Engaged?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am not using MY definition.

So what definition ARE you using?

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



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.

You know all this is irrelevant, yet you continue to post it. Unless and until you agree to accept that the definition contained in a representative sample of dictionaries, selected on mutually agreed criteria, as the definition of "engaged" or "engagement", then there is no point in discussing how the sample will be selected. It's up to you - are you willing to do so or not? Yes or no?

Any chance of you coming up with the apologies for your repeated lies or telling the many people who have asked what your definition of "engaged" is rather than attempt to divert the thread into nonsensical dead ends?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Congratulations "Engaged?" on being the longest thread in Social Issues & Current Events!

 

[Obsequious]

Without addressing any of the other stuff in the thread, please, CFLarsen, just tell me in your own words what you mean when you use the word "engaged" or "engagement." I really want to know.

 

[CFLarsen]

Tkingdoll stopped posting in this thread several pages ago.

That may be. Did you read what she said about this?

You know all this is irrelevant, yet you continue to post it. Unless and until you agree to accept that the definition contained in a representative sample of dictionaries, selected on mutually agreed criteria, as the definition of "engaged" or "engagement", then there is no point in discussing how the sample will be selected. It's up to you - are you willing to do so or not? Yes or no?

How can I agree to something you refuse to tell me what is?

You refuse to tell me what your criteria are. How can your criteria be irrelevant?

 

[Obsequious]

Why do you continue to ignore my question? It is clearly relevant and the answer will put an end to a lot of confusion.

 

[athon]

Congratulations "Engaged?" on being the longest thread in Social Issues & Current Events!

At last my work is done. Bwahahaa.

With Claus admitting finally that people can be engaged without the 'hullabaloo', and yet still not providing any definition for the term engaged other than something that people decide to call themselves if they feel like it, we can see that the term has zero meaning. The question he asked, 'Do people in you country get engaged?' therefore has zero meaning. A word without meaning is a rather useless thing indeed.

And the thread has self-destructed into a poof of silly nonsense.

Athon

 

[Damien Evans]

That may be. Did you read what she said about this?

yes

 

[Damien Evans]

At last my work is done. Bwahahaa.

With Claus admitting finally that people can be engaged without the 'hullabaloo', and yet still not providing any definition for the term engaged other than something that people decide to call themselves if they feel like it, we can see that the term has zero meaning. The question he asked, 'Do people in you country get engaged?' therefore has zero meaning. A word without meaning is a rather useless thing indeed.

And the thread has self-destructed into a poof of silly nonsense.

Athon

Indeed it has.

 

[The Atheist]

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?

He can, he just pretends not to. I'm quite convinced that he's actually the perfect troll. Clausian threads always follow the same pattern:

Claus makes stupid statement, then defends it for 60 posts.
Changes subject, then defend it for 60 posts...
and so on...

That would make another change of subject due in...... 11 ....... more posts.

I have no idea.

Luckily, anyone reading the thread aged over six will do.

A "define 'define'" type of question.

Let's define "question" first, which of course, will beg the next question of once the defintion of "question" is agreed, it will be necessary to "define" how it will be answered.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, well.

 

[HarryKeogh]

It would be very helpful if you could, as one of the JREF's resident Danes, define what "engaged" means. It seems like a simple and reasonable request.

It's very simple: based on usage here in the USA I would define it as when a couple agrees to marry.

So based on usage in Denmark how would you define engaged?

I've looked and can't find it. A lot of people here can't find it. Part of the reason we come here is to learn from each other yet you won't even offer me a simple definition but insist I hunt through your posts.

Is it that much trouble to help someone out and provide them with a definition instead of them having to ask you repeatedly?

Oh well. Could you please direct me to the post# where you define engaged?

You keep ignoring our request for a definition.

You're a liar because you claim to have provided a comprehensive definition, and clearly have done nothing of the sort. You can prove me wrong, of course, by pointing out the post in which you did this. Or, better yet, just quoting yourself clearly here.

You won't do this, it seems. I can only assume it's because such a definition has not been provided.

Yes the terms need to be defined. I have told you the definition I (and apparently the vast majority of people is this thread) are using for "engaged". Would you like to do us the courtesy of telling us what definition you are using? (NB - this is a request, not a demand - just to stop you getting "confused" again)

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.

Larsen list:

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?

So what definition ARE you using?

Without addressing any of the other stuff in the thread, please, CFLarsen, just tell me in your own words what you mean when you use the word "engaged" or "engagement." I really want to know.

Why do you continue to ignore my question? It is clearly relevant and the answer will put an end to a lot of confusion.

Oh, well.

Yep. Oh, well.

 

[JJM 777]

Congratulations "Engaged?" on being the longest thread in Social Issues & Current Events!

Lots of words, little content. It tends to happen in threads where certain people are present...

In societies where the state does not legally recognize "engagement", it is simply a promise to get married.

CFL would like that we end this unnecessary custom? Easy: make a law that a couple must be wed on the same day when they discuss marriage and agree about it. No unnecessary engagement period any more!

 

[CFLarsen]

CFL would like that we end this unnecessary custom?

Where did I say that?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

If this thread is to be saved, the personal bickering needs to cease now.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You refuse to tell me what your criteria are. How can your criteria be irrelevant?

Perhaps there is something about the term "mutually agreed" that you find confusing?

Or perhaps you simply wish to try and divert the thread into pointless deadends rather than explain what you mean when you use the term "engaged" - i.e. how you are defining that term?

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps there is something about the term "mutually agreed" that you find confusing?

I can't agree to something if you won't tell me what it is.

 

[athon]

Perhaps there is something about the term "mutually agreed" that you find confusing?

Or perhaps you simply wish to try and divert the thread into pointless deadends rather than explain what you mean when you use the term "engaged" - i.e. how you are defining that term?

No offence dude, but the thread is dust. Claus's argument is a zombie - everybody knows it died long ago, even Claus. Sadly, he kept it animated for giggles.

We're not going to see a definition out of him and I think this is one of those moments we just have to accept that continuing to press him only makes him feel the argument continues to have some merit.

Athon

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can't agree to something if you won't tell me what it is.

Option 2 in my previous post then. How sad.

 

[CFLarsen]

Option 2 in my previous post then. How sad.

If we are to "mutually agree" on the criteria, you have to tell me what your criteria are, before I can tell you if I agree to them or not.

I really don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If we are to "mutually agree" on the criteria, you have to tell me what your criteria are, before I can tell you if I agree to them or not.

I really don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

We only need to mutually agree the criteria to choose the dictionaries, once you agree to accept the result that comes from the chosen dictionaries. You refuse to do so.