The Order of Things......

[eFestivals]

Because dialogue doesn't refer to the person, it refers to the intersection of narratives making it a two way street.

As I say, you make yourself look a tit.

Wrong! It refers to a narrative, that can be from any number of people, including one. It's the exact same thing with diagram, which refers to a drawing in the same way (and just as with dialogue, there's monogram too).

And what is the definitive proof of this? The date that monologue came into use, and the much earlier date that dialogue came into use.

Tho I guess in worm's world, there never any way to refer to what was said by just one person until 'monologue' was coined. And I guess that a diagram is TWO drawings of something. And I guess that diameter is the distance across TWO circles.

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum.

Edited April 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Wrong! It refers to a narrative

[worm]

And what is the definitive proof of this? The date that monologue came into use, and the much earlier date that dialogue came into use.

[worm]

An author scripts a dialogue. That doesn't mean that he's having a dialogue. It means that his two characters are.

[eFestivals]

No it doesn't. It absolutely, definitely and without question refers to the intersection between two narrative strains. There is always a protagonist and an atagonist at work within the discourse being presented - always.

This is why Fry says what he says - because one person can both author and be the author of a dialogue as it does not, in any sense whatsoever, refer to the author - it refers to the dialogue being written by him, which is a two way street.

The reason monologue came into use was to seperate a dialogue (speaking to each other) from someone speaking into the abyss.

The date of monologue coming into existence has f**k all to do with anything. It simply means someone speaking into the abyss rather than in relation to someone else.

What utter shite you come up with.

An author scripts a dialogue. That doesn't mean that he's having a dialogue. It means that his two characters are.

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum.

[eFestivals]

It absolutely, definitely and without question refers to the intersection between two narrative strains.

so please do tell me what part of the word "dialogue" references "two", to make you correct.

Without there being a reference to "two" within the word you cannot possibly be correct.

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum.

[worm]

so please do tell me what part of the word "dialogue" references "two", to make you correct.

[worm]

You've based your entire argument on a quote made by Fry that you've used completely out of context, yet I'm wrong. I explain the correct context to you in full, yet I'm ignorant. You've told me that you wouldn't have a clue what it meant without Fry's comment, yet I'm winging it.

Whatever you say Jack.

[eFestivals]

Going in circles now are we. I've already told you three times.

It refers to an intersection of narratives. You can't intersect one narrative.

This is why you're such a fool.

It doesn't refer to two within the word, it refers to intersecting narrative strains. You can't intersect without two things.

International doesn't refer to two things either. But you can't have an international without two or more nations.

You're an idiot.

Stephen Fry and his Cambridge degree in English Literature is an idiot, and only worm the wing nut is right. Yeah, OK.

"intersecting"? Where's that from then? .... as ever, it's what you've made up from nothing.

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum.

[eFestivals]

You've based your entire argument on a quote made by Fry that you've used completely out of context.

For you to say that you'd have to know the original context - but you don't, do you?

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum

[eFestivals]

You've told me that you wouldn't have a clue what it meant without Fry's comment, yet I'm winging it.

What you mean is that there's no end to what you'll make up.

What I *ACTUALLY* said was that I'm not claiming to be an expert but am going on the word of someone with a hugely higher reputation for these things than your own.

As ever, you've made assumptions from that that I know nothing. As so often, you're wrong.

You initially made assumptions about "dia" referring to two. It doesn't. And so your self-proclaimed expertise is shown as worthless.

Then you corrupted what I said for the meaning of "dia", to try and proved yourself right from a basis of nothing.

You did these things because you simply cannot accept that you can ever be wrong, and your motivation is shown as proving yourself right in contradiction to the evidence rather than doing what a REAL academic does (which is to examine the evidence).

I made a stab - a guess - at how the word is formed. And guess what? My own analysis is proven as good, while your own is shown as driven by ignorance and prejudice and a refusal to look at the evidence.

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum

[worm]

Stephen Fry and his Cambridge degree in English Literature is an idiot, and only worm the wing nut is right. Yeah, OK.

"intersecting"? Where's that from then? .... as ever, it's what you've made up from nothing.

[worm]

For you to say that you'd have to know the original context - but you don't, do you?

Edited April 4, 2011 by worm

[worm]

What you mean is that there's no end to what you'll make up.

[worm]

You did these things because you simply cannot accept that you can ever be wrong, and your motivation is shown as proving yourself right in contradiction to the evidence rather than doing what a REAL academic does (which is to examine the evidence).

[eFestivals]

It's from me understanding what dialogue means.

So you say - but you're unable to say how it defines within it a reference to two or morer. Funny that, eh?

First off you said that "dia" referred to "two" or more than one. Now you've admitted that it doesn't. So you winged it with dia, that much it shown by your own posts.

Then you said it was a reference to "cross" - yet dia does not mean cross. So you winged it with dia a second time and got found out a second time.

Now you're saying it's referring to some sort of "intersecting". But you're unable to say how. Yet you say that you've an "understanding what dialogue means".

So say how, or say that you can't.

When you say how, please do remember to make reference to "across" or "through", the meaning of "dia".

But of course, what you say for "dia" needs to also work for "diagram", which a word of the same form as "dialogue", but where one refers to a string of words and the other to a picture.

And no, Fry's degree isn't an idiot. You're application of what he said is idiotic.

You say that, but first you'd have to know what he said in context. After all, you've already said that I've taken what he said out of context, so do you actually know the context (I do)?

If you don't know the context, then you saying I'm using it out of context would be you .... WINGING IT!!!!

So please do show how I've taken it out of context by you giving the original context, and then explaining how I've misunderstood that context.

Oh, and when you do these things to prove yourself so excellently right, none of that winging it, eh? That gets to show that you don't know shit.

[eFestivals]

Yes I do. The original context is the meaning of dialogue, which as I've told you is an intersection of narrative strains. That's what Fry's referring to when he says what he said.

For the fifth time:

One person can author a dialogue (as Fry states), but it requires two narrative strains.

Fry states no such thing.

The context is not as you say.

You're making it up with gross ignorance again.

[eFestivals]

You've stated clearly that all you're working from is Fry because you don't claim to be an expert in English. You're barely even a novice Chief.

No, I said something entirely different.

Unlike you, I'm not winging it.

I've actually done the research. It's you that it making it up, and showing you don't even make novice.

[worm]

So you say - but you're unable to say how it defines within it a reference to two or more.

[worm]

Fry states no such thing.

[eFestivals]

It's not about me. It's about the fact that dialogue refers to two or more narrative strains.

If it does that, then show me what within "dialogue" refers to two or more.

If it's all as easy as you claim then you can. So why haven't you? Why have you instead made up utter crap out of nothing?

Your analysis is wrong. Wrong because dialogue refers to two competing narrative strains and never one.

so show me what within "dialogue" refers to two or more.

You've been shown this in full (it's not complicated)

you've shown f**k all.

and how it applies to what Fry said,

you don't even know what he said.

What do you base your rejection on? The fact that you can't have me be right?

I base my rejection on research and experts. You base your rejection on arrogance and stupidity.

You didn't even know what 'dia' meant until I told you. You keep saying it refers to two or more, yet there's no such reference within the word.

[worm]

No, I said something entirely different.

Unlike you, I'm not winging it.

I've actually done the research. It's you that it making it up, and showing you don't even make novice.

[eFestivals]

I have done this many, many times.

''It refers to an intersection of narratives. You can't intersect one narrative.''

It refers to getting across something that is spoken. That's one narrative.

It doesn't refer to an intersection of anything. You don't know shit, wing-nut.

[eFestivals]

Show me evidence of a dialogue without two narrative strains then.

How can I show you evidence of something when we can't agree on what the something is?

That's how f**king thick you really are.

[worm]

If it does that, then show me what within "dialogue" refers to two or more.