No, a southern brethren of his.

Pay no attention to SOBEIT.

He's been watching one man and his dog (see tv thread) and is probably over excited.

One man and a dog? Are you sure? The vocab he's been posting is even scarier, then

WoT - nonstandard.

He has very odd habits. Best not think about it..

That's correct.

Inventiveness.

solipsism

Alot.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ch...thing.html?m=1

muscle ache.
Plain, simple, painful and ...... lecturing.

Pillock.

Stolen from RufusB.. just now

How about my Uncle's favourite insult: Wazzock.

Best save that one for yourself.

(Hah! a Wittgenstinian paradox)

"Alot" isn't a word. It's two. Otherwise it gives me a grammar migraine. Allot, however, is fine. If you want a different meaning entirely.

I think corpus linguists will massively disagree. I bet there are more "alot" these days than "a lot". Look at the blog, it is fun. I might get a t-shirt, I like it alot.

Jag - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wittgensteinian lol. Not that it really matters.

Both are quite common.

To tie it back to solipsism and language... as long as I utter some word that makes you bring either mortar or bricks with some level of consistency, then I've proved that there is more than one mind. That this language game sometimes goes wrong, is another proof that there must be more than one mind. (You can't misunderstand yourself... it takes someone else to do that.)

Wittgenstinian

Hmm...that's interesting, for somebody brought up on "Wittgensteinian". Well, it would be "wittgensteinský", to be exact.

I would really like to agree with you as per people needing somebody else to not understand themselves. I don't since my experience is that most people go through some soulsearching and incertitude (thankgod) one way or another, before they reach again a state of understanding oneself. To bring gender into it, if understanding oneself is a matter of employing intuition rather than language concepts, then I think chicks actually have it easier. It is my theory but no matter how unpc, I stand by it. We create our own selfperception, that's true. But whether we actually understand it, is a whole another thing. Our brains are wired to seek understanding, especially relating to oneself. We would be a lot happier, animal style, if it was not the case. Intuition helps with that, me thinks.

"Self theories".

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Wow! Most people just say, sorry, typo.

You're capable of misunderstanding what it is that you are thinking? This is different from thinking incorrectly.

You don't come back from the wool shop with green wool and think "Dash, I must have misunderstood the difference between green and pink again" do you?

I think we're talking about two entirely different kinds of language games. The one I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with gender or self assessment, or how aware one is of how others perceive one. It's entirely about how the fact that language exists and that misunderstandings can happen solve the philosophical problem of solipsism.

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.

Google "Wittgenstinian". Notice how many hits you get to academic journals publishing articles related to Wittgenstein's philosophy?

If it were a typo then the board of profs who reviewed my dissertation would probably have noticed it, seeing as it was in the title, and the body... multiple times. As would the editors of the academic journals mentioned above. And the reviewers of various books about his philosophy.

But sure, if you think it's about my ego and typing ability then be my guest.