Knot vs Barrett and Ausar Re: Perfunctory/Cursory


What began as an attempt by me to introduce a new word to Barret, a word synonymous with the word he had just used in conversation - "cursory", turned into a debate over the admissibility of the synonym I introduced, partly because Barrett was stoned and just wanted to argue (Ausar aka Modal jumped in as well), and partly because Barrett and Ausar just didn't want to lose (which they absolutely did, as will be shown below). The disingenuousness and intentional obtuseness of both of them in this debate shows how even intelligent, rational people can be so beguiled with winning, that they lose all rationality and descend into repeated, egregious logical fallacy.

The conversation/debate is pasted in its entirety, with irrelevant comments from other chatters deleted, for clarity. I've added my own further comments in red at specific points to further elaborate some points, and to indicate the obtuseness, disingenuosness of both Barrett and Ausar, to argue such a trivial point, but also to show the sheer unmitigated audacity of both, in attempting to win an argument using fallacy and attempted ridicule, when arguing from a preposterous position. Enjoy



To begin, let's go to the dictionary.com defintions (that were cited by both sides in this argument) of the two words under consideration in this debate - "cursory" and "perfunctory":


cur·so·ry

–adjective
going rapidly over something, without noticing details; hasty; superficial: a cursory glance at a newspaper article.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cursory


and from the thesaurus for cursory:

cursory

Main Entry: cursory

Definition: casual, hasty

Synonyms: brief, careless, depthless, desultory, fast, half-assed, half-baked, haphazard, hit or miss, hurried, offhand, passing, perfunctory, quick, random, rapid, shallow, short, sketchy, slapdash, slight, sloppy, speedy, summary, superficial, swift, uncritical

http://thesaurus.com/browse/cursory



per·func·to·ry


–adjective
1.
performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial: perfunctory courtesy.
2.
lacking interest, care, or enthusiasm; indifferent or apathetic: In his lectures he reveals himself to be merely a perfunctory speaker.


World English Dictionary

— adj
1. done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory
2. dull or indifferent


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfunctory

and from the thesaurus for pefunctory:

perfunctory
- 10 of 21 thesaurus results
Main Entry: perfunctory
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: automatic, unthinking
Synonyms: apathetic, careless, cool, cursory, disinterested, going through the motions, heedless, impersonal, inattentive, indifferent, involuntary, lackadaisical, laid-back*, mechanical, negligent, offhand, phoning it in, routine, sketchy, slipshod, slovenly, standard, stereotyped, stock, superficial, unaware, unconcerned, uninterested, usual, walking through it, wooden

http://thesaurus.com/browse/perfunctory









05:38:22 <BEAR000> I think I took a cursory glance at the history already
05:39:18 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory glance is another good word
05:41:49 <BEAR000> But It wasn't perfunctory it was cursory

First mistake, Barrett. Because cursory is used to define perfunctory, then ANYthing that was done cursorily, is also done perfunctorily, by definition.

05:42:22 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they are synonymous
05:42:29 <BEAR000> with small differences
05:42:33 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> very little
05:42:35 <BEAR000> enough

No, the differences are irrelevant, as we'll soon see.

05:42:46 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> both have 'hasty' as a definition
05:43:00 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> or something similar
05:43:29 <BEAR000> It's true, my glance was hasty, but it was not routine, or duty
05:43:47 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory - 1. done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory
05:43:47 <BEAR000> So perfunctory doesn't describe it as accurate as cursory
05:43:57 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> World English Dictionary
05:44:02 <BEAR000> Aye
05:44:11 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> cursory defines perfunctory
05:44:17 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they are synonymous
05:44:20 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> interchangeable
05:44:42 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> despite the slight disparites, for the meaning u used it for, they are interchangeable
05:44:44 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> so there.
05:45:11 <BEAR000> going rapidly over something, without noticing details; hasty; superficial
05:45:18 <BEAR000> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cursory
05:45:27 <BEAR000> The differences are great enough to deserve distinction
05:45:32 <BEAR000> That's why they're different words
05:45:36 <BEAR000> and why I like cursory
05:45:38 <BEAR000> So there

This isn't a point at all. Because the word perfunctory carries other connotations over and above, but including that of "cursory" doesn't at all mean that when using the word perfunctory, that all connotations are implied. Here, Barrett is trying to disclude the use of the word perfunctory in place of cursory, because it carries an extra connotation that he didn't impute. This is totally irrelevant. Why? Let's take an example of another word, then, some random word from the dictionary that carries multiple connotations...


Let's look at the word "dull" which is shown here from dictionary.com as having 9 connotations:


dull

–adjective
1. not sharp; blunt: a dull knife.
2. causing boredom; tedious; uninteresting: a dull sermon.
3. not lively or spirited; listless.
4. not bright, intense, or clear; dim: a dull day; a dull sound.
5. having very little depth of color; lacking in richness or intensity of color.
6. slow in motion or action; not brisk; sluggish: a dull day in the stock market.
7. mentally slow; lacking brightness of mind; somewhat stupid; obtuse.
8. lacking keenness of perception in the senses or feelings; insensible; unfeeling.
9. not intense or acute: a dull pain.

Now, if I wanted to use the word dull, to describe someone whose perception was lacking, would I be wrong to employ this word because it carries connotations other than "lacking perception"? Of course not. When we use words, we impute onto them not ALL the connotations listed. Never are we imputing ALL of the connotations listed for a word. We are only imputing the connotation we want to impute upon it, from the dictionary. Because it carries other, separate connotations is totally irrelevant. How does anyone know which connotation I'm imputing on the word "dull" when I'm using it? - only by the context in which I'm using it. The fraction of words in English which carry more than one connotation is STAGGERINGLY VAST. The only way we can ever know which connotation is being employed is by the context in which it's used.

Notice that the 7th connotation of "dull" uses the word "obtuse" to define it. Let's now define "obtuse" as well:

1. mentally slow or emotionally insensitive
2. maths a. (of an angle) lying between 90° and 180°
b. (of a triangle) having one interior angle greater than 90°
3. not sharp or pointed
4. indistinctly felt, heard, etc; dull: obtuse pain
5. (of a leaf or similar flat part) having a rounded or blunt tip


Now let's look at an example of using these two synonymous words, which carry similar and differing connotations, depending on their contexts: "dull" and "obtuse"

"Those two fellas are pretty dull because they failed the test."

Can you guess which connotation of "dull" I'm using? It's quite obvious that the connotations being imputed here are numbers 7 and 8 for "dull" from above, but definitely not... say... number 2. I wasn't implying that they failed the test because they are (#2) bored. I was plainly ascribing the connotation that they lack perception, are mentally slow, stupid... obtuse.

Now let's take this a step further.

Notice that "obtuse" is used to define "dull" on the 7th listed connotation from the dictionary. Because obtuse is used to define dull for that connotation, could I then substitute the word obtuse in place of dull, in that same sentence? Let's try it:

"Those two fellas are pretty OBTUSE because they failed the test."

Yes, they are interchangeable. They are synonymous. One defines the other.


Now, if I wanted to use the word obtuse, to describe someone whose perception was lacking, would it be wrong to use the word "obtuse" for that, because it also means "rounded at the extremity as of a leaf" ? or because obtuse also means, in mathematics, an angle between 90 and 180 degrees? Of course not. That's absolutely preposterous to even suggest, though both Barrett and Ausar below, will do exactly that for the word "perfunctory."

Continuing on with the argument now:




05:45:46 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial: perfunctory courtesy.
05:45:52 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfunctory
05:46:05 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> hasty/superficial
05:46:10 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> synonymous
05:46:17 <BEAR000> routine duty
05:46:24 <BEAR000> = not synonymous

YES synonymous. Check the thesaurus above which cites perfunctory as a synonym for cursory, and curosry as a synonym for perfunctory. They are absolutely, unequivocally, totally and without ambiguity, synonymous. A thesaurus shows words that are synonymous, Barrett. Because they are listed as synonyms for EACH OTHER, they are definitely synonymous, Barrett. And it's totally irrelevant that perfunctory carries an extra connotation meaning "routine duty" and does not in any way preclude them from being synonymous - just they aren't synonymous in EVERY connotation. This doesn't preclude them from being synonymous. See above with "dull" and "obtuse" for reasons why this is true, if I haven't made it abundantly fucking clear by now. Obtuse carries connotations that have NOTHING TO DO WITH DULLNESS. Yet "obtuse" is still synonymous with "dull". I can't possibly emphasize this enough, because Barrett and Ausar repeatedly insist that because a word carries some extra connotation, they cannot be synonymous or interchangeable for ANY connotation. Utter nonsense.

Continuing on...



05:46:24 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> im not citing that aspect.
05:46:30 <BEAR000> U don't have to
05:46:30 <Modal_202> ha
05:46:32 <BEAR000> u cited the word
05:46:37 <BEAR000> the one I didn't use
05:46:39 <BEAR000> for that reason
05:46:41 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> and the words have the same meaning
05:46:47 <BEAR000> *similar
05:46:55 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory has cursory as its meaning, to define it
05:46:56 <BEAR000> You agreed they have a difference
05:46:59 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> thats proof enough
05:47:11 <Modal_202> you need meta-words
05:47:12 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> not difference enough to distinguish how u used them, no
05:47:48 <BEAR000> But there is a difference between what I did
05:47:50 <BEAR000> and perfunctory
05:48:00 <BEAR000> So there must be a distinction


No, there is no difference. In the connotation you ascribed to "cursory" the word "perfunctory" can also be used, in the same manner that "obtuse" can be used interchangeably with "dull" despite the fact that "obtuse" carries other connotations that DO NOT mean "dull", as "perfunctory" also carries connotation in addition to its defined connotation of "cursory".


05:48:13 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> what u did was a superficial look
05:48:16 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> both mean that.
05:48:16 <BEAR000> Because my cursory glances were not a part of any routine nor were they duty

This is totally fucking disingenuous, or obtuse - you choose. Because a word has other connotations to it, doesn't preclude it from being used in any ONE of the connotations without implying any of the OTHER connotations. Have I yet made this abundandtly fucking clear?



05:48:25 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they dont have to be
05:48:32 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory doesnt only mean that
05:48:41 <BEAR000> Then why have the word cursory
05:48:44 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> it means that, plus anything that curosry means
05:48:46 <BEAR000> and whyd efine it so
05:48:48 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> its a fuller, richer word
05:49:00 <BEAR000> It's a broader, inept word for the situation

That's like sayin the word dull, which is broader, and has more connotation to it, is inept to use in the example above "Those two fellas are pretty dull because they failed the test." rather than the word "obtuse" which has less connotations, and is more narrowly defined. Yet the example clearly shows they are absolutely interchangeable: "Those two fellas are pretty OBTUSE because they failed the test." So because "dull" has broader meaning, doesn't preclude its use, nor make it "inept" in any way, shape or form.



05:49:05 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> thats why perfunctory has cursory as its definition
05:49:06 <BEAR000> by comparison
05:49:07 <Modal_202> i think that weakens the word

You can think whatever fallacious nonsense you like, Aus. That doesn't make you correct. Because one word, which is synonymous with another word, in fact is used even as the definition for at least one connotation of the other word, does not in any way make it "weak". It's just a variant that can be used for flavour.


05:49:19 <BEAR000> fuller doesn't not mean richer

So fucking what? I never said fuller meant richer. I said perfunctory is a fuller, richer word than is cursory. If I was implying that fuller and richer were to be equated, me saying ...

<  Knot4Prophet  ™000> its a fuller, richer word

would be fucking redundant. So why say fuller doesn't mean richer? I have no idea. You are countering points I never introduced (straw men).





05:49:19 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> coz it covers everything that cursory does
05:49:21 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> and more.
05:49:25 <BEAR000> The broader a def gets the less it defines


This is absolute nonsense. Let's take a word that you are suffering from, as an example to illustrate why you are wrong on this point, as well... "pride". Notice it has a litany of connotations. So are you attempting, then, to say that because the word pride covers so many connotations, that it defines less? Preposterous.


pride


–noun
1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
2. the state or feeling of being proud.
3. a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem.
4. pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself: civic pride.
5. something that causes a person or persons to be proud: His art collection was the pride of the family.
6. the best of a group, class, society, etc.: This bull is the pride of the herd.
7. the most flourishing state or period: in the pride of adulthood.
8. mettle in a horse.
9. Literary . splendor, magnificence, or pomp.
10. a group of lions.
11. sexual desire, esp. in a female animal.
12. ornament or adornment.

Because the word "pride" carries 12 different connotations here, does that mean it's a poor word to define what you are suffering from in this argument (#1 above)? Certainly not. It's an excellent word to describe someone who makes inordinate claims of their merit/superiority, irregardless of the fact that the word pride also means "a group of lions".




05:49:34 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> i never said fuller means richer
05:49:39 <Modal_202> which makes it less distinct

Wrong. The connotation of words that have multiple connotations, is totally dependent upon the context in which they are used.

"Barrett and Ausar, suffering from too much pride, could't concede an argument which they had clearly lost"

Am I imputing that they are suffering from a pride of lions? Is it "less distinct" because pride has so many connotations? Christ. lmfao @ you both.


05:49:39 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> if i did, that would be redundant
05:49:56 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> so why say fuller doesnt mean richer?
05:49:59 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> i dont see ur point at all
05:50:41 <BEAR000> You used them side by side to indicate that the word is fuller as well as richer, as tho one lends to the other
05:50:45 <BEAR000> And it doesn't
05:50:58 <BEAR000> having a broader definition like perfunctory means it can define less

No, it doesn't. In fact having a broader definition means it can define MORE. That's what "broader" means:


broad

–adjective
1. of great breadth: The river was too broad to swim across.
2. measured from side to side: The desk was three feet broad.
3. of great extent; large: the broad expanse of ocean.
4. widely diffused; open; full: We awoke to broad daylight.
5. not limited or narrow; of extensive range or scope.



05:50:59 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> i used them to describe 2 aspects
05:51:03 <BEAR000> because there are more variables
05:51:06 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> u said i equated fuller and richer
05:51:09 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> which id did not
05:51:09 <BEAR000> Cursory has less varables
05:51:19 <Modal_202> "perfunctory" should stand for it's own ideas. be more individualistic. instead of just joining up with what other words mean. it should stop being a follower.

What you want perfunctory to mean and what it actually does mean, may not coincide. If you don't like it, Aus, give Webster's a call.


05:51:21 <BEAR000> and defines the glances accurately
05:51:24 <BEAR000> rather than broadly
05:51:26 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> and u cannot possibly get around the fact that perfunctory: 1.done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory
05:51:27 <BEAR000> "inclusively"
05:51:30 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> see that?
05:51:34 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory = cursory
05:51:39 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they are interchangeable
05:51:48 <Modal_202> inattentive
05:51:51 <BEAR000> and u cannot get around the fact that their similarities do not preclude their differences

Because the word "obtuse" carries separate, distinctly different connotations than "dull" doesn't mean a fucking thing, when considering which to use in a sentence. Either one is fine. Just as, in the context you used it, cursory is interchangeable with perfunctory.


05:51:52 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> curosry defines perfunctory
05:51:58 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> that means u can use either one
05:52:18 <Modal_202> does careless define cursory?

Irrelevant. Any extra connotations a word has that are different from the connotation being used, are totally, absolutely fucking irrelevant. Red herring.


05:52:21 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> because words have differences doesnt preclude their similarities
05:52:36 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory covers everything that cursory covers
05:52:40 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> there's no 2 ways about it
05:52:44 <Modal_202> synonyms are stupid

Aus keeps vacillating between attempting to argue, and being what he calls synonyms here, albeit facetiously.


05:52:45 <BEAR000> Synonymous could mean perfectly interchangable, but having a synonym does not mean that the words are exact copies
05:52:55 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> i never said exact copies
05:53:00 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> straw man.
05:53:04 <BEAR000> Then they cannot always be interchangable
05:53:09 <BEAR000> What would be the point of having the synonym?

What's the point in having synonyms? Lmao. Try re-reading what you said here, Barrett, and attempt to make some sense of it. No one ever said synonyms were "exact copies" so, to begin with, this is totally irrelevant.
A red herring.
A straw man.
The point of having synonyms is VARIETY.

It's a "nice" day. It's a "pleasant" day. It's a "great" day. It's a "good" day. Variety. All of these imply the exact same thing, yet each of those words carries connotations apart from the other words that they are also synonymous with. Clear yet? Smfh.


05:53:10 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they are in this case
05:53:30 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory has the word cursory to define it
05:53:33 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> u cannot get past that
05:54:00 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> if cursory defines perfunctory, then perfunctory defines cursory
05:54:11 <BEAR000> Perfunctory also connotes more meaning than is intented by the word cursory
05:54:19 <BEAR000> you cannot get past that

I don't need to get past it!! YOU DO. Because any word that is listed as a synonym for another word, carries connotations in addition to the one it's synonymous with is IRRELEVANT.


05:54:37 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> so, that doesnt mean when u use the word perfunctory that u are necessarily including the extra connotations
05:54:42 <Modal_202> this is a stupid language
05:54:55 <Modal_202> i think it does, knot

You can think whatever illogical nonsense you want, Ausar.


05:54:58 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> so i dont need to get around it
05:54:59 <BEAR000> Easier way, don't use the word
05:55:04 <Modal_202> i think what bear said means it does, anyway
05:55:14 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> means it does what?
05:55:40 <BEAR000> You using the word must include what the word connotes
05:55:44 <BEAR000> Because u used it

Patently false, Barrett. Totally, absolutely wrong, Barrett. I do NOT have to include all the connotations of "obtuse" when I use the connotation that means "dull" in order to use the word "obtuse". If you still think so, you must in fact be "obtuse".


05:55:46 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> cursory is listed as a word that defines perfunctory - so they define each other
05:55:46 <BEAR000> how else are we to know

Context. See above.


05:55:54 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> no, words have multiple shades of meaning
05:55:58 <BEAR000> if u didn't want to mean what the word meant, use another word

I only was imputing upon the word perfunctory but ONE connotation: cursory, its fucking definition. See above.


05:56:00 <Modal_202> he said perfunctory connotes more meaning than cursory. so then when you use it, you are necessarily implying those connotations associated with it

Absolutely, totally fucking false. See above for why you too are "obtuse".


05:56:06 <Modal_202> or you are misusing the word

No, YOU are.


05:56:08 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> and when we use them we arent implying every single connotation that they have
05:56:15 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> just the one we want to imply
05:56:16 <Modal_202> when you meant to say "cursory" instead

No, I meant to say "perfunctory" imputing upon it ONLY the ONE connotation listed as "cursory".


05:56:33 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> no, u arent implying all the connotations
05:56:35 <BEAR000> How do we know what we want to imply?

The fucking context. See above.


05:56:42 <Modal_202> then why woul you use that word?
05:56:43 <BEAR000> You use a word best fitting to the situation
05:56:46 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> cursory is listed as the definition of perfunctory
05:56:47 <Modal_202> yeah
05:56:51 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> there is no way around that
05:56:55 <BEAR000> Cursory > Perfunctory
05:57:01 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> not at all
05:57:14 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they are equivalent in the sense u used them
05:57:21 <Modal_202> i'm sorry, did i say "happy?" i really meant to say "smitten." i apologize for any confusion.

What the fuck is this? Seriously? How could you possibly pretend this is relevant or analogous? Does "happy" have the word "smitten" among its defintions? Nope. Does "smitten" have the word "happy" among its definitions? Nope. Are "smitten" and "happy" listed as synonyms for each other in the thesaurus? Nope.

Total fucking nonsense. Notice how people suffering from overbearing pride, when losing an argument, find refuge in irrationality?


05:57:34 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> and perfunctory sounds better
05:57:45 <Modal_202> sounds musical
05:57:50 <Modal_202> lol

Agreed, for once. It does in fact sound musical, lyrical, and in this case, is why I introduced it as a synonmym to Barrett to begin with, but Barrett, suffering from a bit too much marijuana, and a bit too much pride, rather than just make a mental note of a good synonym for cursory, decided to antagonize against me, in my field of expertise, a field where very few can ever hope to contend. And in this case, for Barrett, an "obtuse" endeavour.


05:57:51 <BEAR000> How can they be, when I was glancing for pure pleasure and not at the behest of routine or duty, like the one example you gave, of the ppl greeting, implies

Again, Barrett attempts to impute a connotation I had no intention of imputing. Why? Why persist with such absolute irrationality in the face of such overwhelming evidence?


05:58:01 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> we know whats implied by the context in which its used
05:58:15 <BEAR000> That's why cursory is better

Wrong. Both are equally applicable for the connotation you intended, and in fact "perfunctory" is, as Ausar said, even "musical" which may even make IT the "better" word. I never once said that "perfunctory" was the "better" word, either. I merely informed you of it, for you own good, as a variant of "cursory".


05:58:16 <Modal_202> nothing means anything

Not when you attempt to argue with me, aye. Because both of your petty attempts to argue, don't mean anything.


05:58:16 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> and the context in which u used it shows its interchangeable
05:58:21 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> its not better
05:58:24 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> they are equivalent
05:58:27 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> one defines the other
05:58:38 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> perfunctory means cursory
05:58:49 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> cursory means perfunctory
05:58:51 <BEAR000> They can't be equivalent to the situation because in the situation parts of the definition that would be connoted by perfunctory were not in play

So fucking what? See above. All connotations aren't imputed when using a word, or when I call you obtuse, you might assume I'm calling you an angle between 90 and 180 degrees?


05:58:58 <BEAR000> but just for cursory, they all were
05:59:09 <Modal_202> not if one has additional meaning. that is a significant difference

No, it isn't. See above for reams of fucking evidence why you're such a jackass to persist in this claim.


05:59:09 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> u dont imply every single connotation when u use a word
05:59:16 <BEAR000> How can u knot?
05:59:17 <BEAR000> : )

Bah. Why smile like an asshole when you are embarrassingly wrong? Is that smile meant to hide your own embarrassment? Or was it just to further provoke me? If the latter, it worked, coz I like nothing better than to put in his place an upstart smart-assed punk who is absolutely wrong, who sits there insisting he's right.


05:59:17 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> some words have a dozen connotations
05:59:18 <Modal_202> its like tantamount and paramount

No, it's NOT like tantamount and paramount. They are homophonic to some degree, at best. Not synonyms. Neither one is used to define the other. Total fucing garbage, yet again. If you don't know the meanings of those two words Ausar, look them the fuck up, and realize what a buffoon you in attempting to use them as some analogy to the situation.


05:59:25 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> its impossible to imply them all
05:59:37 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> so how do we know what connotation? the context
05:59:38 <Modal_202> cunt always implies all of its connotations
05:59:39 <Modal_202> always
05:59:42 <Modal_202> ALWAYS

Nonsense. You even know this is false, yet you cling to the notion. Why? Pride? Obtuseness? Both?

05:59:42 <BEAR000> but this one don't have dozen
05:59:52 <BEAR000> it doesn't even have 3
05:59:53 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> i never said it did
06:00:05 <BEAR000> it has one major connotation
06:00:08 <  Knot4Prophet  ™000> we're talking about the fact that perfunctory has extra connotation
06:00:14 <BEAR000> that differs fromt he one major connotation of cursory

Wrong, "perfunctory" has MULTIPLE CONNOTATIONS which INCLUDE the word CURSORY:

1. done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory

_________________

06:00:15 < Knot4Prophet ™000> whether it has one more, or a billion more
06:00:18 < Knot4Prophet ™000> is irrelevant
06:00:25 < Knot4Prophet ™000> the context shows which
06:00:37 <BEAR000> So yer saying im splitting hairs that need not be split
06:00:39 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> ?
06:00:41 < Knot4Prophet ™000> just like for any word with mulitple contexts
06:00:53 <BEAR000> Hm
06:00:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> splitting what hairs that dont need to be split?
06:01:09 <BEAR000> The hair of perfunctory means routine duty

Wrong. That is but ONE "hair" (translation: connotation) of perfunctory, not ALL.

06:01:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i could just as easily charge u with that
06:01:17 <BEAR000> vs cursory just meaning cursory

Wrong again: Cusory has multiple connotations as well:

cursory: going rapidly over something, without noticing details; hasty; superficial: a cursory glance at a newspaper article.

See that? That's not just one.


06:01:18 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it doesnt only mean that, tho
06:01:29 <BEAR000> I'm saying that's what yer doing
06:01:35 <BEAR000> yer saying im unecessarily splitting hairs
06:01:35 < Knot4Prophet ™000> when we use a word, we arent implying every single context of it
06:01:45 < Knot4Prophet ™000> im not saying that, no
06:01:50 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i said i *could*
06:01:54 < Knot4Prophet ™000> read up.
06:01:54 <BEAR000> by saying the def's are different, and the ultimate meaning conveyed by either is diff. i'm splitting hairs
06:01:56 <BEAR000> in yer world
06:02:12 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no, not saying they are different, sayin that perfunctory includes all that cursory does
06:02:29 <Modal_202> definitions are apparently not sufficient on their own

Aus now being an asshole, because neither of them can prove their points.


06:02:32 <BEAR000> I know, I'm saying they're different
06:02:33 < Knot4Prophet ™000> the ultimate meaning of each isnt different tho
06:02:36 <BEAR000> inclusive to a point

The point to which they are inclusive is enough of an overlap that makes them show up in the fucking thesaurus as synonyms for each other, and to make the word cursory show up as the definition of perfunctory. This is MORE than enough to use the words interchangeably for the ONE connotation you implied.


06:02:41 <BEAR000> but different in application

Wrong, not different in application in this ONE connotation that they BOTH SHARE.


06:02:47 <Modal_202> because context distinguishes one synonym from another
06:02:49 <Modal_202> i guess
06:02:52 <BEAR000> because of the separate nature of perfunctories larger defintion
06:02:55 <BEAR000> which is true
06:02:58 <BEAR000> u cannot debate that

Wanna bet? Lmao.


06:03:04 < Knot4Prophet ™000> cursory is listed as a defintion of perfunctory, which means u can interchange them
06:03:10 <BEAR000> they are synonyms with undebatable differences

Their differences are irrelevant, because I was only employing them by their similar connotation. That's like you saying I cannot use the word obtuse in place of dull, because obtuse also means angles between 90 and 180 degrees.


06:03:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> or it wouldnt be listed as its definition
06:03:30 < Knot4Prophet ™000> the differences arent important, because one defines the other
06:03:44 < Knot4Prophet ™000> if cursory wasnt listed to define perfunctory, u'd have a point
06:03:46 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but it does
06:03:47 <Modal_202> how can one define the other if there are differences?
06:03:48 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so u dont.

Have you ever read a fucking dictionary or are you being intentionally obtuse? ie, disingenuous?

ALL words are defined using other words, words that, themselves, may carry other connotations distinct from the word they are used to define. See obtuse and and dull above, to see words that have differences, yet are used to define each other. Also, look in the dictionary under "perfunctory" to see that is has the word "cursory" to define it, depsite that perfunctory carries other, extra connotation, that cursory does not.



06:03:50 <BEAR000> I don't like using perfunctory in place of cursory

Primarly because you're an arrogant asshole who is way out of his league.

06:04:02 <BEAR000> I still think it connotes more than cursory does

Irrelevant that it connotes more. It could have a dozen other connotations, and still be perfectly applicable in the singular context you used it in. If you said to someone ...

<BEAR000> I think I took a [PERFUNCTORY] glance at the history already

... do you really think they might wonder if you were having a "merely routine" glance rather than a "superficial" or "hasty" (both of which define perfunctory and cursory) glance? Seriously? Smfh again.



06:04:04 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz perfunctory includes everything that cursory does, aus
06:04:04 <BEAR000> synonym or not
06:04:06 < Knot4Prophet ™000> and more.
06:04:18 < Knot4Prophet ™000> its a richer, fuller word as i said
06:04:25 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> contextual continuity

Grrr wades in with an irrelevant point. Contextual continuity? Lmao. How does "continuity" apply here in any way that is significant? It doesn't. Grrr has also challenged and lost to me in argument before, and being a fellow atheist with Ausar, would love a chance to show up the Knot. Well, not this time, aye. There is no discernible continuity or lack of continuity being discussed here, for the context of the the two synonymous words being employed.


06:04:27 <Modal_202> then they aren't interchangeable. one can be replaced by the other, but not the other way around

Yes, they can, for this ONE connotation. Christ you're fucking daft sometimes, which shocks me because you're so intelligent at others. It's rather vexing.


06:04:31 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it does connote more, but thats' irrelevant
06:04:36 <BEAR000> That's what I'm aiming for, Grr
06:04:40 <BEAR000> @using cursory
06:04:48 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> fair enough

Lol. Now Barrett seizes on Grr's totally irrelevant "contextual continuity" nonsense, and attempts to recruit Grrr's non-point as a point. Waste of time. I don't care how many people attempt to argue nonsense against me, I will not concede when I know I am right, as I do now, as I've made nauseatingly obvious by now.


06:04:52 <BEAR000> Knot was probably introducing me to a new usage of the word perfunctory tho
06:04:52 < Knot4Prophet ™000> they ARE interchangeabel, coz cursory is listed as the defintion of perfunctory
06:04:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> that makes them interchangeable
06:05:04 <Modal_202> you just went in a circle

No, no circular logic from me, ever. Don't confuse me with your own attempts at chicanery.


06:05:12 < Knot4Prophet ™000> yes, that's all i was doing, barrett
06:05:28 <BEAR000> a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad.
06:05:32 <BEAR000> Synonym
06:05:37 <BEAR000> Nearly the same meaning
06:05:40 <BEAR000> is not the same meaning
06:05:45 <BEAR000> and does not make them interchangable
06:05:48 <BEAR000> in all contexts

Who the fuck said "in all contexts"? Lmfao @ your total absurdity. No, not in *all* contexts. Just this one.


06:05:48 <Modal_202> if one means more than the other one, then the lesser of the two is insufficent as a stand in for the greater of the two, right? otherwise saying one is "richer" is meaningless.

Yes, cursory cannot ALWAYS stand in for perfunctory, but perfunctory, the richer word, can ALWAYS stand in for cursory, because cursory is a DEFINITION of perfunctory, and perfunctory is NOT a definition of cursory.


06:05:52 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but in this case, cursory DEFINES perfunctory
06:05:58 <Modal_202> if they are interchangeable, the are equally rich

Wrong! They are interchangeable on ONE aspect, ONE connotation, not on ALL the connotations of the richer, fuller word. You are a fucking fool attempting this point.


06:06:02 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so not only are they synonymous, they are interchangeable
06:06:07 <BEAR000> Knot's using caps : )

Why the fuck do you think I'm using caps? When not one, but 2 upstarts, totally wrong, who seemingly don't even understand semantics, synonyms and connotation, attempt to redress me? Lmao. The caps are an obvious indication of my frustration with your continued obtuseness, intentional or not, idk.


06:06:07 < Knot4Prophet ™000> wrong, aus
06:06:14 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> you could stick gay in there and open a huge can of worms Barrettt
06:06:21 <BEAR000> lets not
06:06:27 <BEAR000> lol
06:06:32 < Knot4Prophet ™000> they are interchangeable in the context used
06:06:40 < Knot4Prophet ™000> not interchangeable in any context.
06:06:41 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> indeed
06:06:49 <BEAR000> They can't be because what happened wasn't Perfunctory
06:06:54 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it was
06:07:01 <BEAR000> It wasn't a part of routine or duty
06:07:03 <BEAR000> or routine duty
06:07:06 <BEAR000> for that matter

Why do you INSIST upon singling out the ONE connotation of perfunctory that doesn't apply? I listed several words that were used to describe "perfunctory" some that were COMMON to cursory's defintion, namely "hasty" and "superficial". Why do you continue to insist that the one connotation that doesn't apply, must be used? That's like you insisting that by me calling you obtuse, that I'm calling you and angle between 90 and 180 degrees. Well I ain't.


06:07:06 < Knot4Prophet ™000> because cursory defines perfunctory
06:07:16 < Knot4Prophet ™000> are u being intentionally thick?
06:07:19 <BEAR000> Then why is the def of perfunctory incorrent?

Incorrect!! Hahaha. The sheer unmitigated fucking audacity. Now, because one of the connotations doesn't apply, of the several that do apply, somehow that makes the word "pefunctory" incorrect now? Christ.


06:07:24 <Modal_202> lol
06:07:36 BEAR000 grins at knot

Grins why? You realize I'm incensed by your continued use of logical fallacy, watching you insist time and again that extra connotations are relevant when they CLEARLY aren't, and you smile? Is this because you were being intentionally disingenuous the whole time? If so, you should have ultimately conceded. Yet you did not, so I can only take your grin as an attempt to provoke me, to mock me. And considering that you were totally wrong for the entire argument, your grin takes on a sinister connotation even.


06:07:39 < Knot4Prophet ™000> perfunctory: done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory
06:07:41 < Knot4Prophet ™000> see that?
06:07:44 < Knot4Prophet ™000> cursory.
06:07:48 < Knot4Prophet ™000> defines perfunctory
06:08:04 <BEAR000> Do you think that one part of the defintion should mean more than "only as a matter of routine", Knot?

Do you think "obtuse" should not have as part of its meanings "an angle between 90 and 180 degrees" Barrett? Do you yet see the irrelevance?


06:08:05 < Knot4Prophet ™000> that means u can use the word perfunctory any time u use the word cursory
06:08:19 <Modal_202> no
06:08:30 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i think its irrelevant that it has another connotation
06:08:33 <Modal_202> it means you can use the word cursory any time you use the word perfunctory

Wrong Aus, it's YOU that has it backwards here. You can NOT use the word cursory any time you use the word perfunctory, because perfunctory carries connotations extra that cursory does not. You CAN use the word perfunctory EVERY SINGLE TIME you use the word cursory, because cursory carries NO EXTRA CONNOTATION that perfunctory does not. How do I know this? Because "cursory" is a definition of perfunctory, you fucking idiot.



06:08:32 <BEAR000> Should I use the word glad when in love or joyful
06:08:33 <BEAR000> ?
06:08:37 <BEAR000> Which one is more apt?
06:08:37 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it has "curosry" as a connotation
06:08:45 < Knot4Prophet ™000> thats enough right there to equate them
06:08:49 <BEAR000> I am "gladly" in love

More nonsense from the upstart, pride-riddled, arrogant asshole. This analogy is totally flawed and absolutely inapplicable. Why? Because glad and joy are SYNONYMOUS. It doesn't matter which fucking one you use. They mean the exact same thing in that context. The only choice is one of personal flavour, aesthetics, acoustics. That you would even have the effrontery to ask me which is more apt, as though that is in any way relevant, is again, disingenuous at best, or obtuse at worst (depending on which of those two qualities you'd less enjoy being endowed with).



06:08:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> if one has the other as its definition, then they are interchangeable
06:09:04 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no two ways about it
06:09:06 <BEAR000> Matter and ENERGY LEGS
06:09:41 <Modal_202> what do you mean by interchangeable? maybe this is where we're all messed up
06:09:54 <BEAR000> Why must they be interchangeable when one is used to help understand the scope of the other?
06:09:58 <Modal_202> without going for a def right now
06:10:14 < Knot4Prophet ™000> perfunctory is defined by cursory, so they are interchangeable
06:10:24 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no way around it, at all
06:10:24 <BEAR000> A pickax is like a shovel, I can use a shovel's pikeing motion to help someone understand the scope of the pickaxe
06:10:30 <BEAR000> does that mean they are interchangable?
06:10:33 < Knot4Prophet ™000> does one define the other?

More utter nonsense from Barrett. Even he doesn't buy his own bullshit at this point. Pickaxes are not shovels, and they aren't listed as synonymous, nor does one define the other. Total bullshit, yet he pretends he's still attempting to argue.


06:10:35 <Modal_202> interchangeable to me woul dmean they can both define each other. perfunctory would be in the definition for cursory
06:10:35 <BEAR000> Applicable to every application the other is?
06:10:40 < Knot4Prophet ™000> or are u using straw men again?
06:10:47 < Knot4Prophet ™000> does one define the other?
06:10:48 < Knot4Prophet ™000> yes or no
06:10:52 < Knot4Prophet ™000> well?
06:10:55 <BEAR000> Sure. I could shovel with a pickaxe

So now you're saying that because you can use a pickaxe with a shovelling motion, that they are now synonymous, even tho the dictionary would say nothing of it? Totally disingenuous Barrett. I'm disappointed in your lack of objective logic.


06:10:55 < Knot4Prophet ™000> of course not
06:10:57 < Knot4Prophet ™000> staw man.
06:10:58 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no
06:10:59 <BEAR000> and I have
06:11:02 < Knot4Prophet ™000> wrong
06:11:11 <BEAR000> I could pick with a shoevl
06:11:12 < Knot4Prophet ™000> now ur just being a dick coz u lost
06:11:14 <BEAR000> and have
06:11:17 <BEAR000> I didn't lose anything
06:11:20 < Knot4Prophet ™000> one doesnt define the other
06:11:22 <BEAR000> you are assuming victory
06:11:25 < Knot4Prophet ™000> show me any dictionary where it does
06:11:28 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i know
06:11:29 <BEAR000> which you told me long ago is one of the signs of sure defeat
06:11:32 <BEAR000> : )
06:11:34 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no assumption necessary

Do you yet see why I'm assuming victory, after repeatedly making my points, and facing total bullshit from you and Ausar as pointed out in graphic detail above? I can only make the points so many times and in so many ways, and when someone refuses to see logic, and refuses to concede, but keeps using flawed analogis like ur bullshit shovels and picaxes or the other bullshit analogies both you and Ausar already used above, you leave me no choice but to declare victory. Use of fallacy by one party is a fofeiture. I let it go on FAR TOO LONG already, at this point. And here I'm writing this post to make it ABUNDANTLY clear.


06:11:36 <Modal_202> THAR INTERCHANGBLE!
06:11:45 <BEAR000> brb weed break
06:11:45 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz ur repeating urself and now using straw men
06:11:48 < Knot4Prophet ™000> thats victory
06:11:58 < Knot4Prophet ™000> u using fallacies = me victorious
06:12:06 < Knot4Prophet ™000> a pick does not = a shovel
06:12:15 < Knot4Prophet ™000> perfunctory does = cursory
06:12:23 <BEAR000> cursory does not = perfunctory

Yes, it DOES.

World English Dictionary

— adj
1. done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory

Right fucking there.


06:12:26 < Knot4Prophet ™000> right in the dictionary, one defines the other
06:12:27 <Modal_202> does cursory = perfunctory?
06:12:28 <BEAR000> but they have similar qualities
06:12:39 <Modal_202> does cursory = perfunctory?
06:12:40 < Knot4Prophet ™000> yes, it does or it wouldnt be listed as its definition
06:12:41 <BEAR000> smoookin'
06:12:45 < Knot4Prophet ™000> yes it does aus
06:12:46 <BEAR000> did u end up finding weed, knot?
06:12:48 <Modal_202> ok
06:12:52 < Knot4Prophet ™000> its in the dictionary
06:12:56 < Knot4Prophet ™000> nope, no weed
06:13:01 <BEAR000> brb
06:13:57 < Knot4Prophet ™000> pefuncotry: done superficially, only as a matter of routine; careless or cursory World English Dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfunctory
06:14:09 <Modal_202> that isn't even a word
06:14:14 < Knot4Prophet ™000> cursory: hasty and usually superficial; quick: a cursory check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cursory
06:14:16 <Modal_202> pefuncotry

Are you seriously attempting to point out a typo as evidence, or just continuing to be an asshole because I trounced both of you?

06:14:19 < Knot4Prophet ™000> both use "hasty"
06:14:26 < Knot4Prophet ™000> both use "superficial"
06:14:39 < Knot4Prophet ™000> and the part u cannot get past, perfunctory uses "cursory"
06:14:45 < Knot4Prophet ™000> to define it
06:14:51 <Modal_202> then each of those words are only interchangeable vicariously
06:15:00 < Knot4Prophet ™000> they are equivalent in the sense u employed them, and in almost every possible sense
06:15:03 <Modal_202> through superficial

No, not *just* through "superficial". Through superficial, hasty, AND cursory, the first two which define BOTH words, and the last word, which defines perfunctory itself.


06:15:27 < Knot4Prophet ™000> because they are interchangeable in one context doesnt mean they are in every context, no
06:15:30 < Knot4Prophet ™000> that's fallacious
06:15:34 <Modal_202> i win
06:15:42 < Knot4Prophet ™000> u lose, for being fallacious
06:15:43 <Modal_202> lol, jk
06:15:46 < Knot4Prophet ™000> just like him.
06:15:50 <Modal_202> i wasn't though
06:15:54 < Knot4Prophet ™000> u were tho
06:15:56 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i just showed u how
06:16:00 < Knot4Prophet ™000> because they are interchangeable in one context doesnt mean they are in every context, no
06:16:01 < Knot4Prophet ™000> right there
06:16:13 <Modal_202> but i didn't say they were
06:16:27 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> the thesaurus agrees with Ausar

Ah, and here's Grrr again, saying that the Thesaurus somehow agrees with Ausar (but not with me, who has said the two fucking words are synonyms from the start?) Do you know what a Thesaurus is, Grrr? It's a collection of words and their synonyms. How did the Thesaurus confirm Ausar was right about ANYthing, when all he's done is employ red herrings, flawed analogies and irrelevant bullshit since the start? Why even bother to jump in the middle of a heated argument which you go on to admit that you "missed the start" of, to take the side of someone who the Thesaurus does NOT agree with? I've said all along the words "cursory" and "perfunctory" are synonyms. The thesaurus shows exactly that, as shown way above, at the top of this post. The only one the thesaurus could POSSBILY agree with, is me, because I'm the only one who is right, here.


06:16:47 < Knot4Prophet ™000> how do u figure that?
06:16:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> any thesaurus will show them both
06:16:59 SyDnEy 252 plays: Basshunter - Saturday
06:17:06 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz are synonymous
06:17:10 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> they are only interchangable contexually
06:17:15 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i said that all along.
06:17:19 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i've never said anything but that
06:17:20 <Modal_202> i was joking when i said "i win" because earlier you said bear using fallacy = u win, and you had just posted that saying they are always interchangeable is a fallacy
06:17:23 < Knot4Prophet ™000> scroll up
06:17:26 < Knot4Prophet ™000> u tuned in late
06:17:27 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> i missed the start
06:17:34 < Knot4Prophet ™000> well then dont go jumping in
06:17:42 < Knot4Prophet ™000> if ur not properly apprised
06:18:04 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i said they are always interchangeable in the context used
06:18:09 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> i wasn't in but you don't have to argue with me if i agree

Then don't bother jumping the fuck in, to erroneously state that the thesaurus agrees with Aus, as though Aus is right and I am not, because the only one the thesaurus agrees with from the start of this entire argument, is me.


06:18:20 <Modal_202> when i said "all niggers are faggots" what i meant was "all faggots are niggers". i'm sorry for any confusion
06:18:37 <Modal_202> i gotta shit
06:18:38 < Knot4Prophet ™000> well u jumping in to say the thesaurus agrees with aus, assumes ur saying the thesaurus doesnt agree with me
06:18:47 < Knot4Prophet ™000> because aus is saying he doesnt agree with me
06:18:52 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but the thessaurus does agree with me
06:18:57 < Knot4Prophet ™000> and so does the dictionary
06:19:02 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so there is no argument
06:19:07 <Modal_202> i was trying to understnd more, mostly
06:19:09 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> i wasn't making any implication other than what my statement said

Oh I understand your implication completely, whether you admit to it or not.


06:19:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> its not me ur arguing with, aus and bear, its the dictionary
06:19:24 <Modal_202> things may have been unsaid that i needed clarified
06:19:39 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> dman presupposition
06:19:40 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no one hates me, enaz
06:19:50 < Knot4Prophet ™000> im unhateable i told u
06:20:05 <Modal_202> like the "is cursory defined by perfunctory" and what exactly knot meant in using "interchangeable"
06:20:25 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i never said cursory is defined by perfunctory, i said the converse of that
06:20:49 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz cursory is listed as the definition of perfunctory, perfunctory is not listed as the definition of cursory
06:20:58 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz perfunctory is a fuller, richer word
06:21:10 <Modal_202> you did at one point, then posted cursory's def, which didn't include perfunctory, and then you said 'but they both use "superficial" so that's enough'
06:21:18 < Knot4Prophet ™000> that takes on more connotation, but does not necessarily imply all connotations
06:21:46 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no, i said "cursory" is listed as the defintion of perfunctory and that THAT was enough
06:21:53 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i said superficial and hasty defined both.
06:22:02 <BEAR000> We are postulating that the dictionary is saying different things, then. Because I believe that the definition of a word and it's connotation go together and therefore perfunctory cannot mean the same as cursory, even tho they may be synonyms, the dinctionary states that synonyms do not all have completely congruent meanings. So why do you assume that because perfunctory has cursory


So Barrett comes back from his toke, to ram his foot further down his fucking throat, which I didn't even think possible, by this point, but reading that last statement shows that he indeed found a way.

Your entire point there, is that because the words are merely synonymous, that they aren't completely congruent. If the words perfunctory and cursory were MERELY synonymous, you might be right, but they aren't MERELY synonymous. Did you forget that CURSORY DEFINES PERFUNCTORY? Christ. Smfh.


06:22:09 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but the thing that cant be gotten past, is that cursory is listed as the defintion of perfunctory
06:22:17 <BEAR000> as part of it's uncovering of meaning that they are interchangable
06:22:19 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so perfunctory can be used any time u want to use the word cusory
06:22:30 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but cursory cannot be used any time u want to use the word perfunctory
06:22:34 < Knot4Prophet ™000> can u follow that?
06:22:43 <BEAR000> Just because they are used to understand one another does not mean they necessarily mean exactly the same as the other


Oh yes it does. That's how a fucking dictionary works! If a word is listed as a definition of another word, they are exactly the same in that context (no, not in every fucking context, just that one).


06:23:03 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it does mean the same barrett, whether u "believe" it or not
06:23:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz cursory is listed as the definition of perfunctory
06:23:25 <BEAR000> As a method of understanding the nature of perfunctory
06:23:46 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so when u say "therefore perfunctory cannot mean the same as cursory" that is patently false
06:23:51 <Modal_202> 06:12:44] <Modal_202> does cursory = perfunctory? 6:12:51] < Knot4Prophet ™000> yes it does aus 06:12:57] < Knot4Prophet ™000> its in the dictionary <then cursory's def was posted> 6:14:24] < Knot4Prophet ™000> both use "hasty" 6:14:24] < Knot4Prophet ™000> both use "superficial"
06:24:03 < Knot4Prophet ™000> coz cursory is listed as the definition of perfunctory
06:24:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so this "d therefore perfunctory cannot mean the same as cursory" is false
06:24:16 < Knot4Prophet ™000> ur wrong
06:24:42 < Knot4Prophet ™000> what did i put next, aus?
06:24:45 < Knot4Prophet ™000> right after that?
06:24:52 <Modal_202> i don't remember


Lol. You took the time to copy, but left out the very next fucking line, which ties it all together. That's clearly subterfuge at best, or stupidity at worst - you choose.


06:25:03 < Knot4Prophet ™000> no?
06:25:08 < Knot4Prophet ™000> are u fucking serious?
06:25:11 < Knot4Prophet ™000> 06:14:39 < Knot4Prophet ™000> and the part u cannot get past, perfunctory uses "cursory"
06:25:15 < Knot4Prophet ™000> right after.
06:25:19 < Knot4Prophet ™000> the very next line
06:25:22 <BEAR000> If it's listed as *part of the definition, whose function is to further understand the word, does not necessarily mean that that word, used to undertsand part of the definition, is interchangable witht he first

Oh yes it does. That's why dull is interchangeable with obtuse, in some contexts, but not ALL contexts (like angles between 90 and 180 degrees).


06:25:31 <Modal_202> oh the bit about bear not getting past perfuncory having cursory as its definition
06:25:39 <BEAR000> The very definition of synonymous suggests it

Again, they aren't MERELY synonyms. ONE DEFINES THE OTHER.


06:26:04 < Knot4Prophet ™000> that means that perfunctory can ALWAYS be used where u see 'cursory', coz cursory is listed as the definition of perfunctory
06:26:11 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it doesnt mean the converse
06:26:19 < Knot4Prophet ™000> u seem to be confused on that
06:26:27 <Modal_202> no, it means cursory can ALWAYS be used where you see "perfunctory"
06:26:35 <Modal_202> you got that one part backwards

No again YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. I don't make logical fuckups like you two do. This is why I don't lose arguments, because I don't use red herrings, or straw men, or flawed analogies, and I most certainly do not get things backwards, like YOU just did. Cursory cannot ALWAYS be used where you see perfunctory, because perfunctory carries connotations in addition to just "cursory". Christ you're thick. And you have the audacity to tell ME that I have it backwards? Lmfao. Again.


06:26:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> wrong aus, coz perfunctory has a fuller, richer meaning over and above merely 'cursory'
06:27:11 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so u cannot use the word cursory ALWAYS in place of perfunctory
06:27:13 <Modal_202> you just spent how long saying the opposite
06:27:14 <BEAR000> You're right, knot, you can always use perfunctory to replace cursory
06:27:17 <BEAR000> in any context
06:27:25 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but u can use the word perfunctory ALWAYS in place of cursory
06:27:27 <(FL)Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlap666> fuck it just use careless
06:27:31 < Knot4Prophet ™000> lol
06:27:36 <BEAR000> That too, that's interchangability
06:27:42 <Modal_202> if cursory defines perfunctory, then yes, it can be used in its place
06:27:53 < Knot4Prophet ™000> only in some apsects, aus
06:27:53 < Ðå>< 252> Lol, at Knots fancy witchcraft
06:27:54 <BEAR000> I'm just saying it's not as accurate to use perfunctory in place of cursory
06:28:02 < Knot4Prophet ™000> curosry is but one defintion of perfunctory
06:28:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> one conntation only
06:28:29 < Knot4Prophet ™000> perfunctory has more connotations than just curosry
06:28:41 <Modal_202> then obviously cursory doesn't define it
06:28:52 <mollyk927> i thought cursory meant superficial, brief

Well, molz, anyone who's now read through this post knows exactly what both cursory and perfunctory mean, as well as a few other choice things.



06:28:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so cusory can be used only for the connotations of perfunctory that are equal to the defintions of cursory
06:29:01 <Modal_202> it is not "made finite" by the word "cursory"
06:29:14 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i never said it was made finite
06:29:19 <Modal_202> you said it was defined
06:29:25 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i said its fuller and richer, and covers the word cursory
06:29:55 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i never said it was "made finite" so i have no idea why u got it in quotes
06:30:01 < Knot4Prophet ™000> why put that in quotes?
06:30:04 < Knot4Prophet ™000> who are u quoting?
06:30:10 <Modal_202> in quotes as reference to the word "define"
06:30:13 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it sure wasnt me
06:30:28 < Knot4Prophet ™000> well no need for that, coz i never said it
06:30:30 <Modal_202> define - made finite, limited
06:30:59 < Knot4Prophet ™000> perfunctory IS defined by cursory tho
06:31:16 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so u just flawed ur own logic
06:31:21 <Modal_202> if cursory "Defines" perfunctory, then it gives the word its form. if it doesn't account for all of the word, then it obviously doesn't define it.
06:31:37 < Knot4Prophet ™000> its listed as a defintion
06:31:38 <Modal_202> define define
06:31:43 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so it does define it
06:31:48 <Modal_202> apparently not
06:31:49 <Modal_202> lol
06:31:49 < Knot4Prophet ™000> it doesnt totally define it
06:31:54 <Modal_202> oh
06:32:00 < Knot4Prophet ™000> but it does definitely define it
06:32:10 <Modal_202> just not definitively
06:32:12 < Knot4Prophet ™000> or it wouldnt be listed as its defintion
06:32:18 < Knot4Prophet ™000> lol
06:32:26 <Modal_202> its listed as a synonym
06:32:52 < Knot4Prophet ™000> so in conclusion, perfunctory can be used ANYWHERE cursory is used, even tho cursory cannot be used EVERYWHERE perfunctory is used
06:32:56 < Ðå>< 252> Tim you sound like a living breathing oxford dictionary
06:32:59 <Modal_202> except not
06:33:09 < Knot4Prophet ™000> i am, dai

_________________

I guarantee you I casted a fucking perfunctory glance over all that.

I can gare and tee* you. I castigated un-fucking-perfunctorily, trounce overall, that.

_________________

Fascinating read. Keep up the good work.