if you know

Sort:
taots_11

im sorry about the last game borgqueen,because im in the library,and im getting run out of time.at least i say good bye before the computer turn off by itself.

contrapunctus

I'm not theGrobe but the notion of strategic exemplifies to an especial entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of strategy. Laughing

Whereas strategy is just freakin strategy.

TheGrobe

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Eebster
contrapunctus wrote:

I'm not theGrobe but the notion of strategic exemplifies to an especial entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of strategy.

Whereas strategy is just freakin strategy.


Just ignore this kurogkug. Nothing to see here . . . move along. If you can't understand it, that's because it makes no sense.

For what it's worth:

Even if "especial" were a word, that sentence wouldn't be grammatically correct. First of all, you make two use-mention errors by not appropriately punctuating "strategic" and "strategy;" they should be in quotation marks, since you are discussing the words not the concepts they represent. Furthermore, "strategic" is an adjective, not a noun, so "notion of 'strategic' " does not make sense as you used it. Also, "exemplifies to" is not a coherent phrase--"exemplify" is a transitive verb, so it should take a direct object, not a participial phrase.

Even if I assume you meant to say: "I'm not TheGrobe, but the word 'strategic' exemplifies a special entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of 'strategy,' "the sentence is totally nonsensical. But that is another matter.

contrapunctus
Eebster wrote:
contrapunctus wrote:

I'm not theGrobe but the notion of strategic exemplifies to an especial entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of strategy.

Whereas strategy is just freakin strategy.


Just ignore this kurogkug. Nothing to see here . . . move along. If you can't understand it, that's because it makes no sense.

For what it's worth:

Even if "especial" were a word, that sentence wouldn't be grammatically correct. First of all, you make two use-mention errors by not appropriately punctuating "strategic" and "strategy;" they should be in quotation marks, since you are discussing the words not the concepts they represent. Furthermore, "strategic" is an adjective, not a noun, so "notion of 'strategic' " does not make sense as you used it. Also, "exemplifies to" is not a coherent phrase--"exemplify" is a transitive verb, so it should take a direct object, not a participial phrase.

Even if I assume you meant to say: "I'm not TheGrobe, but the word 'strategic' exemplifies a special entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of 'strategy,' "the sentence is totally nonsensical. But that is another matter.


Did you really take that seriously? I just strung a whole heap of words from the thesaurus... btw "especial" is actually a word if you search it up Wink

IbongMandaragit

well i got something here ... at least.

goodsoul

We all know, but our strategy is to not tell you. That is a strategic reply, intended to strategically position the forum for your next question. :) No offense. Just having a bit of fun while, showing, not telling. Got it? Cheers.

Gomer_Pyle

Ah, so that's our strategem. Interesting tactic.

funkeymoves

Hip, hip hurray to kurogkog!  Now, your strategy comes into fruition.  Take the opportunity to learn 'strategy' move by move with BG.  Have fun!  Smile

PrawnEatsPrawn
AnthonyCG wrote:

So is this thread really over???


Are you kidding? I doubt very much that Kurokug has finished his research regarding "strategic". I can almost feel the next obscure question welling up in him now.

Eebster
contrapunctus wrote:
Eebster wrote:
contrapunctus wrote:

I'm not theGrobe but the notion of strategic exemplifies to an especial entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of strategy.

Whereas strategy is just freakin strategy.


Just ignore this kurogkug. Nothing to see here . . . move along. If you can't understand it, that's because it makes no sense.

For what it's worth:

Even if "especial" were a word, that sentence wouldn't be grammatically correct. First of all, you make two use-mention errors by not appropriately punctuating "strategic" and "strategy;" they should be in quotation marks, since you are discussing the words not the concepts they represent. Furthermore, "strategic" is an adjective, not a noun, so "notion of 'strategic' " does not make sense as you used it. Also, "exemplifies to" is not a coherent phrase--"exemplify" is a transitive verb, so it should take a direct object, not a participial phrase.

Even if I assume you meant to say: "I'm not TheGrobe, but the word 'strategic' exemplifies a special entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of 'strategy,' "the sentence is totally nonsensical. But that is another matter.


Did you really take that seriously? I just strung a whole heap of words from the thesaurus... btw "especial" is actually a word if you search it up


If you had just wanted incomprehensibility, you could have gone with Derrida:

"As soon as I enter into a relation with the absolute other my absolute singularity enters into relation with his on the level of obligation and duty. I am responsible to the other as other, I answer to him and I answer for what I do before him. But of course, what binds me thus in my singularity to the absolute singularity of the other, immediately propels me into the space or risk of absolute sacrifice. There are also others, an infinite number of them, the innumerable generality of others to whom I should be bound by the same responsibility, a general and universal responsibility. I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrificing the other other, the other others. As a result, the concepts of responsibility, of decision, or of duty are condemned a priori to a paradox, scandal, and aporia."

From Jacques Derrida's The Gift of Death, as translated by David Willis, Chicago 1995, p. 68.

contrapunctus
Eebster wrote:
contrapunctus wrote:
Eebster wrote:
contrapunctus wrote:

I'm not theGrobe but the notion of strategic exemplifies to an especial entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of strategy.

Whereas strategy is just freakin strategy.


Just ignore this kurogkug. Nothing to see here . . . move along. If you can't understand it, that's because it makes no sense.

For what it's worth:

Even if "especial" were a word, that sentence wouldn't be grammatically correct. First of all, you make two use-mention errors by not appropriately punctuating "strategic" and "strategy;" they should be in quotation marks, since you are discussing the words not the concepts they represent. Furthermore, "strategic" is an adjective, not a noun, so "notion of 'strategic' " does not make sense as you used it. Also, "exemplifies to" is not a coherent phrase--"exemplify" is a transitive verb, so it should take a direct object, not a participial phrase.

Even if I assume you meant to say: "I'm not TheGrobe, but the word 'strategic' exemplifies a special entity in which it subsumes the idiosyncrasy of 'strategy,' "the sentence is totally nonsensical. But that is another matter.


Did you really take that seriously? I just strung a whole heap of words from the thesaurus... btw "especial" is actually a word if you search it up


If you had just wanted incomprehensibility, you could have gone with Derrida:

"As soon as I enter into a relation with the absolute other my absolute singularity enters into relation with his on the level of obligation and duty. I am responsible to the other as other, I answer to him and I answer for what I do before him. But of course, what binds me thus in my singularity to the absolute singularity of the other, immediately propels me into the space or risk of absolute sacrifice. There are also others, an infinite number of them, the innumerable generality of others to whom I should be bound by the same responsibility, a general and universal responsibility. I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrificing the other other, the other others. As a result, the concepts of responsibility, of decision, or of duty are condemned a priori to a paradox, scandal, and aporia."

From Jacques Derrida's The Gift of Death, as translated by David Willis, Chicago 1995, p. 68.


Pretty good, but

The use of complicated wording as an overall literary technique needs to encompass  graphic and individual comprehension to allow the reader to become acquainted with the unique terminological aspects employed by the author whilst not detracting from the application of the  specific innuendos influencing the particular methods involved which reflect the tone of the major works in question, thereby altering the quality of the outcome.

luis3141

BorgQueen, you can always uncheck the "Auto-Win on Time" option.

Eebster
contrapunctus wrote:
Eebster wrote: If you had just wanted incomprehensibility, you could have gone with Derrida:

"As soon as I enter into a relation with the absolute other my absolute singularity enters into relation with his on the level of obligation and duty. I am responsible to the other as other, I answer to him and I answer for what I do before him. But of course, what binds me thus in my singularity to the absolute singularity of the other, immediately propels me into the space or risk of absolute sacrifice. There are also others, an infinite number of them, the innumerable generality of others to whom I should be bound by the same responsibility, a general and universal responsibility. I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrificing the other other, the other others. As a result, the concepts of responsibility, of decision, or of duty are condemned a priori to a paradox, scandal, and aporia."

From Jacques Derrida's The Gift of Death, as translated by David Willis, Chicago 1995, p. 68.


Pretty good, but

The use of complicated wording as an overall literary technique needs to encompass  graphic and individual comprehension to allow the reader to become acquainted with the unique terminological aspects employed by the author whilst not detracting from the application of the  specific innuendos influencing the particular methods involved which reflect the tone of the major works in question, thereby altering the quality of the outcome.


That not only makes sense, but is also true. Perhaps a bit hypocritical, but not as badly as you think; I understood it, at least. Of course, some of the words (e.g. "innuendos") were misapplied, this didn't destroy the overall meaning of the paragraph.

girolamo

Watching the game finally played is awesome, but now we need more, BorgQueen: the complete, unabridged chat during the game!

Gomer_Pyle

This will probably be the most watched game in chess.com history.

 

Rah, rah, rah (shush, you kibitzer!!)

greatmac

put your piece at the right place

taots_11

i read your comment eebster,but i cannot understand what are you saying.some of your words is to profound,can you give me a simple example in the sentence about what is the difference between the word strategic and strategy.I WAIT TO YOUR RESPONSE AGAIN EEBSTER.

taots_11

I READ YOUR COMMENT CONTRAPUNCTUS,BUT CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORD STRATEGIC AND STRATEGY?.I WAIT AGAIN TO YOUR RESPONSE.

taots_11

IM PLAYING RIGHT NOW BORGQUEEN,WHERE YOU AT?.

This forum topic has been locked