And this is why I'm not on the Internet of Things:

[bwat]

What on earth has concerns about the usefulness of internet-connected cat feeders to do with freedom?

You might want to read more carefully.

[Tor]

What on earth has concerns about the usefulness of internet-connected cat feeders to do with freedom?

You might want to read more carefully.

I did, and I re-did that, very carefully. Please explain.

[bwat]

What on earth has concerns about the usefulness of internet-connected cat feeders to do with freedom?

You might want to read more carefully.

I did, and I re-did that, very carefully. Please explain.

Nobody has made the claim you referer to. Read the posts as the dialogue it is. There is a sequence of emergent understanding (The very definition of dialogue - dialogos) you haven’t grasped.

[Tor]

Nobody has made the claim you referer to. Read the posts as the dialogue it is. There is a sequence of emergent understanding (The very definition of dialogue - dialogos) you haven’t grasped.

Oh come on. I *did* read the dialogue. You didn't grasp my reply. I asked *what* did the comment about freedom refer to, which happened in a thread about [IoT]? Certainly nothing in the post where you wrote that. So, what was it, exactly? *That's* what I asked.

[bwat]

I asked *what* did the comment about freedom refer to

You didn’t.

[Nanohedron]

Give me strength. If we're that thick, then do us a favor and elucidate. Otherwise, stop being so coy. It's juvenile.

[bwat]

Give me strength. If we're that thick, then do us a favor and elucidate. Otherwise, stop being so coy. It's juvenile.

How am I supposed to elucidate when I'm confronted by such confusion?

I first get asked:

What on earth has concerns about the usefulness of internet-connected cat feeders to do with freedom?

Then when that was answered, with a mu-esque 'you're asking the wrong question', I get

I asked *what* did the comment about freedom refer to

That's two different questions. Trust me, I'm not the one who has a problem with lucidity!

[Nanohedron]

I first get asked:

What on earth has concerns about the usefulness of internet-connected cat feeders to do with freedom?

Then when that was answered, with a mu-esque 'you're asking the wrong question', I get

I asked *what* did the comment about freedom refer to

That's two different questions. Trust me, I'm not the one who has a problem with lucidity!

You are hiding behind the skirts of nitpickery, sir, and dealing in smoke and mirrors. You're demanding syntactical rigor in a virtual Pub, of all places, and if that mischance of venue weren't enough, the Pub lays claim to being Poststructural (whatever that means in a niche-interests music website with a capriciously abstruse name). Given that the term's used outside of its natural habitat, you might as well take it to mean that structure holds only so much sway here. As in a real pub: When it's close enough for horseshoes, you go with that. Insist on peer review, and you sit alone. While the locals admire knowledge and a good wit, splitting hairs wears thin fast, so when we nitpick here, we admit we're nitpicking. It's just good form, and the Chiffly Way. Lucidity as an argument, though - I'm not buying it. It's a dodge that casts doubt on your ability to make reasoned cases. You really know that Tor is meaning the same thing either way, so how is it you would have us think you are a person of intellectual means, yet you say you don't have the means? It's a wonderment. But pick one question over the other, then, if both together put you in an analytical fuddle. Think of it as an exercise in focus. Spoiler alert: I suspect the meat of your answer will apply equally to either one. Maybe it'll blow your mind.

As for characterizing one of your answers as "mu-esque", that hubris probably earns you 500 rebirths as a fox. What will you do now?

[Tor]

I'll try to consolidate my question to this, then: What, exactly, did the "you’re not big on freedom." comment refer to?

[benhall.1]

That's two different questions. Trust me, I'm not the one who has a problem with lucidity!

Lucidity is in the mind of the reader and, to this reader, your posts on this have been far from lucid. In fact, they appear to me to be deliberately obfuscatory. So I think I'll pass on trusting you.

[bwat]

That's two different questions. Trust me, I'm not the one who has a problem with lucidity!

Lucidity is in the mind of the reader and, to this reader, your posts on this have been far from lucid. In fact, they appear to me to be deliberately obfuscatory. So I think I'll pass on trusting you.

Others better able to create valid interpretations of my argument may beg to differ. But of course it is all relative.

[bwat]

I'll try to consolidate my question to this, then: What, exactly, did the "you’re not big on freedom." comment refer to?

Legimiticy and who decides it. This was later corrected by Nanohedron who pointed out I had the wrong end of the stick. As you can probably see your first question was completely invalid which is why I asked you to read more carefully and as I said I got the wrong end of the stick which is why I pointed out it has to be read as a dialogue with an emergent understanding.

[bwat]

You're demanding syntactical rigor in a virtual Pub

In the absence of any mind reading skills I demand it everywhere!

[Nanohedron]

You're demanding syntactical rigor in a virtual Pub

In the absence of any mind reading skills I demand it everywhere!

I think there's a lot to be said for flexibility. In many languages, including English, there can be numerous ways to say the same thing; in effect, syntax merely functions as a shell. Some shells are stronger than others; some are simpler where others are more ornate. Some are even mischaracterized: for example, some people call mussels clams. But in the end it hardly matters, for if you want sustenance, be it cockle, spondylus, or misnamed, the sensible thing is to recognize the shell as only a shell, and go for what's within. What's left is discards, fodder for the midden heap; otherwise as far as the stomach's concerned, taxonomy is crucial only to the naturalist. Putting aside molluscular analogies, syntax's greatest use, and playground, is in the art of writing.

"The dog chased the rabbit", "The rabbit was chased by the dog", "The rabbit fled for its life with a dog close behind", and "A dog and rabbit raced by, hunter and quarry" are all syntactically different, but the fundamental meaning remains the same.

Ah, the delights of thread drift...

[Tor]

I'll try to consolidate my question to this, then: What, exactly, did the "you’re not big on freedom." comment refer to?

Legimiticy and who decides it. This was later corrected by Nanohedron who pointed out I had the wrong end of the stick. As you can probably see your first question was completely invalid which is why I asked you to read more carefully and as I said I got the wrong end of the stick which is why I pointed out it has to be read as a dialogue with an emergent understanding.

So the only thing I can conclude is that there wasn't anything in the thread that qualified for the "not big on freedom" remark. Which is why I originally asked, because I couldn't find any reason. No wonder, as there wasn't any.