From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit From VFH
- Against. Sorry, but this article isn't ambiguous. Ambiguous means that there's more than one interpretation of what it means. For example, "Obscene Performance: Magistrates to Act," or "War News: British Push Bottles Up Germans," or "Go Eat Shit Fuckers." When you're not sure about what you're saying, but you make that point clearly, that's not ambiguity; it's ambivalence. Totally different head, totally. -- 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- PS, last night, I voted against an article in my pajamas. -- 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
against. Agree with the bizarre hybrid that is Falco-Tron.--03:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Darn you for making me dig out the dictionary. I'll just abstain and go back English class, then.-- 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not to be a better pedant than you, but http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081545.html and http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861585054/ambiguous.html and the definitions in in fact every reference I can find all agree with me. It's a common error, and in another 20 years ambivalent may be a standard alternate definition for ambiguous, but it's not yet. It's not that I don't like it; in fact, with a move to Ambivalence and a corresponding minor rewrite, I'd probably vote for it. -- 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment you two should get together and make the most pedantic baby ever! Heck, make a whole brood.-- 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The article itself isn't meant to be ambiguous. It's simply trying to state that ambiguity is an ambiguous concept. The article itself is nebulous, or perhaps vague, rather than ambivalent — it doesn't have a conflicting attitude towards ambiguity, but rather no attitude at all. Which is as it should be, correct? The author is essentially trying to define a term that has no clear definition whatsoever, and he knows it doesn't, and that's why he's trying to define it, and that's also why he's failing, and he also knows that he's failing, which is why it's funny. c • > • 05:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to really get pedantic, most of the article is made up of tautologies, which aren't necessarily ambiguous or ambivalent. To quote from your source here The principal difference is that ambivalent is used of people and their attitudes, whereas ambiguous refers to information or context. Information, like this article, is 'ambiguous' in this context. Well, I've prattled on enough, but let me end by saying that the fact we are having this discussion over ambiguity/ambivance proves the article itself is ambiguous, which is a wicked meta-joke. An ambigous article about ambiguity, that. Think about it. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- MO, ever since your comment, I haven't been able to get "Song for a Future Generation" out of my head. And I hear the B-52s and Chicks on Speed versions at the same time.
- As I said before, this article would be very funny if it were moved to Ambivalent. But as it is, it's not. And I have this horrible fear that my old English teacher Ms. Finn might still be alive, might see this article, and might retroactively change all my grades and ruin my permanent record. Yeah, you're all safe, because you never had Ms. Finn for English. Anyway, if the intention is that the author's ambivalence is caused by the subject being ambiguous, that doesn't come across at all--there's nothing about ambiguity, or any ambiguous topic, anywhere in the article. The author just sounds congenitally unable to form an opinion.
- As for tautologies, any wishy-washy sentence is pretty much a tautology (and the same one: either A or not A). A tautologous ambiguity would be a neat trick: a sentence that can be interpreted in two different ways, and yet they're both tautologous. -- 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The definition of "Ambivalence" is rooted in psychology - an attitude of the speaker. The definition of "Ambiguity" is rooted in meaning, and therefore more abstract and consequently much much funnier. It's a text, not a person. And if Ms. Finn wants to argue with that, I'll send some boys around with a bag of sand. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why so many brilliant humorists use ambiguity so often (as in "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" or "go eat shit fuckers"). But this article is not ambiguous, and yet it's still funny--it's just mistitled. And by the way, where were your boys with a bag of sand when I was in 11th grade? I'm just saying, a woman who teaches remedial English to the Marines should not be teaching high school honors English. -- 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree:
ambiguity 1. Something liable to more than one interpretation, explanation or meaning, if that meaning etc cannot be determined from its context.
am·biv·a·lence 1. The coexistence of opposing attitudes or feelings, such as love and hate, toward a person, object, or idea. 2. Uncertainty or indecisiveness as to which course to follow.
- This article does contain indecisiveness (as in part two of two), but as far as I've read/written it's more of the first one. It's intended to be written such that it could refer to anything. I could perhaps spend some time tweaking the wording, though. --epynephrin 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see a single sentence in the article that could be interpreted in more than one way; each and every sentence has a single interpretation (almost always that some X may or may not be true, which is what's funny about it). But I'm obviously not going to convince anyone to move the article to Ambivalence. Meanwhile, as I'm afeared of my old high school English teacher, nobody's going to change my vote. So I don't think there's any more reason for argument. Plus, if Uncyclopedia is representative (and frankly, it's probably well above representative), in another decade Webster will be listing another meaning for ambiguous, and if I try to fight that they'll take away the linguistics degree that I never finished. So I'll just write a cranky letter to William Safire about these kids today and their grasp of the English language, he'll agree with me, and then correct me for using "different from" instead of "different to," and we can glare at each other until it's time to take our Metamucil and turn in at 18:00. -- 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Before we close the discussion, though, I'd just like to know: Is, or was, your former high school English teacher genuinely frightening, as you suggest? Or are you just using her as a convenient foil, a "ghost-beater" if you will? Or is there something much more sinister going on? Alternatively, could this entire effort be merely a diversionary tactic to distract us while you make non-substantive edits to the articles on Michael Jackson and Rhubarb pie, for no logical reason other than just to do it? Or am I just completely wrong about everything? Is it even possible for me to be right about anything? Can anyone, indeed, be right about anything, given that there may be something to the idea of real objectivity after all? Or should we follow the existentialist credo, which states that the concept, the idea, the work is that which transcends, rather than the everyday, mundane articles around us? Or, perhaps even the mundane articles on this website? Or, perhaps, nothing whatsoever? c • > • 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you've caught me. Oh, all of the details are wrong, and so are the main ideas, and you're not even the right user--but nevertheless, I am now forced to give up and admit the truth. Miss Finn is just an implanted memory (although William Safire is real, and scary). I'm an anti-vandalism-bot from the year 2097. The only way to truly end vandalism is to go back into the past and destroy Uncyclopedia. My plan was to side-track everyone into this discussion. Within a week, there would be no writing going on anywhere but on this page. And I would have gotten away for it, if it weren't for you meddling kids. -- 21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)