NationStates Jolt Archive

And "to be made public" fitted that context, hence aired was a valid term. To post something on the website makes it public, hence it is aired.
our interpretation was to see it as meaning TV or radio. However, aired is a broad term, as your wine bottle examples showed, hence aired can be interpreted in many ways. The fact you chose one meaning and the person who made the initial post another does not make you right. Afterall, the initial post determined the context, until that person confirms their context neither you or I are right. I am pointing out that your narrow definition used to attack the original comment was not justified as the term aired can be applied to what moveon.org did with the ad on their website. The definition used shows that. You can keep dribbling on about your perceived context but you do not determine context, the person who posted the original post does.
"To make public" is a reference to something previously private or held back, as in 'to air greivances' or to 'air someones dirty laundry.' You do realise why they give those little examples under the number of definitions, right? So that you know which definition to use IN WHICH CONTEXT. So you don't stop reading the definition when you get something that seems apporpriate, you keep reading to the next one that applies to the subject matter, like when you're talking about ads, aired means to be broadcast. When you select an inapropriate definition that may be technically true but isn't appropriate in the context because of the impression it gives, it is an equivocation. You are giving a false impression, because the context determines the definition. And no, the context is not 'made public,' the context and the definition can't be the same thing. Don't you see yourself doing that? You keep insisting that the definition is the context. It doesn't work that way. One has to come before the other. Otherwise language is a trainwreck. But it's not, because context determines the definition, and when you use a technically correct definition that does not fit the context, there is even a term for it-because it works? No, because it doesn't work. Because it creates a false impression. It is in fact, incorrect.

So no, again. Moveon.org did not air the ad. Quite trying to equivocate.

Ok, moveon.org didn't "air" the ad.

Did they make the ad available for public viewing?

Ok, moveon.org didn't "air" the ad.

Did they make the ad available for public viewing?
rif

rif
Im still new to the world of public forums..
What is rif?

I guess it depends on your definition of "is" or "did" or "was" or "I"....

Don't you guys think you've strayed just a teensy weensy bit from the point?

Im still new to the world of public forums..
What is rif?
rif (http://www.rif.org/)

It means do your own catch up. I'm not going to retread for you.

rif (http://www.rif.org/)

It means do your own catch up. I'm not going to retread for you.
Thank you for that bit of edification.

What I do see is a whole bunch of pages arguing over the definition of the word "aired".

So we all agree that moveon.org made those ad's available for public viewing.

Now what's the argument again?

Thank you for that bit of edification.

What I do see is a whole bunch of pages arguing over the definition of the word "aired".

So we all agree that moveon.org made those ad's available for public viewing.

Now what's the argument again?

Fox News aired footage of the 9/11 attacks. By your argument, this in some way means Fox endorses or is somewhat connected to the WTC attack.

In other words, you are holding moveon.org responsible for something they did not write, produce or endorse which showed up on their website.

Fox News aired footage of the 9/11 attacks. By your argument, this in some way means Fox endorses or is somewhat connected to the WTC attack.

In other words, you are holding moveon.org responsible for something they did not write, produce or endorse which showed up on their website.

No, they do not say moveon.org endorsed the ad, only that they made it public on their website.

I guess it depends on your definition of "is" or "did" or "was" or "I"....

Don't you guys think you've strayed just a teensy weensy bit from the point?

Yes, we have drifted from the point a little.

Thank you for that bit of edification.

What I do see is a whole bunch of pages arguing over the definition of the word "aired".

So we all agree that moveon.org made those ad's available for public viewing.


Yes, we all agree on that, seems some feel it is important to use only certain words to describe the act of making the ad public. I feel "aired" is appropriate, others think it is equivocating. I don't see the problem with it but people get very defensive about their little political movements.

As you can see they try and say that "aired" somehow implies that moveon.org endorses the ad, but apparently "posted" does not. Anyway, I think we have all worked out that moveon.org made the ad public and that as aired can mean "to make public" that it was an appropriate word to use. If some people want to take that word out of context and take exception to it then thats their problem.

No, they do not say moveon.org endorsed the ad, only that they made it public on their website.

Ah, but they use the Hitler ad as a sign of moveon.org's unreliability. At this point, we have determined that this is at best a non-issue, so I hope we don't hear any more harping on the subject.

Well golly, since the fact that the ad was posted was admitted, like, long before this stupid argument, something is really clear.

You seem completely incapable of understanding a simple fact:

Creating a technical truth that is misleading is an equivocation. For the umpteenth time, context determines the definition. I am baffled that you are unable to see that. Perhaps you are an auditory learner. Should we record it for you? Perhaps a diagram? Maybe if we made a little film that demonstrates that when you say 'aired' when talking about an ad, it means broadcast on television and radio just like when you say aired when talking about a wine it means exposed to air. If I started selling that wine, distributing it and tried to demonstrate that I was doing that by saying I aired it-everyone would think I opened the wine and have no idea that I meant selling it to the public. Why? Because I used the wrong word in the wrong context. It doesn't matter in the least what I 'intended.' I created a false impression.

Just like you create a false impression when you say Moveon.org aired the ad, which despite whatever intention you want to place on the sentence, is incorrect, because aired implies something in the context. But we've been over this. and over this. So help us help you. What kind of learner are you? Maybe a song?

Doesn't it even phase you a little that there is a term for what you are doing?


So much hot air. To you "aired" implies TV and radio. As the word does also mean "to make public" it is an appropriate word and not misleading. If you want to read more into the word than necessary and get upset about it then thats your problem. You can rehash your context rants all you like. You have confirmed that "aired" is appropriate as you have reconfirmed that moveon.org made the ad public (yes, that was determined long ago) which means aired is a perfectly appropriate term.

Do you have anything new to add to this?

So much hot air. To you "aired" implies TV and radio. As the word does also mean "to make public" it is an appropriate word and not misleading. If you want to read more into the word than necessary and get upset about it then thats your problem. You can rehash your context rants all you like. You have confirmed that "aired" is appropriate as you have reconfirmed that moveon.org made the ad public (yes, that was determined long ago) which means aired is a perfectly appropriate term.

Do you have anything new to add to this?
If you are interested in the truth of what happened, you say that the ad was posted, it is an appropriate and accurate term. If you are interested in creating a false impression, you say they aired the ad and then when you get called on it use an equivical definition to defend yourself. If you create a false impression, expect to get called on it. It is not the correct term to use in this context. If you shove your fingers too far into your ears you might cause serious damage. It's not just 'to me,' by your own admission many people got the impression that when the poster you claim to be defending used the word aired it implied broadcast. That's because that is the definition that is apropriate. It is not an appropriate term for what happened.

I'll come up with something new when you do.

LIAR
about bush being hitler, or about him saying bush is not hitler?

Ah, but they use the Hitler ad as a sign of moveon.org's unreliability. At this point, we have determined that this is at best a non-issue, so I hope we don't hear any more harping on the subject.

The airing of the ad on their website was in error, I have acknowledged that. I am not arguing whether moveon.org is reliable or not. Only that the "a-word" was appropriate. Therefore attacking a person for using a word that was in context and appropriate because some people have decided to add their own context is unfair.
Thats all I was trying to point out. Obviously some people cannot get their head around such a concept.
I do agree that this has gone on for far too long. I return you now to the original programme:

"moveon.org scum release latest scummy ad."

Disclaimer: Tygaland did not start this topic and is not responsible for the thread title nor its sentiments.

The airing of the ad on their website was in error, I have acknowledged that. I am not arguing whether moveon.org is reliable or not. Only that the "a-word" was appropriate. Therefore attacking a person for using a word that was in context and appropriate because some people have decided to add their own context is unfair.
Thats all I was trying to point out. Obviously some people cannot get their head around such a concept.
I do agree that this has gone on for far too long. I return you now to the original programme:

"moveon.org scum release latest scummy ad."

Disclaimer: Tygaland did not start this topic and is not responsible for the thread title nor its sentiments.

lol. Good form!

The posting of the ad on their website was in error, I have acknowledged that. I am not arguing whether moveon.org is reliable or not. Only that the "a-word" was appropriate. Therefore attacking a person for using a word that was in context and appropriate because some people have decided to add their own context is unfair.
Thats all I was trying to point out. Obviously some people cannot get their head around such a concept.
I do agree that this has gone on for far too long. I return you now to the original programme:

"moveon.org scum release latest scummy ad."

Disclaimer: Tygaland did not start this topic and is not responsible for the thread title nor its sentiments.
There, all fixed. Now it's honest and unambigous.

Some people just can't understand that context determines definitions, not the other way around. They have a word for that when it happens.

(Looks at the moveon.org ad) I aint surprised this coming from a group that consider Bush to Hitler when their nothing alike.

Thats right, Bush has god on his side.