saying and contradiction?
477660
a saying is like 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink' and contradiction is when you say one thing, and mean another. That sort of thing.
712254
you are mistaken.\nsome things are both true & eternal.\nIf it is not true, it is not eternal.\nScripture is true.
713383
"You don't say" ---Really? (are you serious?)\n\nI'll never (maybe like I've never) -- in response to something outrageous--- express shock, dismay, \n\nI have heard of "I say" rather than "I'll say" -- Agreement, you're right,
552113
Ask: "What would the other angel tell me if I asked him which is the right way to heaven?"\n\nThen take the other way since one lies and and tells the truth [negative(-) x positive (+) = Negative(-)], therefore, the opposite from what they say.\n\nHope you'll make it now, since you know the answer ;) jk.
1101652
I am not sure what you are trying to say.
962195
A IS TRUE\nB IS TRUE\n3 IS I DONNO\n4 IS TRUE
859357
communication problems or clashing of ideas
773839
a) true\nb) false\nc) true\nd) true\ne) false
827755
EXAMPLE:\n\n  " The husband alleged, that his wife put poison in his food"\n\n(meaning it could be false, usually one person's word)\n\n"The police alleged, that the defendant had a gun in his hand."
522578
You can say:\n\n"I disagree" OR "I'm disagreeing"\n\nBasically, English grammar works such that if you use the verb "to be" as a helping verb to indicate a continuous action you *must* use the -ing suffix on your main verb.\n\nOther examples to help you get the idea.\n\nI swim.  I am swimming.\nI run.  I am running.\nI read.  I am reading.\n\nNormally, the verb "to disagree" requires an object.  E.g. "I disagree with [blank]" OR "I am disagreeing with [blank]."  However, if the object is clear from the context it can be omitted.\n\nExample 1:\n\nJoe Schmo:  Cats are stupid.\nJane Schmo: I disagree.\n\nIn this example, it is clear from the context what Jane disagrees with.\n\nExample 2:\nJane Schmo: I am disagreeing with Joe concerning the notion that cats are stupid.\nJohn Suave: Interesting.  Tell me more.\n\nIn this example, Jane must use an object in order to explain the context to John.  And, in the structure of this sentence, the entire phrase following "with" is the object.\n\nThis is a somewhat simplified explanation, but I hope that helps.
9361
Lying.\n\nIf he were telling the truth, then the statement "everything I say to you is a lie," would be true; however, since the statement indicates that he's lying, he can't be telling the truth.\n\nIf he's telling a lie, however, then "everything I say to you is a lie" is a lie. This doesn't cause a paradox, because it's possible that only some of what the man says is a lie, rather than everything.
332446
false; \n\nmany English mistakes in this sentance , take out the 'of' for a start, should be brother and sister not 'or' no need to go on i think.
735911
Something is ambiguous if it can be seen in more than one way.  For example, if someone is not clearly a man or a woman, their sexuality can be regarded as 'ambiguous'.  If it is not clear whether I am for or against the war in Iraq, my attitude towards it can be described as 'ambiguous'.\n\nAs for using it in a sentence, I think you should do your own homework.
148966
It depends on context.\nGeneral or prevalent usage does not necesarily legitimise bad English. \n\nIncidentally your answer to another question where you have suggested that 'like' is a substitute for different forms of the verb 'say' is totally erroneous. The 'sentence' the questioner has asked about is so magnificently ill-structured that it takes time to comprehend and with no context in which to place it (no textual commentary and it is not part of a larger scripted dialogue or transcript of a conversation) we must take it at its 'effective' face-value.\n\n"Like" is here the equivalent of the equally vague "sort of" or "kind of" and is meaningful only in the generally and necessarily vague (or arguably 'free') state of the informal language coding of the rest of the 'sentence'.\n\nBut this then brings us to clasification and despite all arguments to the contrary we are stuck with the 'like' in question (no pun intended) falling into the category of the adjectival.\n\nI suppose, at the end of the day, it may depend on quite what one means by semantics...  but that day has not yet begun and the end is faraway...\n\nThanks for inspiring me to spout.\n\n:)
430538
Okay.  I think that part of what people consider contradictions in the Bible are actually specifications.\n\nWhen you have two things that are Biblically based, but polar opposite, I think we have to consider that they are written for two polar opposite attitudes of heart.\n\nWe tend to think that if something is wrong, then what we need to do is the opposite thing.  But what if that's not true?  What if we just need to reign ourselves in a little, not go drastically the other direction?\n\nThe preacher in our congregation when I was growing up used to say, "In order to give someone directions, you have to know two things: where they are and where they want to go."\n\nHis point was that sometimes what people need to do depends on where they start. \n\nYou haven't been specific with the situation, but I'll use this as an example:\n\n Do not answer a fool according to his folly,\n Lest you also be like him.\n Answer a fool according to his folly,\n Lest he be wise in his own eyes.  Proverbs 26:4-5\n\nHow can they both be true, and how do you decide whether or not to answer?\n\nI think if I have a tendency to be rash in my answers, I'd better take verse 4 to heart.  If I answer what I believe to be a foolish remark, I'm probably only going  to show myself to be a fool.\n\nIf I have a tendency not to confront foolish talk because I am shy or insecure, every fool and his brother is going to feel compelled to give me advice because they take my silence as interest or approval. So verse 5 applies to me.\n\nYou say the people have book, chapter and verse.  I'd study context around it and make sure the concept is understood.  Then make sure it makes sense to apply it to the person it's being applied to.\n\nIn the end, each person has to do what they believe to be the correct thing and trust that God will bring about resolution.  If we submit to Him, He will bring us into agreement with each other.  If we care more about being right in an argument than we care about being righteous before God, we have little hope of unity.
1039177
yeah, go to dictionary.com and look up 'contradiction'
580153
You're telling it wrong. This is how it should go.\n\n"Think of words ending in -GRY. Angry and hungry are two. There are only three words in the English language. What is the third word? The word is something that everyone uses every day. If you have listened carefully, I have already told you what it is." \n \nAnd the answer is Language. "The English Language."