|
Post by mike on Sept 30, 2007 20:24:33 GMT -5
You're getting close Now let's look a little closer, You've said that "It was serious about the remembering part as well", therefore, it still affirms that their relationship whether it was just the relationship or Ron's entire existence was the only missing piece. And since that was the only missing piece, therefore Ron was pertaining to either her remembrance of him(including their relationship) or just their relationship. Ron is now pertaining to their relationship as it was related to Kim's first message "I think I love you", now since Ron wants to affirm it and Kim gave an affirming answer clearly shows that the scene itself is very very serious and since it was proven to be serious the real meaning of the word "think" is therefore shown. Now you're making assumptions, you only think that was what Ron was saying and you only think that was what Kim was saying, but can you prove it? Fact is you don't know, and from Kim's memories, she didn't remember him even before they were a couple so you assume that she was referring to the love part when she could be referring to either, especially since their comments were as ambiguous as her statment, Ron was trying to get her to remeber him throughout the episode, mostly about them dating, but from her comments she didn't even remember him all that much from before they were dating, as evident from the memories from before they were dating, so he was really trying to get her to remember him in general as well, also you assume that Kim would take his comments as being serious about the love part considering, getting her to remember him had been what he was serious about all episode, not whether she loved him, as a result even if for the sake of argument he was asking about the love part, she could have viewed that he was more concerend about the rembering part, since that is what he ahd been concerned about it for most of the episode, and that's assuming that he was referring to the love part and not the remembering part. Hence the ambiguity remains, since we don't know what they were referring to. NO, I'm not making assumptions but you assumed that I'm making one . I never said what was the real meaning, I only said that whatever is the possibility we take considering the seriousness of the tone of voice at hand shows the real meaning of the word "think". To help you visualize, the ambiguity your saying means that there's a lot of possibilities each with a different outcome, but the intonation of the tones used by the characters (denoting seriousness) clearly eliminates the other possibilities, still, there are a lot of possibilities however, these possibilities only lead to a single outcome and many. Now, your assuming that I assumed that, however I never said that it can be true, what I'm saying regardless what is true (thanks to the tone of the voice), the true meaning of the word "think" is revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Scoutcraft Piratess on Sept 30, 2007 20:25:05 GMT -5
I think I now hate the word "ambiguity".
|
|
|
Post by AvinashTyagi on Sept 30, 2007 20:26:52 GMT -5
Now you're making assumptions, you only think that was what Ron was saying and you only think that was what Kim was saying, but can you prove it? Fact is you don't know, and from Kim's memories, she didn't remember him even before they were a couple so you assume that she was referring to the love part when she could be referring to either, especially since their comments were as ambiguous as her statment, Ron was trying to get her to remeber him throughout the episode, mostly about them dating, but from her comments she didn't even remember him all that much from before they were dating, as evident from the memories from before they were dating, so he was really trying to get her to remember him in general as well, also you assume that Kim would take his comments as being serious about the love part considering, getting her to remember him had been what he was serious about all episode, not whether she loved him, as a result even if for the sake of argument he was asking about the love part, she could have viewed that he was more concerend about the rembering part, since that is what he ahd been concerned about it for most of the episode, and that's assuming that he was referring to the love part and not the remembering part. Hence the ambiguity remains, since we don't know what they were referring to. NO, I'm not making assumptions but you assumed that I'm making one . I never said what was the real meaning, I only said that whatever is the possibility we take considering the seriousness of the tone of voice at hand shows the real meaning of the word "think". To help you visualize, the ambiguity your saying means that there's a lot of possibilities each with a different outcome, but the intonation of the tones used by the characters (denoting seriousness) clearly eliminates the other possibilities, still, there are a lot of possibilities however, these possibilities only lead to a single outcome and many. Now, your assuming that I assumed that, however I never said that it can be true, what I'm saying regardless what is true (thanks to the tone of the voice), the true meaning of the word "think" is revealed. You're assuming that the intonation mean that the other possibilities are elminated, because you don't know what the intonations mean, you are assuming that the true meaning of the think is revealed in the intonation, when in fact its only your opinion what the meaning is.
|
|
|
Post by The_Shadow on Oct 1, 2007 0:14:23 GMT -5
OOOOOOOOOOH MY GOD, CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG
|
|
|
Post by kittykax on Oct 1, 2007 3:32:09 GMT -5
OOOOOOOOOOH MY GOD, CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG I know, some of you are worse than my drill team (and we do have a LOT of Drama)
|
|
Aero Tendo
Yellow Trout
I'm a Ranma 1/2 fan too
Posts: 148
|
Post by Aero Tendo on Oct 1, 2007 3:43:38 GMT -5
OOOOOOOOOOH MY GOD, CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG I know, some of you are worse than my drill team (and we do have a LOT of Drama) Even MORE drama than the movie "So the drama?"
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 7:50:18 GMT -5
NO, I'm not making assumptions but you assumed that I'm making one . I never said what was the real meaning, I only said that whatever is the possibility we take considering the seriousness of the tone of voice at hand shows the real meaning of the word "think". To help you visualize, the ambiguity your saying means that there's a lot of possibilities each with a different outcome, but the intonation of the tones used by the characters (denoting seriousness) clearly eliminates the other possibilities, still, there are a lot of possibilities however, these possibilities only lead to a single outcome and many. Now, your assuming that I assumed that, however I never said that it can be true, what I'm saying regardless what is true (thanks to the tone of the voice), the true meaning of the word "think" is revealed. You're assuming that the intonation mean that the other possibilities are elminated, because you don't know what the intonations mean, you are assuming that the true meaning of the think is revealed in the intonation, when in fact its only your opinion what the meaning is. On the contrary. In the rules of logic, intonation is a form in revealing the true meaning of a word . To prove that here's a link on fallacy of accent Fallacy of AccentThis page asserts that a given statement without any formal accent from a speaker is ambiguous, however given that a formal accent or intonation of words the real meaning of the ambiguous word is revealed. Take this for example: We can always buy a replacement -Ambiguous statement With a straight accent: We can always buy a replacement. - shows that the subject "we" can always buy a replacement for an item, such that they are rich, have a business, have other method of possessing, etc. However when I stress "always buy" We can always buy a replacement. - shows that the subject "we" cannot always afford to buy a replacement because of economic crises, etc. So you see, I'm not assuming because what I'm saying here follows the rules of logic.
|
|
|
Post by kittykax on Oct 1, 2007 9:08:30 GMT -5
I know, some of you are worse than my drill team (and we do have a LOT of Drama) Even MORE drama than the movie "So the drama?" Well if your idea of drama is yelling, crying, being insulted by people, hitting each other, arguing over how we should do our hair, people stealing pom poms, then yeah.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 9:14:21 GMT -5
Even MORE drama than the movie "So the drama?" People stealing pom poms ROTFL ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by AvinashTyagi on Oct 1, 2007 9:23:11 GMT -5
You're assuming that the intonation mean that the other possibilities are elminated, because you don't know what the intonations mean, you are assuming that the true meaning of the think is revealed in the intonation, when in fact its only your opinion what the meaning is. On the contrary. In the rules of logic, intonation is a form in revealing the true meaning of a word . To prove that here's a link on fallacy of accent Fallacy of AccentThis page asserts that a given statement without any formal accent from a speaker is ambiguous, however given that a formal accent or intonation of words the real meaning of the ambiguous word is revealed. Take this for example: We can always buy a replacement -Ambiguous statement With a straight accent: We can always buy a replacement. - shows that the subject "we" can always buy a replacement for an item, such that they are rich, have a business, have other method of possessing, etc. However when I stress "always buy" We can always buy a replacement. - shows that the subject "we" cannot always afford to buy a replacement because of economic crises, etc. So you see, I'm not assuming because what I'm saying here follows the rules of logic. Yes that is exactly assumption, because you don't know what the intonation is, its only your opinion what the intonation is, as you said, you need to know where the stress/emphasis is being placed, you say its one thing, but you can't prove it, and I disagree with your opinion, so its assumption. You assume that they were referring to the love part in their comments and emphasising that, but I disagree, and unless you can prove it, well, we've hit the end.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 9:28:35 GMT -5
On the contrary, Kim said it with a very serious tone and if you watch it again you'll never hear a hint of a playful tone...
|
|
|
Post by kittykax on Oct 1, 2007 9:29:37 GMT -5
Hey we had a huge lecture when that happened, one girl got her pom poms taken out of her bag and she couldn't use them for the game. Luckily we found them but our captain was about to quit because she can't stand thieves.
|
|
|
Post by AvinashTyagi on Oct 1, 2007 9:30:38 GMT -5
On the contrary, Kim said it with a very serious tone and if you watch it again you'll never hear a hint of a playful tone... I disagree, the tone wasn't serious, when she's serious she sounds different, when they are in the middle of a mission her voice gets very serious sometimes, and it sounds very different.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 9:33:40 GMT -5
She was serious, and the "for real" affirmed that she was serious, otherwise why would Ron even ask.
|
|
|
Post by AvinashTyagi on Oct 1, 2007 9:34:16 GMT -5
She was serious, and the "for real" affirmed that she was serious, otherwise why would Ron even ask. what did it affirm? You're assuming that she was serious, you're assuming what she was speaking the for real in regards to, you're assuming what Ron was asking about, when the fact is you are not certain about any of those things
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 9:38:20 GMT -5
It affirmed Kim's voice of seriousness otherwise she should have used another tone for her answer and both the tone she used for her answer and the sentence "I think that I love you" was the same...
|
|
|
Post by AvinashTyagi on Oct 1, 2007 9:42:40 GMT -5
It affirmed Kim's voice of seriousness otherwise she should have used another tone for her answer and both the tone she used for her answer and the sentence "I think that I love you" was the same... So how do you know she was being serious about either part? Or that she was stressing the "I think I love you" and not the "I remember you" with both parts? which is why its just assumptions I'm afraid unless you can give me some proof we are at the end of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 9:46:30 GMT -5
She was serious, and the "for real" affirmed that she was serious, otherwise why would Ron even ask. You're assuming that she was serious, you're assuming what she was speaking the for real in regards to, you're assuming what Ron was asking about, when the fact is you are not certain about any of those things I'm not assuming anything, yet I'm surprised you keep on assuming that I did. It doesn't matter what was the "For real" was about, it doesn't matter what Ron was asking about. I'm not assuming that she was serious, it is an observable fact. Kim's tone is indeed serious since, Ron changed his playful tone when he said "Now, this is a memory" which was a reply to Kim's answer "For Real" which is also serious. And since both the tone of voice Kim used for the "For Real" and the sentence "I think I love you" was the same affirms and the "For Real" was serious, hence the sentence is also serious.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 1, 2007 9:49:48 GMT -5
It affirmed Kim's voice of seriousness otherwise she should have used another tone for her answer and both the tone she used for her answer and the sentence "I think that I love you" was the same... So how do you know she was being serious about either part? Or that she was stressing the "I think I love you" and not the "I remember you" with both parts? which is why its just assumptions I'm afraid unless you can give me some proof we are at the end of this discussion. When you say stress, it means to lengthen a part of a statement such that it means something that it isn't. However, in Kim's case she was speaking clear and fast.
|
|
|
Post by AvinashTyagi on Oct 1, 2007 9:53:36 GMT -5
You're assuming that she was serious, you're assuming what she was speaking the for real in regards to, you're assuming what Ron was asking about, when the fact is you are not certain about any of those things I'm not assuming anything, yet I'm surprised you keep on assuming that I did. It doesn't matter what was the "For real" was about, it doesn't matter what Ron was asking about. I'm not assuming that she was serious, it is an observable fact. Kim's tone is indeed serious since, Ron changed his playful tone when he said "Now, this is a memory" which was a reply to Kim's answer "For Real" which is also serious. And since both the tone of voice Kim used for the "For Real" and the sentence "I think I love you" was the same affirms and the "For Real" was serious, hence the sentence is also serious. No because both could have been playful or manipulative, or serious, or casual, or affectionate or any other emotion possible, you just assume that its one or the other because you want it to be one way. You're also basing Kim's meaning on Ron, who isn't the most perceptive guy out there, so even if he assumes one thing does not prove her meaning. Exactly, which is why you don't know which part she was referring to, since she could have been referring to the remembering part, because when you stress something, you place emphasis on a particular point, like saying this is the important part, but there was no stress, hence you don't know what she is referring to as being important
|
|