I'm not asking you about your opinion of me, or what you believe that I'm doing. I'm asking you to explain your own words. You did not offer anything in accordance with that. You need to explain this...

Well simply saying that judgment is personal doesn't really say much about judgment overall. Rather than giving examples of when we employ judgment, I'm looking more towards what judgment consists in/of. Know whatta mean?

Indeed, I meant would not... sloppy of me.

Explain this.

...there it is. Your words acknowledging the meaning of the question as it was posed. There is no misrepresentation involved, Those are your words verbatim. So, how does it follow from this agreement that "no" should be Joe's honest answer? There is no deception on my part Pan. You agreed to the meaning of the question.

What does the question, as posed, mean Pan?

So, you have acknowledged what the question meant, as posed. Since you have acknowledged that the question, as posed to Joe, meant Jill notwithstanding, and you have claimed that you're not attempting to make the meaning of the question a matter of contention, then upon what ground do you base the conclusion that Joe's answer should be "no, of course not"?

So what? I never said that you did! Do you grasp the importance of that brute fact?

The fact shows deceptive and dishonest behavior on display. First of all, I have not claimed that you agreed to my "application of Joe's forced interpretation", therefore I cannot possibly be lying about that. I've never said that, nor have I implied such a thing. Secondly, your objections completely miss the mark. The whole point of my explaining what the question meant was to clarify the given context and avoid arguing about the well-known meaning of an uncontentious question.

I went to great lengths to explain the meaning of the question. That is supported by the facts, as they occurred and can be observed by looking back through the thread. After going through that, you finally acknowledged that the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding. It was posed in the context of Joe, Jill, and Mary.

So let me get this straight...

The whole of your argument here is just that a hypothetical person could interpret the question in a number of ways, such as a sarcastic sort of joke, or some such like has been put forth already. So your point is that people could interpret it differently and as a result, they could also believe that they were answering what was being asked of them.

Is that right?

You agreed that when we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, because that is what is being asked about.

C'mon, you can admit it.

C'mon Pan. You can do it. Be honest, and admit to all the lovely folk what you've already agreed to. There is no ambiguity involved in the above words.

Here... I'll refresh your memory. Getting an honest straight answer out of you is like nailing jello to a wall. Here's how I eventually got you to agree. These words are taken from my posts, and are in sequencial order up until you finally acknowledged the meaning of the question as posed, as your words above clearly admit.

--

Here's my words that led up to the agreement...









Now, that is exactly how I stated it prior to your agreement.

Ok. I see your a little skeered, so I'll help out a little...





...there it is. Your words acknowledging the meaning of the question as it was posed. There is no misrepresentation involved, Those are your words verbatim. Now, explain to all the lovely folk, exactly what I stated the meaning to be, you know the one that you agreed to?

C'mon... it's not hard to be honest Pan. Just tell us what you agreed to. C'mon... you can do it.

What did you agree that the question, as posed, meant?



C'mon riddle guy, you can do it. You can be honest. C'mon...

Tell all the lovely people what the agreement was Pan. C'mon, you can do it. It's not that hard to be honest... is it?

Tell all the lovely people what the agreement was Pan... C'mon, you can do it.



See you swinging on the gallow's pole...

Gawd bless Led Zeppelin...

Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while,
Think I see my friends coming, Riding a many mile.
Friends, did you get some silver?
Did you get a little gold?
What did you bring me, my dear friends, To keep me from the Gallows Pole?
What did you bring me to keep me from the Gallows Pole?

I couldn't get no silver, I couldn't get no gold,
You know that we're too damn poor to keep you from the Gallows Pole.
Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while,
I think I see my brother coming, riding a many mile.
Brother, did you get me some silver?
Did you get a little gold?
What did you bring me, my brother, to keep me from the Gallows Pole?

Brother, I brought you some silver,
I brought a little gold, I brought a little of everything
To keep you from the Gallows Pole.
Yes, I brought you to keep you from the Gallows Pole.

Hangman, hangman, turn your head awhile,
I think I see my sister coming, riding a many mile, mile, mile.
Sister, I implore you, take him by the hand,
Take him to some shady bower, save me from the wrath of this man,
Please take him, save me from the wrath of this man, man.

Hangman, hangman, upon your face a smile,
Pray tell me that I'm free to ride,
Ride for many mile, mile, mile.

Oh, yes, you got a fine sister, She warmed my blood from cold,
Brought my blood to boiling hot To keep you from the Gallows Pole,
Your brother brought me silver, Your sister warmed my soul,
But now I laugh and pull so hard And see you swinging on the Gallows Pole

Swingin' on the gallows pole!

Now, riddle Panny-wanny, tell all the lovely folk exactly what the agreement was regarding what the question meant, as it was posed...



...then go on to explain how it follows from that meaning that "no" is an honest answer.

Jeez, what nonsense...

Now you're really off your rocker. Joe is a hypothetical character Pan. He's not real. He doesn't have knowledge, he can't because he is a fictional entity.

All that need be shown is that you agreed to what the definition of the question was, as it was posed, and since then you've broken that agreement. You've skewered yourself by your own insistence. I've just been taking the pictures.

Either you agree that the question, as posed, meant "Jill notwithstanding" or you do not agree that the question, as posed, meant "Jill notwithstanding". It cannot be both, for the one is the negation of the other. The so-called 'literal' meaning that you've attempted to argue for contradicts this earlier agreement.

You're either lying now, or you were lying then. Either way, you're being dishonest.