NOTE: I later realized that those with a certain degree of intelligence might actually have the right question after following the link, and my hint would then send them off track. I apologize if this happened to you, readers.
PAA:
You did not provide a definition for “triplical.”
—
“Ingraining” / “ingraination” :
Except that the tense wouldn’t work.
I think “ingraining” works as a makor in English.
Let’s see:
1. The ingraination of X into one’s nature
2. The ingraining of X into one’s nature
The only difference appears to me to be that only one form is officially valid.
—
Note this in the “sarcasticon” section: “[added later, PAA!]” after a link to the thread I would later claim to have been unaware of. (You did not mention this.)
—
“Conversified”
What would have been the problem with “the converse is not necessarily so?”
It gives the sentence a whole different feel.
How does “feel” come into a logical discussion? (While we’re talking about this, I think the likelihood of the kollel community seeing working people as an economic burden on them [even following the shita, which presumably exists and might be correct for all I know, that actually, the kollel community is the cause of the wealth of the workers, just as a person’s children act as conduits of blessing rather than taking money away from him – the Aron is “no’sei es nos’ov] is a lot smaller than “not necessarily” would imply.)
—
The Writersoul issue:
I think I did miss meaning 1),
and I do agree that it could have been 3), which may or
may not make sense – Let’s just forget about this part.
—
(Me: Contrary to what somebody seems to believe, I am not a walking index of the CR.)
(That was a reference. Did you get it? Probably… )
Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread.
You clearly did see it, as you quoted it
Let’s take another look.
Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread. […] But given how short that line is, and the hint…
[empty line]
That’s right, I didn’t read much of that thread
How could I say definitively that I hadn’t read much of the
thread if I didn’t know what it was? But how could I know
what it was if I hadn’t read it?
The answer lies here: “Given how short that line is, and the hint… [empty line]”
That line, and the following ellipsis and break, meant this:
Given how small the line is, and the hint, there’s not much it could be referencing. That thread should then be easy to find – and it was. The ellipsis and line are meant to be me
going off to find the thread, and returning to announce that indeed, I had not previously seen it.
I then attempted to prove it with a quote which involves a bad misunderstanding of a word, something I am sure you are aware I am opposed to.
(Later, having followed the link to “PAA vs. PBA” to see if there was anything new there, I came across a link to the second page of that thread, where I found new information about one
of the “sarcasticons” higher up in my [still-unposted] post. I added this information, noting that it had been added later, so as not to cause the illusion that I had already read that thread when I wrote that part of the post.)
You can also note that I did not ask for the location of the discussion you had referenced – because I knew it.
You have not addressed this either:
Let’s try your ability to get references:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/lollipops#post-540672