Perhaps I’m just parsing your words wrong, but it looks as if you’re suggesting that most non-commercial sexual interactions have “in the least amount of time” as a major goal.
No, most commercial ones do. If the act is over sooner the prostitute gets the same money for less time.
So, you fixed what you wrote so that it was no longer wrong in the way I described. That’s good, but now it looks like I’m an idiot who can’t read. (I guess that’s why the grandparent of this comment got a downvote.)
If you happen to care about not making people who help you look like idiots (which of course you’re in no way obliged to), then in future you might consider acknowledging such corrections rather than silently fixing up what you wrote and then saying “No”.
(And since I care—perhaps foolishly—about not looking like an idiot, I suppose in future I will have to go to the extra effort of quoting what I’m commenting on more explicitly so as not to be vulnerable to this kind of thing.)
So, you fixed what you wrote so that it was no longer wrong in the way I described. That’s good, but now it looks like I’m an idiot who can’t read. (I guess that’s why the grandparent of this comment got a downvote.)
No, the downvote was there before I made the edit.
The English language isn’t as good as Lojban at clearly specifying which proposition belongs to which part. My original formulating doesn’t parse unambiguously and needs thinking to be parsed correctly. In particular expecting it be be parsed the same way, rests on it being obvious that “in the shortest amount of time” applies to prostitutes.
It’s no failure in reading 101 but in reading 201.
As far as silently editing, LW provides the * to show that the post is edited.
Interesting. I wonder what whoever-it-was didn’t like. Oh well, never mind.
LW provides the * to show that the post is edited.
Yup. And that tells you nothing about what was done to it, so if there’s a comment saying “blah blah blah 2+2=4 blah blah blah” with a star, and a reply saying “I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct” there’s no way to know that it used to say “2+2=5”.
and needs thinking to be parsed correctly
OK, now I’m going to stop trying to be tactful.
Your original comment was simply incorrect; the only way to parse it “correctly” is to ignore the way the English language actually works; it just didn’t say what you intended it to say. I didn’t suffer a “failure in reading 201″, I didn’t fail to think, I pointed out that you had suffered a failure in writing 101 and I did it tactfully so that (e.g.) you could correct what you wrote and call it a clarification.
In response to which, you edited your comment to make it look as if I had made a mistake, replied to my comment as if I had in fact made a mistake, and are now doubling down and attempting to make out that the problem was my inept reading rather than your inept writing and that you did nothing wrong in making me look like an idiot for trying to help.
Sorry, but two consecutive defections earns you a defection in response. You did wrong, you tried to hide it, and you acted so as to make someone else look bad for it. I’d been assuming that last bit was unintentional, but your latest response is making me reconsider. Anyway: Please don’t do that. It’s rude.
(Of course it’s also an extremely trivial pair of consecutive defections and it’s not like it matters much. I hereby acknowledge that it doesn’t matter much. But, still: Rude. Don’t do it.)
Your original comment was simply incorrect; the only way to parse it “correctly” is to ignore the way the
English language actually does allow the construction I used.
Prostitutes are in interactions that are focused on giving their client pleasure instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties in the least amount of time.
Both
A : ((giving their client pleasure instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties) in the least amount of time)
and
B : (giving their client pleasure (instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties in the least amount of time))
are possible way to parse the sentence. You mistakenly read B. I do grant that original sentence is ugly and my edited version is easier to read. Writing ugly is a mistake, but it’s a stylistic one and not one of content.
Language is about communicating ideas. In this case it’s kind of obvious what I meant.
You either miss the obvious or you pretend I didn’t mean the obvious. Both are not actions that are good cooperation.
No, most commercial ones do. If the act is over sooner the prostitute gets the same money for less time.
So, you fixed what you wrote so that it was no longer wrong in the way I described. That’s good, but now it looks like I’m an idiot who can’t read. (I guess that’s why the grandparent of this comment got a downvote.)
If you happen to care about not making people who help you look like idiots (which of course you’re in no way obliged to), then in future you might consider acknowledging such corrections rather than silently fixing up what you wrote and then saying “No”.
(And since I care—perhaps foolishly—about not looking like an idiot, I suppose in future I will have to go to the extra effort of quoting what I’m commenting on more explicitly so as not to be vulnerable to this kind of thing.)
No, the downvote was there before I made the edit.
The English language isn’t as good as Lojban at clearly specifying which proposition belongs to which part. My original formulating doesn’t parse unambiguously and needs thinking to be parsed correctly. In particular expecting it be be parsed the same way, rests on it being obvious that “in the shortest amount of time” applies to prostitutes.
It’s no failure in reading 101 but in reading 201.
As far as silently editing, LW provides the * to show that the post is edited.
Interesting. I wonder what whoever-it-was didn’t like. Oh well, never mind.
Yup. And that tells you nothing about what was done to it, so if there’s a comment saying “blah blah blah 2+2=4 blah blah blah” with a star, and a reply saying “I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct” there’s no way to know that it used to say “2+2=5”.
OK, now I’m going to stop trying to be tactful.
Your original comment was simply incorrect; the only way to parse it “correctly” is to ignore the way the English language actually works; it just didn’t say what you intended it to say. I didn’t suffer a “failure in reading 201″, I didn’t fail to think, I pointed out that you had suffered a failure in writing 101 and I did it tactfully so that (e.g.) you could correct what you wrote and call it a clarification.
In response to which, you edited your comment to make it look as if I had made a mistake, replied to my comment as if I had in fact made a mistake, and are now doubling down and attempting to make out that the problem was my inept reading rather than your inept writing and that you did nothing wrong in making me look like an idiot for trying to help.
Sorry, but two consecutive defections earns you a defection in response. You did wrong, you tried to hide it, and you acted so as to make someone else look bad for it. I’d been assuming that last bit was unintentional, but your latest response is making me reconsider. Anyway: Please don’t do that. It’s rude.
(Of course it’s also an extremely trivial pair of consecutive defections and it’s not like it matters much. I hereby acknowledge that it doesn’t matter much. But, still: Rude. Don’t do it.)
English language actually does allow the construction I used.
Both
and
are possible way to parse the sentence. You mistakenly read B. I do grant that original sentence is ugly and my edited version is easier to read. Writing ugly is a mistake, but it’s a stylistic one and not one of content.
Language is about communicating ideas. In this case it’s kind of obvious what I meant. You either miss the obvious or you pretend I didn’t mean the obvious. Both are not actions that are good cooperation.