Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draignean]

Can incredulous mean ‘incredible’?

incredulous as incredible was revived in the 20th century after a couple of centuries of disuse. Although it is a sense with good literary precedent—among others Shakespeare used it—many people think it is a result of confusion with incredible, which is still the usual word in this sense.

Oxford is dictating language in this case my dear Draignean.

That and your definition isn't correct even if we ignore this. Incredulous can also refer to an action or mannerism that implies disbelief.

...

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/incredulous

(of a person or their manner) unwilling or unable to believe something.

Neon. How did you read that definition and somehow take away that "That is incredulous!" is a meaningful sentence? You could say "That is incredulity!" if you want to point out someone who was acting in an incredulous manner. The sentence as you have it is syntactically sound, but semantically gibberish.

I'm serious here, at this point we're both looking at the same dictionary, and I'm utterly dumbfounded as to why you are (yet again) attempting to use words in a way they were never meant to be used.

If you want a bit more proof, check this out: google ngram viewer. No literature on google has ever used that phrase to end a sentence. You can check the period form too. It doesn't exist.

Seriously, Neon, can you find any example of any other human being using that phrase as part of normal literature? I don't want to drag ameripol into a grammar debate, but seriously, it is not a bad thing to go: "Oh, right, I meant X" and then move on.

[Neonivek]

Shakespeare used it.

I'm serious here, at this point we're both looking at the same dictionary, and I'm utterly dumbfounded as to why you are (yet again) attempting to use words in a way they were never meant to be used

Why does this matter? No really... There is conventions but ultimately it is about communication.

I am using it "correctly" as far as definition goes. Yet because I switched the location of the word to the end of a sentence "This is incredulous" instead of "Incredulous This" I am being called out.

It reminds me of people who will book beat you if something is or isn't in the dictionary... In spite of the fact that the English language ALLOWS certain transformations of words REGARDLESS if they are in the dictionary or not. "Evilish isn't a word!"

[Frumple]

Wait are there seriously Anti-Comey attack ads?

That is incredulous!

Word choice aside, attack ads bloody nothing. Last I noticed like (at least) half the GOP politician roster was trying for some variation of character assassination against the guy. It's got bonus points for being hilariously inconsistent; they're shitting on him and his credibility regarding basically everything negative (i.e. accurate) he said about trump, and then doing an immediate heel-face backflip and crowing to the skies about how everything he said that could be pretzel-humped into being positive or relief-giving legality wise was truth as absolute as god's own piss. The cognitive dissonance being displayed is giving a pretty good go at being staggering.

[Neonivek]

It feels WEIRD that they are even attacking him at all because it isn't like he is presenting this towards congress on his own volition. He is literally being forced to do it.

[Frumple]

Eh, it's not so much weird as... very GOP, at the moment. They're pretty hyper defensive about... a lot of things, really. Kinda' what happens when you're trying to cover for a conman, heh.

Any case, it just hit me I had completely forgotten about the ohio thing. Anyone happen to be paying more attention and willing to summarize/mention what went down, there?

[wierd]

The GOP would do themselves a favor by putting their collective feet down, and saying they do not endorse, only tolerate, Trump-- then laud Comey for his rigorous adherence to the discipline required for his former office. They could save a shitload of face, which they are going to NEED, if they are going to effectively stonewall the Democrats and push forward with their very unpleasant agendas. They need to dissuade from the image that they are nothing more than contemptible old crooks if they want to avoid being massively expelled in 2 years.

[Neonivek]

In all fairness Comey's testimony was hardly damning. It will blow over entirely.

But it might have faster if they ignored it.

At least a great Colbert Skit came from it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc5ei8mcujw

[Playergamer]

can someone please define what election interference is, specifically in this case.

thank you.

[Sheb]

can someone please define what election interference is, specifically in this case.

thank you.

What case?

[sluissa]

can someone please define what election interference is, specifically in this case.

thank you.

Everything. Putin said Clinton smelled like poop. Election interfered with.

Kislyak had coffee at starbucks. Election interfered with.

Manafort sneezed while in Ukraine. Madagascar closes its borders.

[Playergamer]

can someone please define what election interference is, specifically in this case.

thank you.

What case?

the Russia investigation in general. i, as well as most people, have no clue what the accused interference actually /is/ anymore, just that it happened and is big deal.

[Sheb]

As far as I know the most serious allegations are that Russia is behind the hacking of the DNC and Clinton's campaign manager e-mail which were then fed to wikileaks to damage the Clinton campaign. Then there are the reports that Russian intelligence attacked at least on supplier of voting software and sent phishing e-mail to election officials, even though there is no evidence shown that the attacks were effective.

The Russian investigation of Trump campaign centers on whether there was coordinations with the Russians which would be a BAD THING, and one why people like Flynn lied about their contact with Russia otherwise.

[sluissa]

As far as I know the most serious allegations are that Russia is behind the hacking of the DNC and Clinton's campaign manager e-mail which were then fed to wikileaks to damage the Clinton campaign. Then there are the reports that Russian intelligence attacked at least on supplier of voting software and sent phishing e-mail to election officials, even though there is no evidence shown that the attacks were effective.

The Russian investigation of Trump campaign centers on whether there was coordinations with the Russians which would be a BAD THING, and one why people like Flynn lied about their contact with Russia otherwise.

On a serious note, yeah. The voting software and election official stuff is the most serious so far, but even those were unlikely to have affected any actual votes. Although it was suggested there might have been issues with the voting rosters that might have been Russian influenced. In such a case... we might actually want Trump to investigate the election process? Could this be a case where 2-3 million people did vote wrongly... but come to find out it's because Russia messed with their voter registration records?

We're about due for another one of Trump's crazy allegations to have a kernel of truth to them.

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot. The BIG claim thus far has been the fact that Russia has apparently been tied back to a lot of the "fake news" (original definition, untrumpified). They funded a lot of shell news organizations designed to just put out ridiculous news and clog up aggregators like Reddit with noise so that the "real news" couldn't gain traction.

[Gizogin]

I remember reading the declassified report detailing the CIA, FBI, and NSA conclusions about Russian interference in the election. The key methods used were obtaining DNC data and leaking it to Wikileaks, general propaganda, and cyber-espionage including gathering data about voting centers. All three agencies agreed that these efforts had taken place and that the Russian government (and specifically Putin himself) had been responsible for ordering the efforts. That was back in January.

As far as I can tell, the recent leak just gives more detail about what evidence the intelligence agencies actually have and some specific details about the methods used. By and large, it seems to only confirm the allegations the intelligence community had already publicly made; I guess it's suddenly newsworthy because it was leaked and the leaker was charged for it.

[Frumple]

Leaked, leaker charged, media/electorate has memory of goldfish. Shouldn't forget last one, probably. To a fair bit it was news worthy just because part of it was new. Something being reported before doesn't stop a lot of outlets from flailing about like it's breaking for the first time.