Engaged?

[Ian Osborne]

So Claus, I presume you'd throw the dictionary away and let us use any word we like for anything we like? After all, to do otherwise is to impose your social values on others...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A lie? You follow Thanz' post with a post like that, and you want people to think it wasn't about me?

Yes - you made a specific claim that I made a specific statement. You have now acknowledged that was not true. Therefore it was a lie.

Like your claim that I demanded you use a particular definition and like your claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

Are you ready to acknowledge those lies as well?

Sure. You weren't talking about me there, either.

I was talking about the fact that words have meanings. Go back and read it again if you are still having difficulty with it - I am not responsible for your inability to understand plain English.

Try and remember that you are NOT the centre of the universe.

 

[brodski]

..."doesn't negate it being an engagement"... And you are not imposing your values on them. Sure.

Claus, I hate to break it to you*, but reality is not a just a “social value”.






*(this is a lie)

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes - you made a specific claim that I made a specific statement. You have now acknowledged that was not true. Therefore it was a lie.

Like your claim that I demanded you use a particular definition and like your claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

Are you ready to acknowledge those lies as well?



I was talking about the fact that words have meanings. Go back and read it again if you are still having difficulty with it - I am not responsible for your inability to understand plain English.

Try and remember that you are NOT the centre of the universe.

Who were you talking about, if not me? After Thanz' post, yes.

What "process" do you suggest?

What was the purpose of going through the hassle of the generic google search and posting the links you thought were different dictionaries?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Who were you talking about, if not me? After Thanz' post, yes.

What "process" do you suggest?

What was the purpose of going through the hassle of the generic google search and posting the links you thought were different dictionaries?

You made a specific claim that I made a specific statement. You have now acknowledged that was not true. Therefore it was a lie.

Like your claim that I demanded you use a particular definition and like your claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

Are you ready to acknowledge those lies as well?

 

[CFLarsen]

You made a specific claim that I made a specific statement. You have now acknowledged that was not true. Therefore it was a lie.

Like your claim that I demanded you use a particular definition and like your claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

Are you ready to acknowledge those lies as well?

You don't have the guts to say who you were talking about. It is easier to call me a "liar".

You clearly are not interested in any "process", even though you gave the pretense.

And you cannot explain what the purpose of posting a generic google search and posting the links you thought were different dictionaries.

Oh, well.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You don't have the guts to say who you were talking about. It is easier to call me a "liar".

Irrelevant.

You made a specific claim that I made a specific statement. You have now acknowledged that was not true. Therefore it was a lie.

Like your claim that I demanded you use a particular definition and like your claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

Are you ready to acknowledge those lies as well?

You clearly are not interested in any "process", even though you gave the pretense.

You have not agreed to the principle - until you do there is nothing to be gained from discussing the process. Your choice.

And you cannot explain what the purpose of posting a generic google search and posting the links you thought were different dictionaries.

Mindreading again? You should go for the million dollar prize if you can tell what I am thinking.

If you are unwilling to acknowledge the lies you have told on this thread, why should I take any notice of anything you post?

 

[Obsequious]

What was the purpose of going through the hassle of the generic google search and posting the links you thought were different dictionaries?

I'm sure no one believes this really needs to be explained, but just to try to get it off the list:

The purpose was to demonstrate how easy it is to find many sources for dictionaries on the internet. He/she quickly googled and grabbed a few links as examples without checking where those sources got their definitions from. At no point did Jaggy Bunnet say that this was any kind of defintive list, nor did he/she demand (or even request) that these be the sources used in such a list.

Now, if you would be so kind as to answer a question I posed several pages ago: What is the difference between formal informal engagement? What is the difference between informal engagement and a simple stated agreement between two people to marry?

Of course it would be simpler to just define, in your own words, what you mean by "engagement." If you would rather explain your meaning that way, please do. If you feel you have already clearly stated your definition in your own words, please give us a post number and/or quote yourself.

 

[athon]

You have to ask yourself that.

This makes no sense. Obfuscating behind nonsense only serves to make you look further like a fool.

They can only deny being engaged, if they are required to answer the question "Are you engaged?"

WTF?? Again, you've lost the plot entirely. If anything, by that quote, I'm suggesting that people should not deny that they are engaged when they clearly are. Even then, what you have quoted only asks what would happen if people were asked that question. Get with the program, Claus. You're again embarrassing yourself with not even bothering to read what you've quoted.

What forms are those? Legal forms? Lying on a legal form is "no problem"?

I never said they were legal. I even said specifically what sort of forms.

Oh, come on! You have been very active promoting your values here, to the point where those who don't share them are wrong.

You really don't know what values are. *sigh* Ask me in another thread to explain what a value is to you. Or go do some homework. Either way, go learn what one is before you pretend to understand.

Now, yet another response goes by without you providing a definition of 'engagement' (or of 'value' for that matter). I think you've shown to the appreciation of all that you've got no idea.

I hope you're having fun, Claus, because this thread now only serves to show how feeble you've become in your debating skills.

Again I ask; if I provide no ring, and no ceremony, and tell nobody of my intentions, am I still engaged if I ask my partner to marry me?

Athon

 

[athon]

Larsen list:

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?
2) If a person asks another to marry them, and they provide no ring, party or announcement, are they still 'engaged'?
3) How should one use dictionaries in defining a term?
4) If a person wishes to not refer to their partner as a 'husband' or 'wife', is said partner no longer by definition a husband or wife?
5) Define, in your own words or by reference to a definition, what a 'value' actually is.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

This makes no sense. Obfuscating behind nonsense only serves to make you look further like a fool.

You are the one who gets more out of what I say than what I say.

WTF?? Again, you've lost the plot entirely. If anything, by that quote, I'm suggesting that people should not deny that they are engaged when they clearly are. Even then, what you have quoted only asks what would happen if people were asked that question. Get with the program, Claus. You're again embarrassing yourself with not even bothering to read what you've quoted.

You miss the point: Why should they be required to deny anything? If they want to be engaged, that's their choice. But if they don't want to be engaged, and don't want to be seen as engaged, you have no right to impose your values on them.

I never said they were legal.

I never said you said they were legal. I asked if they were.

I even said specifically what sort of forms.

No, you didn't. You just said that you had filled out forms that requested the information. I am asking which forms they were. If they were not legal forms, what forms were they? Why did they request the information?

You really don't know what values are. *sigh* Ask me in another thread to explain what a value is to you. Or go do some homework. Either way, go learn what one is before you pretend to understand.

Now, yet another response goes by without you providing a definition of 'engagement' (or of 'value' for that matter). I think you've shown to the appreciation of all that you've got no idea.

I hope you're having fun, Claus, because this thread now only serves to show how feeble you've become in your debating skills.

Then, you are merely continuing for the sake of continuing.

Again I ask; if I provide no ring, and no ceremony, and tell nobody of my intentions, am I still engaged if I ask my partner to marry me?

Depends entirely on whether you want to be engaged and seen as engaged.

How can you possible not grasp my point by now?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Depends entirely on whether you want to be engaged and seen as engaged.

How can you possible not grasp my point by now?

Because you will not define what you mean by the term "engaged".

From your posts it appears that you are defining it as having agreed to marry someone AND wishing to describe that situation as being engaged? (NB this is not a demand that you use this definition, just an attempt to understand what definition you are using.)

Is that correct? (I have made an assumption which may not be justified by your posts that there is a requirement for there to be an agreement to marry for an engagement to exist - it is however possible that your definition may not require this and two people could describe themselves as engaged without such an intention). If you would care to clarify it would be appreciated.

This will seem like a strange question, but do you consider it possible for one member of a couple to consider themselves engaged while the other does not?

 

[Ian Osborne]

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?
2) If a person asks another to marry them, and they provide no ring, party or announcement, are they still 'engaged'?
3) How should one use dictionaries in defining a term?
4) If a person wishes to not refer to their partner as a 'husband' or 'wife', is said partner no longer by definition a husband or wife?
5) Define, in your own words or by reference to a definition, what a 'value' actually is.

This thread will make no more progress at all until Larsen at least tries to answer some of these questions. How about it, Claus?

 

[CFLarsen]

This will seem like a strange question, but do you consider it possible for one member of a couple to consider themselves engaged while the other does not?

I have no idea.

This thread will make no more progress at all until Larsen at least tries to answer some of these questions. How about it, Claus?

How about reading my posts, Ian?

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?

I have been trying to get Jaggy Bunnet to tell me what "process" this demands. Curiously enough, there seems to be no willingness there to settle the matter.

4) If a person wishes to not refer to their partner as a 'husband' or 'wife', is said partner no longer by definition a husband or wife?

I have already answered that: Naturally not. What does this have to do with engagement? Marriage is a legal matter, engagement is not.

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?

3) How should one use dictionaries in defining a term?

5) Define, in your own words or by reference to a definition, what a 'value' actually is.

A "define 'define'" type of question.

 

[sphenisc]

This will seem like a strange question, but do you consider it possible for one member of a couple to consider themselves engaged while the other does not?

You're talking about me and Michelle Pfeiffer aren't you!?! SHE'S MINE I TELL YOU, ALL MINE !?!

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have no idea.

You don't know whether under YOUR definition of engaged this is possible?

I have been trying to get Jaggy Bunnet to tell me what "process" this demands. Curiously enough, there seems to be no willingness there to settle the matter.

No process is required for you to tell everyone what definition of engaged you are using, just some basic courtesy and honesty from you.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You're talking about me and Michelle Pfeiffer aren't you!?! SHE'S MINE I TELL YOU, ALL MINE !?!

Calm down, she already told me that.

 

[Damien Evans]

Wow, if there was ever a thread that deserved kittening it would be this one...

Why is it that everyone but Claus can see that he is wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

You don't know whether under YOUR definition of engaged this is possible?

I am not using MY definition.

No process is required for you to tell everyone what definition of engaged you are using, just some basic courtesy and honesty from you.

Don't feign ignorance here. You are perfectly aware of what I am talking about:

My definition or your definition is irrelevant. I am trying to agree a process for an impartial definition - that found most commonly in a representative sample of dictionaries.
...
Because the criteria to be used will be agreed between us, neither party can impose their own criteria. Therefore mine, and your, criteria are irrelevant. All that matters is the mutually agreed criteria - are you ready to move to that stage by agreeing to accept the definition of a representative sample yet? Or is it to be more evasion?

What is this "process"? What is this "definition" of yours? What are these "criteria" of yours?

You have avoided this repeatedly. We cannot proceed, unless you tell me what you mean.

Wow, if there was ever a thread that deserved kittening it would be this one...

Why is it that everyone but Claus can see that he is wrong?

Try to read what Tkingdoll has to say.

 

[Damien Evans]

Try to read what Tkingdoll has to say.

Tkingdoll stopped posting in this thread several pages ago.