(05-28-2021, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not this again.   Can we come up with some rule against these silly meaningless semantic arguments?

Why do you get to say what he really means in your words instead of his own?

He clearly said he would be ready to start the season.  So what if he did not use the exact word "guarantee"?  He said what he said.

Because YOU said he guaranteed it.
I figured as the king of semantics, you would have pointed out that he didn't actually guarantee it.
I'm just trying to be nitpicky about words just like you do.

(05-28-2021, 02:38 PM)R3stangs Wrote: Geez This isn't hard to understand. Our Dline sucked too as has already been said.  A major component of making that better (we hope) isn't on the field yet. People are nervous about it. It's not hard to grasp.

Until he's actually on the field most are going to be concerned about it.

True and very understandable.

(05-28-2021, 02:39 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I figured as the king of semantics, you would have pointed out that he didn't actually guarantee it.
I'm just trying to be nitpicky about words just like you do.

I never have to resort to sematic arguments.

There is a big difference between an argument based on semantics, which is basically arguing about the exact meaning of words, and an people claiming they did not mean what they actually said.

For example one definition of "guarantee" is "to assert confidently".  In this case Reader "asserted confidently" that he would be ready for the season.  To claim that he didn't is a nit-picky attempt at a semantic argument.  But on the other hand the term "the worst" does not mean "just bad" or "some of the worst".  So when I point out that that some player or coach is not "the worst" I am making a factual argument, not a semantic argument.

(05-28-2021, 02:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never have to resort to sematic arguments.

There is a big difference between an argument based on semantics, which is basically arguing about the exact meaning of words, and an people claiming they did not mean what they actually said.

For example one definition of "guarantee" is "to assert confidently".  In this case Reader "asserted confidently" that he would be ready for the season.  To claim that he didn't is a nit-picky attempt at a semantic argument.  But on the other hand the term "the worst" does not mean "just bad" or "some of the worst".  So when I point out that that some player or coach is not "the worst" I am making a factual argument, not a semantic argument.

Where are you getting said definition?

The ones I have from Oxford Languages are:
- a formal promise or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality and durability.
- a formal pledge to pay another person's debt or to perform another person's obligation in the case of default.
- provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.


Asserting confidently and guaranteeing are different. Asserting confidently is, for example, a high probability of confidence (e.g. 90%) whereas a guarantee is 100%.

(05-28-2021, 02:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never have to resort to sematic arguments.

There is a big difference between an argument based on semantics, which is basically arguing about the exact meaning of words, and an people claiming they did not mean what they actually said.

For example one definition of "guarantee" is "to assert confidently".  In this case Reader "asserted confidently" that he would be ready for the season.  To claim that he didn't is a nit-picky attempt at a semantic argument.  But on the other hand the term "the worst" does not mean "just bad" or "some of the worst".  So when I point out that that some player or coach is not "the worst" I am making a factual argument, not a semantic argument.

Semantics aside:

I guarantee if someone you disagreed with used the term guarantee you'd point to a different definition of guarantee.

(05-28-2021, 03:22 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Where are you getting said definition?

Guarantee | Definition of Guarantee by Merriam-Webster

(05-28-2021, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Semantics aside:

I guarantee if someone you disagreed with used the term guarantee you'd point to a different definition of guarantee.

(05-28-2021, 05:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Guarantee | Definition of Guarantee by Merriam-Webster

Fair enough. But I would say the most common understanding and definition of the term "guarantee" is 100% certainty.
If someone said they guaranteed it was going to rain today because the forecast said 90% chance and it ends up not actually happening, would you point out that it shouldn't have been a guarantee? I would.

(05-28-2021, 05:25 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair enough. But I would say the most common understanding and definition of the term "guarantee" is 100% certainty.

And Reader said he would be ready with 100% certainty.  Maybe I missed it but I did not see any "might" or "maybe" in his comments.

People,  it all depends on what the definition of the word is is.. ~William Jefferson Clinton 

(05-28-2021, 05:25 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Fair enough. But I would say the most common understanding and definition of the term "guarantee" is 100% certainty.
If someone said they guaranteed it was going to rain today because the forecast said 90% chance and it ends up not actually happening, would you point out that it shouldn't have been a guarantee? I would.

And this is the definition of a semantic argument.  *ducks*

(05-28-2021, 08:36 PM)Stewy Wrote: And this is the definition of a semantic argument.  *ducks*

Is is a word still or did Bill get it retired forever?

(05-28-2021, 08:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And Reader said he would be ready with 100% certainty.  Maybe I missed it but I did not see any "might" or "maybe" in his comments.

Here is the entire article...

Quote:Bengals defensive coordinator Lou Anarumo said early this month that he felt getting veterans back in the lineup after they missed much or all of last season with injuries was like having extra draft picks.

Defensive tackle D.J. Reader is one of those players. He signed with the Bengals as a free agent last March and started five games before a quad injury knocked him out for the rest of the year.
Reader is working on the side at OTAs, but said he’s “feeling good and confident” about being 100 percent when it is time for the season to get underway.
“I never put a time limit on it, but I’ll be ready to go when it’s time to go and I’m out there working with the guys, the training staff is here pushing me,” Reader said, via Laurel Pfahler of the Dayton Daily News. “I’m excited.”
When the Bengals signed Reader, the idea was to team him with Geno Atkins on the interior of the line. Atkins is gone now, so the hope will shift to Reader, Larry Ogunjobi, and Mike Daniels making Cincinnati stouter at the point of attack in 2021.

Where in that does he say he would be ready with 100% certainty?


All I see is him saying he's "feeling good and confident" about being 100% when it's time for the season to get underway.
Maybe my reading comprehension is terrible, but the way I read it is that he's confident he'll be ready by the start of the season, not that he's 100% certain.


Or are you referring to him saying "I'll be ready to go when it's time to go" as him saying he's guaranteeing it? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but "when it's time to go" doesn't necessarily mean the start of the season to me. I interpret that as he'll be out there once he's ready, especially because he says he never puts a time limit on it.

(05-28-2021, 08:36 PM)Stewy Wrote: And this is the definition of a semantic argument.  *ducks*

I agree that it's a semantic argument.

In my world (software), if a delivery team tells leadership or stakeholders that they guarantee no defects exist or that they'll hit a date, they deserve to be called out if there is even a single issue or they don't hit the date.

Don't use an absolute term if you aren't 100% certain it will be true.

I think in this case where Reader was asked if he'd be 100% ready by the start of the season, he accurately avoided saying yes by just saying he's "feeling good and confident" he will be ready.
That doesn't mean he's guaranteeing it. It means he thinks it's likely.

Lets just hope he can return to form. Our Dline stunk last year, we need him.

(05-28-2021, 09:57 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Lets just hope he can return to form. Our Dline stunk last year, we need him.

Simple, true and to the point.

(05-28-2021, 09:45 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Here is the entire article...


Where in that does he say he would be ready with 100% certainty?


All I see is him saying he's "feeling good and confident" about being 100% when it's time for the season to get underway.
Maybe my reading comprehension is terrible, but the way I read it is that he's confident he'll be ready by the start of the season, not that he's 100% certain.


Or are you referring to him saying "I'll be ready to go when it's time to go" as him saying he's guaranteeing it? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but "when it's time to go" doesn't necessarily mean the start of the season to me. I interpret that as he'll be out there once he's ready, especially because he says he never puts a time limit on it.

When it comes to the Bengals and I read or hear the statement "feeling good and confident" about player health, I instantly assume that player will be 6 to 8 weeks later then said projection or they'll go to IR.

When I read this thread title.

(05-28-2021, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Our DTs were useless last year. Every bit as bad as our OGs.

TRUTH!

Every offensive line seemed to magically get better against the Bengals.