Mr Diesel says:

I thought the blog was good as well but I’ll be damned if I continue to agree with you Bobbo.

bobbo, we think with words says:

#20–pecker===”xxx” was “apologize for making a simple mistake, easy and life affirming to do so.”

AND you do neither. When you said “this is what i love about blogs, the absolute confusion” I thought you were being overly self reverential.

I see I was correct.

chuck says:

#24 – the only successful occupation method is to slaughter the local population. This has worked out great in North America.

I would argue it was partially successful in Ireland (since many Irish are from English descent). But this applies to England too – The Anglo/Saxons are all foreigners – from Germany.

The0ne says:

IRREGARDLESS Mr Pecker and Bobbo! hahaha

Now what this article about? O.o

pecker says:

Sorry Theone, I do think Michael’s blog is very good. I was trying just trying to point bobbo to the second link then he set upon me.

bobbo, we think with words says:

Pecker–cromulent is well defined. As is embiggum. As is moran.

Takes a certain rigidity of mind once caught off track to be unable/unwilling to get back on.

I can’t tell if you are being obstinate or just obtuse. In either case, it is ob.

Enough.

pecker says:

# 31 bobbo, The only time I have ever heard people use the words embiggen, cromulent and moran is as nonsense words in wry or amusing contexts. ‘cromulent’ definitely doesn’t have rigid meaning – even the link you gave gives two completely different definitions.

Maybe you should step away from your rigid belief that ‘people think in words’ – it might allow you to spot these things. I’ll try and help you out with a couple of questions: Could it be that words are just an expression of our thoughts? How were deaf mutes able to think before sign language?

I am sure you will just come back with an arrogant repost but I do hope this helps.

bobbo, only because I do love words says:

#33–pecker==words are defined in dictionaries, not “what you have heard.” The link I provided clearly shows a very uniform meaning: spurious, dubious, odd==all very consistent given its origin a la The Simpsons. What second meaning do you think the term has?

2. Excellent Analysis/questions.

Could it be that words are just an expression of our thoughts? /// Thats the epistemological nub of the question and experts do bat it back and forth. Certainly the concepts must be interactive each helping the other to grow. Words communicate what we know/think/imagine. I recall a linguistics professor telling us: “If you know something but can’t explain it to another person, you might as well be ignorant.” Never forgot that but it teases me into conversations like this one. Who might as well be ignorant?

The common example is the Eskimo’s have 73 different words for snow. All depending on exactly what they mean to convey about it: how wet is it, how fast is it falling and so forth. English has about 5 to cover the same events. Which group understands “snow” more completely? Both groups are equal in thinking and observational ability.

3. How were deaf mutes able to think before sign language? /// Its not about “being able” to think, but rather the degree and precision of thinking. You can build a kind of house with just a hammer, but the options bloom with a full tool chest. Words is just shorthand for symbollic lonaguage. Sign Language is another kind, even words if you want to push it that far.

I do note you have avoided the main point about 4 times now.

Do you think Yon’s website is Accurate or Spurious? Valid or Dubious? Reflecting reality or odd?

wordking says:

Bobbo likes to play with pecker.