Of course I did. Are you now changing that common perception to fit your argument. Just as emoticons such as the smiley face are related to the text that precedes them. A smiley face shows that the text preceding it was good natured. Do I really need to get this elementary?That implies that you somehow thought the <shrug> itself was supposed to indicate something about the text that preceded it.
If you have invented your own super secret method of inserting a <shrug> here or a <snort> there that have no relation to your preceding text then I was unaware of it. So sorry.
Blaming the reader again because you failed to properly convey the context that you now want your post to have? You just can't make this stuff up.That's a statement written by someone who clearly doesn't even know the definition of "context."
I am thrilled to see that you finally looked up the definition of context. It proves the point that I tried to explain in an earlier post when I tried to help you understand the meaning of context.That's two different issues. One issue is what "context" is in the first place. The definition of context is "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." The writer does indeed decide the context of what he is writing, and often creates the context itself. It is the job of the reader to recognize, acknowledge and accept that context rather than to interpret and create their own context.
It is not the readers job to accept what you meant for the context to be. The reader can only accept what context the words have actually created. It was your job to create the words that properly conveyed your context to the reader. There in lies the problem.
No I didn't. You failed to be specific regarding what level of education you were suggesting, therefore, it was up to the reader again to figure out what exact advise you were trying to give.For example, "You have to be educated about both [taking a drug as well as not taking a drug]," does not mean you must "fully educate yourself one hundred percent in any and all aspects of the drug and it's effects." Yet you insisted more than once that that's what I really and truly meant to say, even though I made it crystal clear that I did not mean that at all.
Well now you are just plain making things up.You failed to comprehend what was written, because by your own admission you believe you are supposed to think something other than what was written.
The above makes absolutely no sense. Ice has the effect of constricting blood vessels whether they are inflamed or not. Ice is used to prevent the swelling that occurs at the injured site due to the increased blood flow that occurs after injury. It is that increased blood flow that causes the swelling, redness and heat. Swelling signifies an increase of blood flow.The physiological effect of ice on non-inflamed tissue is to constrict blood vessels, but on inflamed tissue the initial effect is to reduce or retard swelling, and since swelling in and of itself reduces blood flow, the application of ice will promote blood flow.
You are going to extreme lengths to try and justify your incorrect statement from post #5 when in fact it is the removal of ice that may possibly promote blood flow after the swelling has subsided.
Why? The shrug would not have indicated anything at all regarding the text that preceded it.You prolly should have added a little <snort> in there to indicate the sarcasm . . .
My only personal agenda is to advise people to use conservative treatments for their injuries before resorting to medications when possible.You, on the other hand, have chosen this thread to promote a personal agenda and to launch a personal attack on me which is outside the scope of this thread. Why would you do that?
Simply because my advice was contrary to yours does not constitute an "attack" . Playing the victim does not become you.
When you made it personal by criticizing my "reading comprehension" and my ability to understand "context" it created an unfortunate need for me to go off topic and defend myself. But of course, that's what you wanted.