what does this mean to you?

please interpret, i.e. restate in intelligible english, the following statement:

who made the statement, and whom the statement is about, is inconsequential here; i am simply trying to understand what could possibly be meant by such a statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Basically it means that she's resentful that she's an asian as opposed to something else and that she's offended by him because he pointed out that she belongs to a fruitcake religion and ethnicity, which gets back to the first point which is her 'state of being Asian'.

The statement is self-evident.

And she has a right to take umbrage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, that is how i interpret it as well--but you do realize that your intentions here are hardly "noble," because you have a bias against SAM--or something like that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[note to readers: the statement has absolutely nothing to do with SAM.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am psychic. You are still pissed because I insulted you - an act I repeat here - based on your religion and ethnicity. You are asian and, for reasons known only to myself, I think of this as causing some of your mental states.

I like very much the redundancy in 'residual malice' that is harbored. That's cute.

I also like the 'state of being an asian person' which is seen as causal.

There's more. I think it is a shame people are taught to be convoluted in their language.

 

Oh please

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Doreen: I think it is a shame people are taught to be convoluted in their language.

I don't think its convoluted at all. Very simple and too the point if you ask me.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this is the part that especially stands out for me. the illogic here is a secondary issue; more importantly, the notion that one's "state" of being such-and-such an ethnicity is somehow causal, is not without historic precedent.

i often wonder whether such convoluted speech is, in part, intentional--even if not consciously so. the formal language of certain disciplines and fields is notoriously convoluted, and within certain contexts (i.e. the courtroom, for one) such can be used to one's advantage.

 

well, to be clear: this does seem to be the author's claim, that the statement as it stands is sufficiently clear and to the point.

but i am introducing an element here that i wish to avoid for the moment; right now, i am interested simply in hearing all possible interpretations of the statement.

 

I think that was what was being reached for: a 'high' language that would therefore have more impact.

 

One or more of my experience-receptors (that I do not identify) lead me to believe that you have some ill-feeling remaining docked at port because of your condition as a person of Asian descent, and while I don't know whether I should use 'who' or 'whom', you are the same person that I have caused to be insulted prior to this occasion due to your religious philosophy concerning certain baked fruit products and your genetic origins.

Hope that helps.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I love it!!! Its the 'due to your religious philosophy concerning certain baked fruit products and your genetic origins.'

*sigh* reminds me of the good ole days. Its soooo 'gendy'

 

I thought your translation was superb and very clear. That last statement had me perplexed until I realized 'Hope' was a name. However, the sentence should have a comma after 'Hope'. And you are quite right, it does. I am sure she will agree.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Actually I am not quite sure what you mean. I was pointing out that the writer was implicitly making a claim to read the other person's mind.

You are angry at me because that thing I did in the past and not about the issue at hand

is a claim to mind reading or being psychic and seems to be what the writer is 'doing' there. So no, I am not kidding, though I was also having fun.

I'm actually fairly open to people being psychic, but a claim is still a claim.

 

Ah. Ha.

I too think it's possible to 'know' things without knowing them, but you're right... a claim is a claim, and people are not to be trusted generally.