Well put. Thanks for the explanation.

I don't mind if you think I'm pretentious—I am writing pompously and condescendingly for you because deserve it—but nothing I've written has given you reason to pretend I think Ben talented or a snappy dresser. Why would you say that BS? I mean, I'm not surprised, all you've done is whine and make unsupported claims,…

'I' is the correct pronoun there. Subtract 'You and', and see which pronoun would fit. It isn't 'me'.

Further thoughts, zeroing in on my typographical errors or rare misuses of punctuation is petty and pedantic, speaks very little to my word choice, and says nothing about what the lyrics in question might mean. But it says a lot about you and your method of irrational argumentation.

I'm afraid typos like that regularly occur when typing on a phone. I fix them when I catch them, but I'm only moderately concerned about protecting your delicate eyes from such errors. If they annoy you, just use your imagination and pretend I edited them.

I suppose that might be damning if any of it were true. What this shows is you have an overactive imagination, far too much confidence in your own tenuous conclusions, and a rather dim view of the capabilities of those around you (which, by the way, seems a bit like you're projecting). It is an indictment of your own…

"my responses to you, all of which have been intelligent and well spoken"

Typos are a sad thing to focus on in a critique of writing on the Internet.

My bsupposed beliefs about what you know and understand about 'extant', based upon what you have written, show you how little I understand about Occam's razor? That may be the most nonsensical thing I've read all day. More, please. Feel free to elaborate, or just go on about some other incredible tangent.

Frankly, I'm not transported by your writing, either, but I haven't whined about it in every post because to do so would be childish, and beside the point of the argument at hand—an argument you have all but abandoned, and only laughably engaged in before that. More, just like you, if I don't like something so much I…

I'm sure you're right, but it still feels very harsh. I suppose that was intentional, too. I do not doubt Strummer's good intentions.

I'm not. I just said some of the people who play it out here aren't necessarily the types you'd assume would be huge into sports. Ben might have played it or been friends with someone who did. How you get 'elite hipster sport' from that?

I will also explain my use of 'extant' for you. In this case, it refers to a thing which currently exists or is practiced (such as an extant language, as opposed to a dead one or a hypothetical or theoretical language). There may have been or may yet be real or imagined sports which involve goalies and nets, and are…

The idea that one should be charitable in attempting to understand another person or another language is a philosophical principle, which crops up most often in philosophy of language, but is also generally applied in the act translation, and implicitly at work when we attempt to understand smeared or hard to read…

Your memories and personal experience seem to tell you an awful lot about what Ben Gibbard has known and done. Even if you were right about him, something for which you've offered no decent justification, it would nevertheless be true that the only extant sport the lyrics can refer to is Lacrosse. Thus the only…

Your argument assumes at once that he should be familiar with ESPN and that he couldn't possibly be familiar with any sports. It is incongruous, and self defeating.

I studied it at the University of Washington in various levels of philosophy courses. I have read about it elsewhere, and discussed it with doctors and grad students in philosophy from across the country online and in person. I have a fairly decent grasp of the subject for a layman. Occam's razor is, in point of fact,…

Occam's razor *is* the principle of parsimony. I missed where you refuted that, and expanded its meaning, rather than simply claiming it does apply here, and goes against what I have said. Perhaps you might try doing it again, more explicitly this time, with an actual argument.

I didn't accuse him of anything. I do not believe my assuming he has a decent grasp of English (and can therefore understand me) belittles him. I am not sure how edits made quickly for the sake of clarity undermine my position. But I am fairly certain your method of attack and base reiteration is irrational and…

What part of it is or was ignorant?