2 ms·
Perhaps I did misunderstand. I didn't see how "pendant" could make sense (I used to wear one, and I couldn't see how a person could be confused with a pendant).
by jamescostian 10y ago
Perhaps I did misunderstand. I didn't see how "pendant" could make sense (I used to wear one, and I couldn't see how a person could be confused with a pendant). But since you thought of it as a "symbolic token", please do explain what you think Tyson symbolizes and how he is a token, like how the user whack mentioned.
As for your last paragraph, I'll admit that I am not great at English and I don't understand its rules, so I'll assume you're right.
Disregard that example and take this one instead: the comment used a source and gave it the number 1 instead of 0. Someone could argue that using 1 instead of 0 "gives the wrong idea of what acting intelligent is to youth" with some pedantic argument like "everything must be zero-based because think of the children/youth, we need to set the right example for them". What I'm arguing is that such an argument, just like an argument about a gramatical mistake, is weak at best. It doesn't provide much insight, it doesn't provide any solution, it just whines
- aaachilless 10y agoI actually agree with your original argument, and disagree with sdf's as you interpreted it. I just interpreted sdf's argument differently. I described how I came to that conclusion in response to the comment you mentioned. I think basically I assumed grammatical/syntactical correctness and a weird argument, and you and others assumed the reverse. I hope sdf clarifies because I'd actually guess I'm prone to making this kind of communication error (if I'm in error, of course).