Your own example is between examples 1 and 3, under the definition that "it is greater than the first and smaller than the second", meaning not equal to, meaning not inclusive.
Clearly not as children ages 6 and 12 are included in the competition. Hell a kid could be 12.999 and still be included yet greater than 12. Pedantry and semantics.
Interesting, instead of offering any evidence you resort to powerful and denigrating language. Because you are using 'semantics' in way that shows your disapproval of semantics. Yet semantics is a valid field within linguistics and is at the core of this discussion.
Shows me that your understanding of 'semantics' is about as accurate as your understanding of 'between'.
When in Rome. It also helps people understand how it’s wrong when they have to disprove you and themselves to make the argument stand.
Nothing to understand, it's a rule that can be applied. I have given you 2 sources. Read them.
Arguing with 3 people, give me the cliff notes.
P.S. the first sentance was evidence you choose to ignore, likely due to the bias blinding you.
I am still waiting for the answers to my question, but ill give you more, what is between your ears? is it your ears or is it a brain? If you sit between Paul and Mike, are you sitting on them?
Your own example is between examples 1 and 3, under the definition that "it is greater than the first and smaller than the second", meaning not equal to, meaning not inclusive.
Clearly not as children ages 6 and 12 are included in the competition. Hell a kid could be 12.999 and still be included yet greater than 12. Pedantry and semantics.
Interesting, instead of offering any evidence you resort to powerful and denigrating language. Because you are using 'semantics' in way that shows your disapproval of semantics. Yet semantics is a valid field within linguistics and is at the core of this discussion.
Shows me that your understanding of 'semantics' is about as accurate as your understanding of 'between'.
When in Rome. It also helps people understand how it’s wrong when they have to disprove you and themselves to make the argument stand.
Nothing to understand, it's a rule that can be applied. I have given you 2 sources. Read them.
Arguing with 3 people, give me the cliff notes.
P.S. the first sentance was evidence you choose to ignore, likely to to the bias blinding you.
The first sentence was not evidence. It was your opinion of what the sentence means, not what it actually means. That's not bias, but observation. Got more? Show me a source that supports your argument. Without sources your evidence will remain in the realm of opinion. But ad hom to you too.
Additionally, by asking for the cliffnotes you revealed more to your detriment than to your advantage.
So if a train runs between New York and Maine then it doesn’t include New York or Maine, got it, wait...
Actually, it is generally understood that this is an ambiguity of English (and many languages). We board the train in New York. The train runs within the interval between New York and Maine, and it stops in Maine. Is it running in Maine or is it stopping in Maine? The answer is that is not a question with a precise answer in normal English. Especially because "Maine" is a location when talking about the entire map of the United States, but isn't a specific location when talking about something the size of a train.
You are exiting the realm of discussing the semantics of English and entering the realm of discussing the philosophy of Zeno's paradoxes.
So do not get on that train if New York or Maine is your destination because you’re not able to disembark at either, got it.
But to go with the semantics of your argument if a bus runs bewtween 7am and 9PM you’re screwed if you need to board at 7am and unable to use it at 9 o’clock. Beware folks.
No that’s not how it works. FFS bewteen is commonly used to include the end points. Stores don’t open at 7am and close at 9pm but say thier hours of operation are between 6 and 10.
Just because something is commonly used that way does not make it correct, again literally is commonly used as figuratively:
"I just literally did that"
Those phases used to be "from 7am to 9pm", but between is typically ok here because we do not generally count time in just hours, but in minutes and even seconds, and people do not generally open at 7:01. It is ambiguous, but not unreasonably so.
Again semantics but to play along. “No that’s not how it works. FFS bewteen isalso used to include the end points.” Stores don’t open at 7am and close at 9pm but say thier hours of operation are between 6 and 10.
The hours include 7 but exclude anything after 9 just like ST.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA sorry, but my 15yo students would pick your points and argumentation apart.
People under your tutelage would follow your reasoning? What does that prove when the tutor is in the wrong to begin with?
Where was I wrong?
Working backwards here after saying, between has multiple definitions and in the case of ST the definition is easily inferred. This makes the argument that it is somehow technically wrong is moot/wrong. If our electrons (hell even our time) had value this wouldn’t be a debate.
1) “Interesting, instead of offering any evidence you resort to powerful and denigrating language.”
The first statement is evidence showing how people are using defintions that exclusively fit thier beliefs at the exclusion of other possibilities, sort of like a false dichotomy.
2)”Now you are just trolling. The evidence is given to you. You don't deliver any objective evidence, but refuse to admit you were wrong (which is not a weakness...). We can't debate like this, good day sir.”
Fallatic argumentation from the ad hom at the start.
Evidence presented from 3rd party sources and dismissed by you does not mean it didn’t happen.
You obviously can debate like this as you are continuing to.
Hey there, Sabretooth's ability allows him to gain either 3, 4, 5, or 6 Persistent Charges if he starts the fight with 0 Persistent Charges. I'm gonna be closing this down since people are starting to take this off the rails and make it personal with each other.
Comments
I am still waiting for the answers to my question, but ill give you more, what is between your ears? is it your ears or is it a brain? If you sit between Paul and Mike, are you sitting on them?
The first sentence was not evidence. It was your opinion of what the sentence means, not what it actually means. That's not bias, but observation. Got more? Show me a source that supports your argument. Without sources your evidence will remain in the realm of opinion. But ad hom to you too.
Additionally, by asking for the cliffnotes you revealed more to your detriment than to your advantage.
1) “Interesting, instead of offering any evidence you resort to powerful and denigrating language.”
The first statement is evidence showing how people are using defintions that exclusively fit thier beliefs at the exclusion of other possibilities, sort of like a false dichotomy.
2)”Now you are just trolling. The evidence is given to you. You don't deliver any objective evidence, but refuse to admit you were wrong (which is not a weakness...). We can't debate like this, good day sir.”
Fallatic argumentation from the ad hom at the start.
Evidence presented from 3rd party sources and dismissed by you does not mean it didn’t happen.
You obviously can debate like this as you are continuing to.
Im not back tracking anymore at this time.
Anyways back to playing. Good luck.