Help with understanding this question from the Q&A

1. 94

   Shesabutterflyposted 5 years ago

   I am looking to see how others would interpret this question I was asked on one of my articles. "Can a leader endure provocation with scriptural references?"
   
   Is the question asking if leaders can overcome suffering from prosecution by using scriptural references or are they asking if provocation can come to leaders and be based on scriptural references? Something completely different maybe? I think the word "with" is really throwing me off and I'm not sure how to interpret this question.
   
   Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

   replyreport
   1. 85

      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      To me they seem to be asking if it is possible to irritate a leader by using quotes from scripture as a basis for complaining or arguing a point and whether the leader has to endure this type of abuse.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Shesabutterflyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         This is what I was thinking as well. It makes more sense in regards to the article in my opinion. Although the question either way it was meant does not really pertain 100% to what the article was about.
         
         I can see how it could go both ways, but I think I'll just hide it at this point. I do not want to say I can't answer the question without clarification. If the person doesn't come back, other people who go to look at the question are going find nothing of value or importance. Answering both sides of the question is always an option I suppose. Maybe re-writing the question so it's clear and then answer that? If I pick the wrong interpretation they can always ask it again, if they really wanted.
         
         Thank you everyone for your thoughts. I greatly appreciate it.

         replyreport
2. 70

   Mary Florenceposted 5 years ago

   If they meant the latter there would have been a punctuation mark. A comma maybe.Or a hyphen at least. But since those marks are lacking I trust the former interpretation is the correct meaning ie "...leaders can overcome suffering from prosecution by using scriptural references..."

   replyreport
3. 80

   Mr Buenoposted 5 years ago

   I think the word "leader" should throw you off, personally.  It suggests an elitism that should not exist amongst the human family.  Let it happen how it will.
   
   A lesser point "is" surely you mean persecution, not prosecution.  Then again, perhaps I am not bright enough to comment.
   
   Have you ever thought about the word "is"  and the wider meaning of the verb "to be?"
   
   I believe Alfred Korzybski and his students attempted to tackle the issue with a discipline called "e-prime, "  an offshoot of the discipline of General Semantics.  But I could be wrong.

   replyreport
4. 0

   RTalloniposted 5 years ago

   It's easy to see the confusion. Why not let the writer of the question know that in order to answer the question clarification about what it they are asking is needed?

   replyreport
5. 0

   RTalloniposted 5 years ago

   Rewriting the Q is a good idea, and you can create the opportunity to explore several answers if you rewrite in more than one way. Questioning the question is a good opportunity to make it apply.

   replyreport