When you buy a hardware synth do you actually own all of it?

[whyterabbyt]

Is it a red floor? if so does that make it a pot, or a pan?

[Seluvis]

No, but mainly because pushback can't be passive. Again, let's not redefine terms (in this case the word passive), nor misquote other users (the acceptance without pushback is what I said was passive).

You say that pushback can't be passive but pushback can absolutely be passive. My understanding is there such a thing as passive pushback. Passive pushback is a form of resistance that is indirect, often silent but not always.
Sorry for the misquote, that wasn't intentional.

[Seluvis]

dupe

[Seluvis]

No, but mainly because pushback can't be passive. Again, let's not redefine terms (in this case the word passive), nor misquote other users (the acceptance without pushback is what I said was passive).

You say that pushback can't be passive but pushback can absolutely be passive. My understanding is there is such a thing as passive pushback. Passive pushback is a form of resistance that is indirect, often silent but not always.
Sorry for the misquote, that wasn't intentional.

[Seluvis]

No, but mainly because pushback can't be passive. Again, let's not redefine terms (in this case the word passive), nor misquote other users (the acceptance without pushback is what I said was passive).

You say that pushback can't be passive but pushback can absolutely be passive. My understanding is there is such a thing as passive pushback. Passive pushback is a form of resistance that is indirect, often silent but not always.
Sorry for the misquote, that wasn't intentional.

[Seluvis]

...dupe

[Seluvis]

Sorry my browser flooded.dupe

[whyterabbyt]

" Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

[sjm]

No, but mainly because pushback can't be passive.

You say that pushback can't be passive but pushback can absolutely be passive. My understanding is there such a thing as passive pushback.

I was going by the dictionary definition, rather than making up my own. Remember what I said about how problematic it is when you redefine the meaning of words for lulz? Well, this is the problem with doing that.

The Cambridge dictionary defines passive as "not acting to influence or change a situation; allowing other people to be in control", which is why I used the word on the context of not giving pushback. Because that is what the word actually means.

[whyterabbyt]

I was going by the dictionary definition, rather than making up my own. Remember what I said about how problematic it is when you redefine the meaning of words for lulz? Well, this is the problem with doing that.

Interestingly, (or perhaps ironically, depending on your perspective and context) 'passive pushback' seems to be a synonym for what is commonly known as 'passive aggressive.'
However in that term, 'passive' is merely a modifier for the methodology or manifestation of the noted aggression. The 'aggressive' specifically indicates that there is active hostility, resentment or anger.

In short the full term indicates actively pursing aggression by passive methods, rather than some notion of peaceful and innocent passivity.

[Seluvis]

The Cambridge dictionary defines passive as "not acting to influence or change a situation; allowing other people to be in control", which is why I used the word on the context of not giving pushback. Because that is what the word actually means.

Of course there was a time when our greatest scholars thought that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system, volumes upon volumes were written and anyone that proposed otherwise was either cancelled or worse still burnt at the stake. And guess what? most of those words, meanings and conventions were thrown in the bin.
Its ok to be highly formal and worry about grammar and such. I am just not convinced a casual public forum is a place to get too hung up about it. I often read posts here and elsewhere where users can sometimes be a bit sloppy with their use of words or perhaps spell things wrong. I could of course go full hog and make a big deal about it but choose to interpret the core of their argument or proposal. A meaning can also be transient and can change with time.
You and billions of others can tow the party line if you want. Its no skin off my nose.

[sjm]

The Cambridge dictionary defines passive as "not acting to influence or change a situation; allowing other people to be in control", which is why I used the word on the context of not giving pushback. Because that is what the word actually means.

Of course there was a time when our greatest scholars thought that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system, volumes upon volumes were written and anyone that proposed otherwise was either cancelled or worse still burnt at the stake. And guess what? most of those words, meanings and conventions were thrown in the bin.

Yes, but this was the result of a shift in consensus and based on actual evidence, not one guy on a forum calling cats dogs for no good reason.

Its ok to be highly formal and worry about grammar and such. I am just not convinced a casual public forum is a place to get too hung up about it.

Except if you want to convey a point to someone else. Thern it suddenly does become very important to use the same conventions as everyone else. If you say "cats really love playing fetch" when you actually mean dogs, you cannot be surprised when everyone else thinks you are talking bollocks. You don't get to hide behind "but grammar". If you want to communicate with others, it behooves you to do so in a manner that is clear and well understood by the other parties. If you want to hold a monologue, a public forum is the wrong place to do it.

[FigBug]

Why does every thread on KVR have to derail into weird personal attacks by page 4?

[Seluvis]

Yes, but this was the result of a shift in consensus and based on actual evidence, not one guy on a forum calling cats dogs for no good reason.

Except at no point did I ever directly claim that cats were dogs. Indirectly yes but not directly.
See you are breaking those self imposed rules to suit a particular narrative like shifting sands.

Hey I just realised I've just passed the magical threshold of the 30 posts required to enter the Hyde Park Corner. As much as I'd like to continue to discuss this topic in much more detail feel free to create a topic if what I say bothers you so much. I'll be sure to join. Otherwise you've exhausted my dialogue.
Have a good day.

[whyterabbyt]

Except at no point did I ever directly claim that cats were dogs.

So its alright to indirectly call 'someone' a lying arsehole, then?

Indirectly yes but not directly.

Hmmm, now I only wish there was a way to indicate that a set contained a group of people based on their actions without naming a specific individual directly. Something like 'if you lie by claiming that a branch of maths supports your opinion, then you are a lying arsehole.'