than mine regarding NSAID use is irrelevant. I don't care that you do, I really don't, and I've never said otherwise. Ironically, our opinions on medications are not that far apart, yet for some reason I do not yet know, you want to create a chasm out of the small differences that are there. It's puzzling.
Sorry, to burst your ego but it really wasn't about you. It was about when to take medications.
If that were even a little bit true, then you wouldn't have attacked me about anything other than my opinion as to when to take medications. Your actions and your own words in this thread make that claim not-credible.
So, we're back to one of the two postulated explanations for your actions, those being either stupidity or that you have done this intentionally to win an argument you created in order to try and make me look bad. I think with three degrees and a doctorate we can safely dismiss stupidity as the explanation. I never really gave that possibility much credence, anyway. Now we're left with the one remaining possibility, that you've done this intentionally. However, with the ridiculously absurd claim put forth that it was all about when to take medications, one cannot so easily dismiss the very real possibility of you being mentally unstable, as your many delusions have been repeatedly detailed by you here. I sincerely hope that's not the case, and it's simply a matter in which you don't like me and want to put me in my place by winning your invented argument.
Conclusion: To the E.O. Reader. I would simply like to suggest that when you suffer a muscle strain, consider using non harmful conservative treatments such as ice, elevation, rest, immobilization, etc. before taking medications unless the pain is too intense then you should see a physician.
All medications have possible side effects some of which may not be known until years down the road.
[/QUOTE]Fine advice, indeed. Thank you for finally getting back on topic. Let's see if you can stay there. <snort>
