Originally Posted by zeyton
No matter, I will restate: The more consistently and reliably you follow the rules, which includes paying attention, and requires paying close and continuous attention, the more you will be paying close and continuous attention, the more you will be paying attention, and the more consistently and reliably you will be following the rules.
This makes no sense.
What requires paying close and continuous attention? Following the rules? No. More reliably following the rules? No. Actually following the rules consistently, yes, but that's not what this is saying.
If you're doing something
more reliably, then you're not yet doing it consistently and reliably.
For example, one might say his child is taking out the garbage
more reliably. The use of the term
more implies the child is not yet doing it reliably and consistently; otherwise he would simply say his child is taking out the garbage reliably, or his child is finally take out the garbage reliably (if he wants to convey that he wasn't fully reliable before, but is now).
But using
more in "more reliably" only makes sense in a context where the subject is not yet doing it reliably with consistency.
But I'm sure you already know this, so I'm not sure why you're making me explain it.
Originally Posted by Zeytoun
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Also, the bolded part is redundant
No it's true by definition.
If you're not playing games, you're going to have to convince me you're not, because I can't understand why you're making silly distinctions between redundancy and "true by definition" if you're not playing games.
I've patiently answered your questions for post after post, page after page... to what end? So you can deny that saying the same thing twice because it is true by definition is not a redundancy?
If you have legitimate concerns, tell us what they are. If you are playing games, I'm done.