qwertz:"..The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender..."

According to your definition, the whole Internet should not work:

computer A sends a message to computer B. Computer B receives the message, but it does not understand it (understanding requires an intelligence, which no computer has as yet.) So the communication process can not be completed.

I think you must find another definition where understanding is not involved. Perhaps it would be enough to check if the received message agrees with the transmission protocol and the set of rules which were chosen for this particular communication system. Checking is not understanding and can be well defined by simple logic.

A helpful link

geo63:

qwertz:"..The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender..."

According to your definition, the whole Internet should not work:

It's not my definition, like you high-intelligent guy noticed during clicking the Wikipedia link.

geo63:
computer A sends a message to computer B. Computer B receives the message, but it does not understand it (understanding requires an intelligence, which no computer has as yet.) So the communication process can not be completed.

You seems to be not very familar with technical IP protocol matters.

geo63:
I think you must find another definition where understanding is not involved. Perhaps it would be enough to check if the received message agrees with the transmission protocol and the set of rules which were chosen for this particular communication system. Checking is not understanding and can be well defined by simple logic.

No! I have NOT to find anything! I only see, that you are not interested to convey any usefull message! And I see your comments very snotnosed, btw.!

geo63:
A helpful link

You probably could assume my answer for that, my little micro-majesty?! Right?!

Qwertz, I wouldn't bother pursuing this one. Geo63 just can't help himself from winding people up. The so-called 'joke' in this thread was rather a non-joke, anyway. I suppose it depends on how bizarre or normal you should find the idea of the Japanese Esperanto Association making English subtitles for their film.

...Seems like there's always some kinda arguing going on here.

AAAAAAH! NO ONE PANIC! AAAAAH! *running around in circles like a headless chicken*

geo63:

qwertz:"..The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender..."

According to your definition, the whole Internet should not work:

computer A sends a message to computer B. Computer B receives the message, but it does not understand it (understanding requires an intelligence, which no computer has as yet.) So the communication process can not be completed.

I don't know whether this is a joke or not, but if it's a joke, it doesn't look like one, and if it isn't a joke, if it's not to late to rush over with the fire extinguisher, I think in casual english it's perfectly fine to say "understood" in that context, even if strictly speaking there is no understanding going on. Especially since Qwertz speaks German, Geo63 speaks Polish, I think we can loosen the definition of 'understand' to something more flexible quite easily without destroying the english language

Chainy:
Qwertz, I wouldn't bother pursuing this one. Geo63 just can't help himself from winding people up.

Yes, now with some distance in time, I agree with you, that it will be the best for my own mental health just to ignore that kind of self-positioning attitudes. I still have to work hard at this issue to get that thick "elefant's skin" against such behaviour. But ignoring seems to be good tactic. I will try that.

Chainy:
The so-called 'joke' in this thread was rather a non-joke, anyway. I suppose it depends on how bizarre or normal you should find the idea of the Japanese Esperanto Association making English subtitles for their film.

Yes, I accept, that it could be an joke which folks from Geo63's (local) culture surrounding could understand easely. But not explaining somebody, who obviously didn't get the joke... That's in my opinion an kind of self-positioning tactic which conveys in my opinion a snotnosed attitude and is called in German: "Jemanden dumm sterben lassen"/"Let somebody die stupid". Means the receiver requests more information at some issue and the sender just denies that "more information please"-request. And in my opinion, for that offence there can only happen finishing communication actions.

What can I say? Some of you are dull guys with no sense of humor (everywhere you only find offense to your high personalities - even silence is for you offending). For that we say in Polish:

"bez kija nie podchodź"

"don't come closer without a stick"

Have a good day. I have enough of you.

PS: Quertz - I made silence not to come to a situation like this, but unsuccessfully though. Anyway you did start a war. So I was quite right about you. And even I if I explained something to you, you would die stupid anyway, because you just can't learn anything, when all you see is only offence.

geo63:
PS: Quertz - I made silence not to come to a situation like this, but unsuccessfully though. Anyway you did start a war.

Yes, for sure, geo63. I agree with you. Refusing any self-critics assures a quite comfy life for oneselves. Just the others are the bad guys who make mistakes. Not someones self does.

geo63:
So I was quite right about you. And even I if I explained something to you, you would die stupid anyway, because you just can't learn anything, when all you see is only offence.

Because we are now about talking of personal incapabilites: In my opinion you don't understand what human community communication means. Anyway. Have a nice day, Eo-fellow. Be sure, that I will not die stupid.

OK. I try to explain to YOU what I meant:

You issued a post of some japanese film event. Someone (chainy?) asked very wise question, why on esperanto-english forum you informed about that. So I gave him a "reason" (it was not even directed to you). That is all. And don't offend me any more - read all the posts from the beginning of this thread and you notice that it is you who is offending me right now. Anger is blind. And if you find malice everywhere, it must be inside of you. Happy people don't argue, but laugh.

geo63:OK. I try to explain to YOU what I meant:

You issued a post of some japanese film event. Someone (chainy?) asked very wise question, why on esperanto-english forum you informed about that.

Yes, I still remember. And I did answer to chainy's question.

geo63:
So I gave him a "reason" (it was not even directed to you).

Okay.

geo63:
That is all. And don't offend me any more - read all the posts from the beginning of this thread and you notice that it is you who is offending me right now.

Sorry, you didn't get it. You just keep staying nearby the position pole you piled into the ground: "I gave chainy a joke reason", which at least I didn't received like a joke. And for that I requested further information. Because I was interested what can be funny about you told. I mean, I started that thread and I was solely confused as that English subtitle issue did pop up. Do you understand? I was very strong interested at what you tried to tell. (=your message). What's wrong with that my own intention to be interested at others jokes/talks/informations/opinions?