quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

You just made up an incorrect definition from thin air, claiming that the definition of satire is whatever you decide it is. 

+

Alumbrado,

For the third time, I gave you exact quotes from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Houghton Mifflin Co. Dictionary, the Oxford University Press, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and the Columbia University Press, which you continue to pretend are invented, even though I went so far is to instruct you how to find them.

Incidentally, you should also look up "definitive" -- it doesn't mean what you think it does. Nor does etymology, as you did not list it as claimed, and even had you, it's irrelevant. Nor did you give your source, as I did.

Your definition came from the dictionary.com site, though you cherry-picked only the part that served your preconceived notion. The portion you quoted comes from the "Online Etymology Dictiionary," but you gave only the brief, summary definition, excluding the etymology that follows:

"from L. satira "satire, poetic medley," earlier satura, in lanx satura "mixed dish, dish filled with various kinds of fruit," lit. "full dish," from fem. of satur "sated" (see saturate). First applied in literary sense to a collection of poems on a variety of subjects by Ennius. In classical L., a poem which assailed the prevailing vices, one after another. Altered in L. by infl. of Gk. satyr, on mistaken notion that the form is related to the Gk. satyr drama (see satyr)"

An etymology dictionary's purpose is not to define words, but to explore their origins. That's why this entry gives only a brief phrase, ignoring even that "satire" has multiple meanings, even needing two separate entries, one for the noun, one for the verb.

Further, you had to page down a third of the page, past other definitions that didn't suit you to lift that one line. Your Swift quote, btw (which comes from WordNet, a source you didn't name--and you lifted the example out of context without including the entry it illustrates), isn't even a definition, not even a "made-up" one---it's a metaphor, and it makes an ironic point, just as good satire does; mere summary and ridicule takes no skill and, as it has no observation to add, serves little purpose. The entry you excluded makes a simular point--stressing wit.

And finally, if you want to criticize how others use words, learn what they mean yourself. Perhaps a librarian can show you how to use the dictionary and what the various parts mean.

That's why discussing this with you is futile. Hope that helps clarify.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

You just made up an incorrect definition from thin air, claiming that the definition of satire is whatever you decide it is. 

+

Alumbrado,

For the third time, I gave you exact quotes from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Houghton Mifflin Co. Dictionary, the Oxford University Press, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and the Columbia University Press, which you continue to pretend are invented, even though I went so far is to instruct you how to find them.

Incidentally, you should also look up "definitive" -- it doesn't mean what you think it does. Nor does etymology, as you did not list it as claimed, and even had you, it's irrelevant. Nor did you give your source, as I did.

Your definition came from the dictionary.com site, though you cherry-picked only the part that served your preconceived notion. The portion you quoted comes from the "Online Etymology Dictiionary," but you gave only the brief, summary definition, excluding the etymology that follows:

"from L. satira "satire, poetic medley," earlier satura, in lanx satura "mixed dish, dish filled with various kinds of fruit," lit. "full dish," from fem. of satur "sated" (see saturate). First applied in literary sense to a collection of poems on a variety of subjects by Ennius. In classical L., a poem which assailed the prevailing vices, one after another. Altered in L. by infl. of Gk. satyr, on mistaken notion that the form is related to the Gk. satyr drama (see satyr)"

An etymology dictionary's purpose is not to define words, but to explore their origins. That's why this entry gives only a brief phrase, ignoring even that "satire" has multiple meanings, even needing two separate entries, one for the noun, one for the verb.

Further, you had to page down a third of the page, past other definitions that didn't suit you to lift that one line. Your Swift quote, btw (which comes from WordNet, a source you didn't name--and you lifted the example out of context without including the entry it illustrates), isn't even a definition, not even a "made-up" one---it's a metaphor, and it makes an ironic point, just as good satire does; mere summary and ridicule takes no skill and, as it has no observation to add, serves little purpose. The entry you excluded makes a simular point--stressing wit.

And finally, if you want to criticize how others use words, learn what they mean yourself. Perhaps a librarian can show you how to use the dictionary and what the various parts mean.

That's why discussing this with you is futile. Hope that helps clarify.

I knew it was only a matter of time before you resorted to outright fabrications.  I did not use either Dictionary.com, or WordNet, you've completely made that up as part of your desperate tap dance.
It is also very disingenuous to keep putting up definitions that support what I've said and making the straw claim that I disagreed with them.
Puts you in a very poor light to resort to such tactics. 

I did cite the online etymology dictionary, complete with link, despite all your claims to the contrary, and it still gives the relevant definition of satire... the same one you are in denial about.... satire is something created to ridicule.

I also mentioned the quote about satire as a mirror, properly crediting its author Johnathan Swift, and it is from the preface to one of his less well known volumes...so once again you are simply making things up. 
The fact that you think the second part (which is the chief  reason for that kind reception it meets in the world, and that so very few are offended with it) alters my applicaton of it, is the truest proof extant that you simply don't get satire...Swift was not being literal with that and you have proven yourself the poster child for the entire quote, just as you've pretty convincingly demonstrated that Obama magazine cover was targeted squarely at someone like you.

The only thing you are correct on, is the futility of continuing this until you muster up enough maturity to drop the high school debate team tricks, such as your fabrications and fallacies, and honestly deal with the fact that the references, both mine and yours, all support the assertion that satire is defined by the intent of the creator to ridicule someone or something.

quote:

I knew it was only a matter of time before you resorted to outright fabrications.  I did not use either Dictionary.com, or WordNet, you've completely made that up as part of your desperate tap dance. It is also very disingenuous to keep putting up definitions that support what I've said and making the straw claim that I disagreed with them. Puts you in a very poor light to resort to such tactics.  I did cite the online etymology dictionary, complete with link, despite all your claims to the contrary, and it still gives the relevant definition of satire... the same one you are in denial about.... satire is something created to ridicule. I also mentioned the quote about satire as a mirror, properly crediting its author Johnathan Swift, and it is from the preface to one of his less well known volumes...so once again you are simply making things up.  The fact that you think the second part (which is the chief  reason for that kind reception it meets in the world, and that so very few are offended with it) alters my applicaton of it, is the truest proof extant that you simply don't get satire...Swift was not being literal with that and you have proven yourself the poster child for the entire quote, just as you've pretty convincingly demonstrated that Obama magazine cover was targeted squarely at someone like you. The only thing you are correct on, is the futility of continuing this until you muster up enough maturity to drop the high school debate team tricks, such as your fabrications and fallacies, and honestly deal with the fact that the references, both mine and yours, all support the assertion that satire is defined by the intent of the creator to ridicule someone or something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

       I'm impressed, Musi. 

       I do wish you'd apply these same standards of disection to your own ability to speak conclusively on what is and is not satire, or declaring that attacking a position by creating a false premise to work from is not a strawman. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

        It's been a really long day, Tim, but maybe we have come far enough to wrap this up. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Strawman; your 'attic' example?  (Should you have cited a source for that?  It looks familiar.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

        I live as well as I can, Tim, and am grateful for every blessing.  Thanks for your good wishes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Outright fabrications? You mean this post where I assidiously referenced every statement? Anyone can visit dictionary.com (which, incidentally, is not exclusive content, but links to other sites) and read your definitions verbatim. In fact, since you never cited them, and certailnly never provided the link, despite your insistance, I found them by enclosing your literal quotes in quotation marks. Google did the rest. And anyone can check my references, as I've provided the information for them all. (You also misunderstand documentation, as listing Swift isn't the source, but rather where you found the quote.)

I've responded to your repeated taunts to show why what you presented is not definition. Your double standard, incidentally, ignores that you don't feel you need to dispute the authoritative references I quoted and cited--not to mention the logical fallacy of false burden of proof. And I even provided the link for my references.

Part of the problem here appears to be your reading comprehension. There's no doubt Swift if the author of that quote, and I certainly didn't contest it. What I DID note is that you used the quote out of context.

The quote IS, in fact, in WordNet. If you didn't get it there, then where? Despite your bluster, you've never provided your sources. Disingenuous indeed. I also pointed out TO YOU that Swift's statement was a metaphor--and by definition, thus, a figure of speech, and not literal.

High school debate team tactics? So far you've embarrassed yourself by demonstrating inadequate dictionary use skills. You threw in etymology when you clearly never delivered it or understood it, trying to accuse me of not knowing the word instead. Then there's your misuse of "definitive." Now we add to it inability to document sources.

Your bluster about fallacies is just laughable. Apparently, you are used to arguing points by throwing as much bullshit as possible. When called on it, you just switch to new bullshit, like a child making up the rules of the game as he goes alone.

Then you feel this demonstrates maturity. And you still insist an etymology dictionary provides definitions, even when the dictionary you admit using says it doesn't on its home page, as I've referenced and cited.

I think your words speak clearly for themselves.