Is the phrase “consistently inconsistent” redundant and does it have a single word?Is the phrase “please kindly” redundant?Is the phrase “a stark contrast” redundant?Is the phrase “spherical ball” redundant?Is the word multimedia redundant?Is the term “fresh and original” redundant?Is it redundant to use “currently” and “at the moment” in the same sentence?Is the phrase “refuse to accept” redundant?Is the phrase “parking garage” redundant?When is the word “where” considered redundant?Is the phrase “mutual trust” redundant?

What is going on with Captain Marvel's blood colour?

Alternative to sending password over mail?

What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?

Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?

How to show the equivalence between the regularized regression and their constraint formulas using KKT

Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension

Is "remove commented out code" correct English?

How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?

Today is the Center

Why can't we play rap on piano?

Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?

How can I prevent hyper evolved versions of regular creatures from wiping out their cousins?

Does a druid starting with a bow start with no arrows?

Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets

Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?

How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope

Brothers & sisters

How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?

What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?

Is the Joker left-handed?

Theorems that impeded progress

What about the virus in 12 Monkeys?

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?



Is the phrase “consistently inconsistent” redundant and does it have a single word?


Is the phrase “please kindly” redundant?Is the phrase “a stark contrast” redundant?Is the phrase “spherical ball” redundant?Is the word multimedia redundant?Is the term “fresh and original” redundant?Is it redundant to use “currently” and “at the moment” in the same sentence?Is the phrase “refuse to accept” redundant?Is the phrase “parking garage” redundant?When is the word “where” considered redundant?Is the phrase “mutual trust” redundant?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5















I stumbled on this phrase today, but have seen it in news articles and blogs, as well. Here's an example from this site:




To put it mildly, the result of exercise was and remains consistently inconsistent.




I understand the sentiment being expressed, but is it any different than using just "inconsistent"? Similarly, is there a specific word that would describe this condition (e.g. repeated failings)?










share|improve this question

















  • 3





    It seems to me that "consistently" is for emphasis. Just "inconsistent" means that there are different results present - "consistently inconsistent" seems to imply a different result each time.

    – asymptotically
    Jul 27 '12 at 16:08






  • 3





    Compare regularly irregular which is a standard medical term.

    – donothingsuccessfully
    Jul 28 '12 at 6:46

















5















I stumbled on this phrase today, but have seen it in news articles and blogs, as well. Here's an example from this site:




To put it mildly, the result of exercise was and remains consistently inconsistent.




I understand the sentiment being expressed, but is it any different than using just "inconsistent"? Similarly, is there a specific word that would describe this condition (e.g. repeated failings)?










share|improve this question

















  • 3





    It seems to me that "consistently" is for emphasis. Just "inconsistent" means that there are different results present - "consistently inconsistent" seems to imply a different result each time.

    – asymptotically
    Jul 27 '12 at 16:08






  • 3





    Compare regularly irregular which is a standard medical term.

    – donothingsuccessfully
    Jul 28 '12 at 6:46













5












5








5


1






I stumbled on this phrase today, but have seen it in news articles and blogs, as well. Here's an example from this site:




To put it mildly, the result of exercise was and remains consistently inconsistent.




I understand the sentiment being expressed, but is it any different than using just "inconsistent"? Similarly, is there a specific word that would describe this condition (e.g. repeated failings)?










share|improve this question














I stumbled on this phrase today, but have seen it in news articles and blogs, as well. Here's an example from this site:




To put it mildly, the result of exercise was and remains consistently inconsistent.




I understand the sentiment being expressed, but is it any different than using just "inconsistent"? Similarly, is there a specific word that would describe this condition (e.g. repeated failings)?







single-word-requests redundancy






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jul 27 '12 at 15:42









ZairjaZairja

5,82843078




5,82843078







  • 3





    It seems to me that "consistently" is for emphasis. Just "inconsistent" means that there are different results present - "consistently inconsistent" seems to imply a different result each time.

    – asymptotically
    Jul 27 '12 at 16:08






  • 3





    Compare regularly irregular which is a standard medical term.

    – donothingsuccessfully
    Jul 28 '12 at 6:46












  • 3





    It seems to me that "consistently" is for emphasis. Just "inconsistent" means that there are different results present - "consistently inconsistent" seems to imply a different result each time.

    – asymptotically
    Jul 27 '12 at 16:08






  • 3





    Compare regularly irregular which is a standard medical term.

    – donothingsuccessfully
    Jul 28 '12 at 6:46







3




3





It seems to me that "consistently" is for emphasis. Just "inconsistent" means that there are different results present - "consistently inconsistent" seems to imply a different result each time.

– asymptotically
Jul 27 '12 at 16:08





It seems to me that "consistently" is for emphasis. Just "inconsistent" means that there are different results present - "consistently inconsistent" seems to imply a different result each time.

– asymptotically
Jul 27 '12 at 16:08




3




3





Compare regularly irregular which is a standard medical term.

– donothingsuccessfully
Jul 28 '12 at 6:46





Compare regularly irregular which is a standard medical term.

– donothingsuccessfully
Jul 28 '12 at 6:46










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















7














It does smack of redundancy, especially in the context you provided, where the statement is further reinforced by the preceding 'was and remains'.



Logically anything that is inconsistent will be consistently so, since 'inconsistent' covers any behaviour apart from actual consistency. It's like saying that something is consistently chaotic. What is 'inconsistent' chaos? It gets pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.



For that reason, I'd say the best use for the phrase (and probably the reason why many articles use it), is to create humour.



On the other hand, it can also be used (and is likely the intended meaning in the example you cited) to mean that the results of the exercise fluctuate widely, but also in a predictable way. In which case I suppose the usage is valid, but still a little redundant. I'm not aware of a single term that could capture the sentiment, though.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

    – Zairja
    Jul 27 '12 at 16:05











  • Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

    – Jesse M
    Jul 27 '12 at 16:10











  • Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

    – Chad Harrison
    Jul 27 '12 at 20:30


















7














The phrase "consistently inconsistent" is used for emphasis and a touch of humor, or at least more colorful language. It's not really redundant, as something could be "occasionally inconsistent".



In any case, there's nothing wrong with redundancy when it's used for emphasis or to add vibrancy to the language. Redundancy is just bad when it's pointless.



For example: "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and was late." Well duh, of course if he arrived after the scheduled time, he must have been late. That's a pointless redundancy. But, "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and delayed everything." That's not necessarily redundant. For example, others could have decided to go ahead without him when he was late. "Joe is always arriving late and missing appointments." Technically redundant, but it adds emphasis. Sometimes the difference between pointless redundancy and emphatic redundancy is highly subjective.






share|improve this answer






























    4














    "Consistently inconsistent" really is no different than "inconsistent," but the phrase carries either a humorous and/or a mocking or insulting tone to it.



    I'd suggest that a single-word synonym might be maybe "erratic." The word "capricious" may also work sometimes, but is a bit more of a stretch as that usually refers to mood or feelings.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      "Consistently inconsistent" is a philosophical concept first put forth by Aristotle in his Poetics, one of the earliest works of aesthetic theory. It means that any story told must be true to its internal logic, and that characters in a story must also behave within the confines of the story's logic. Take Middle Earth as an example. The setting is a world equivalent to pre-Industrial Revolution Earth. If Gandalf had suddenly produced a supersonic jet for the Nine Companions to take to Mordor to destroy the Ring, it would have violated the internal logic of the world in which the story is set.






      share|improve this answer






























        0














        I suggest "consistently inconsistent" might accurately be used when evaluating the behavior or a particular person across a range of issues. For example, if an individual's words and deeds are routinely inconsistent, misaligned, and inaccurate in context of a range of policy issues such as immigration, national security, and international trade, human rights, the rule of law, etc., said individual might accurately be described as consistently inconsistent.



        Consistency of word and alignment between words and deeds being so closely tied to credibility, one might also describe said individual as "incredible" -- literally the opposite of credible, and arguably therefore untrustworthy. (Though of course affective trust is often granted despite numerous indicators that cognitive trust should not be.)



        [NOTE: In light of the high likelihood one might infer I was referencing a specific national leader in this example, please take my example at face value. I'm confident it will stand on its own merit; if it applies accurately to any given individual, that's not my fault.]






        share|improve this answer






























          -1














          "Unpredictable" may be a good fit, depending on context.






          share|improve this answer
































            -1














            working on a criminal case i came across a pattern of what seemed "inconsistent" in different witness statements. When i broke the statements down it was clear that all the statements had at least 4/5 same entries inserted = consistent.



            When we cross reference 6 different statements they were too consistent, meaning if these were genuine statement they would be more inconsistent that consistent.



            We use the term inconsistent (reviewed as a whole)



            It doesn't matter which way it is said but in our case we referred to these entries as inconsistently (as a whole) consistent (same paragraphs in each statement).



            Each paragraph within the report was annotated with consistently inconsistent. The persons / authorities reviewing this report understood without the need for an explanation.



            Therefore my point is if someone states consistently inconsistent what it means is i found something that matches or is the same but doesn't belong, or shouldn't be there.






            share|improve this answer






























              -1














              I agree 100% I think it's fine used in a light humorous term to emphasize something.. for example the Wendy's near my house one time you may come in and it's Fantastic the next time you come in it sucks and it repeats itself. so therefore when I say well here's the thing about our Wendy's near my house they are consistently inconsistent basically meaning you never know what you're going to get to either going to be good or it's going to be bad.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              • Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                – Chappo
                4 hours ago









              protected by Mitch 5 hours ago



              Thank you for your interest in this question.
              Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



              Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














              8 Answers
              8






              active

              oldest

              votes








              8 Answers
              8






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              7














              It does smack of redundancy, especially in the context you provided, where the statement is further reinforced by the preceding 'was and remains'.



              Logically anything that is inconsistent will be consistently so, since 'inconsistent' covers any behaviour apart from actual consistency. It's like saying that something is consistently chaotic. What is 'inconsistent' chaos? It gets pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.



              For that reason, I'd say the best use for the phrase (and probably the reason why many articles use it), is to create humour.



              On the other hand, it can also be used (and is likely the intended meaning in the example you cited) to mean that the results of the exercise fluctuate widely, but also in a predictable way. In which case I suppose the usage is valid, but still a little redundant. I'm not aware of a single term that could capture the sentiment, though.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 1





                Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

                – Zairja
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:05











              • Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

                – Jesse M
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:10











              • Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

                – Chad Harrison
                Jul 27 '12 at 20:30















              7














              It does smack of redundancy, especially in the context you provided, where the statement is further reinforced by the preceding 'was and remains'.



              Logically anything that is inconsistent will be consistently so, since 'inconsistent' covers any behaviour apart from actual consistency. It's like saying that something is consistently chaotic. What is 'inconsistent' chaos? It gets pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.



              For that reason, I'd say the best use for the phrase (and probably the reason why many articles use it), is to create humour.



              On the other hand, it can also be used (and is likely the intended meaning in the example you cited) to mean that the results of the exercise fluctuate widely, but also in a predictable way. In which case I suppose the usage is valid, but still a little redundant. I'm not aware of a single term that could capture the sentiment, though.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 1





                Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

                – Zairja
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:05











              • Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

                – Jesse M
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:10











              • Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

                – Chad Harrison
                Jul 27 '12 at 20:30













              7












              7








              7







              It does smack of redundancy, especially in the context you provided, where the statement is further reinforced by the preceding 'was and remains'.



              Logically anything that is inconsistent will be consistently so, since 'inconsistent' covers any behaviour apart from actual consistency. It's like saying that something is consistently chaotic. What is 'inconsistent' chaos? It gets pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.



              For that reason, I'd say the best use for the phrase (and probably the reason why many articles use it), is to create humour.



              On the other hand, it can also be used (and is likely the intended meaning in the example you cited) to mean that the results of the exercise fluctuate widely, but also in a predictable way. In which case I suppose the usage is valid, but still a little redundant. I'm not aware of a single term that could capture the sentiment, though.






              share|improve this answer













              It does smack of redundancy, especially in the context you provided, where the statement is further reinforced by the preceding 'was and remains'.



              Logically anything that is inconsistent will be consistently so, since 'inconsistent' covers any behaviour apart from actual consistency. It's like saying that something is consistently chaotic. What is 'inconsistent' chaos? It gets pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.



              For that reason, I'd say the best use for the phrase (and probably the reason why many articles use it), is to create humour.



              On the other hand, it can also be used (and is likely the intended meaning in the example you cited) to mean that the results of the exercise fluctuate widely, but also in a predictable way. In which case I suppose the usage is valid, but still a little redundant. I'm not aware of a single term that could capture the sentiment, though.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Jul 27 '12 at 16:01









              Jesse MJesse M

              1,139610




              1,139610







              • 1





                Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

                – Zairja
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:05











              • Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

                – Jesse M
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:10











              • Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

                – Chad Harrison
                Jul 27 '12 at 20:30












              • 1





                Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

                – Zairja
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:05











              • Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

                – Jesse M
                Jul 27 '12 at 16:10











              • Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

                – Chad Harrison
                Jul 27 '12 at 20:30







              1




              1





              Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

              – Zairja
              Jul 27 '12 at 16:05





              Thanks, I just had the same thought about the paradox of "constant change" etc. that this type of oxymoron produces.

              – Zairja
              Jul 27 '12 at 16:05













              Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

              – Jesse M
              Jul 27 '12 at 16:10





              Right. It's an odd issue because we can interpret what the differences between 'consistently inconsistent' and 'inconsistently inconsistent' might be, but do we really need those phrases at all? A set of results is either consistent, or it isn't. It works kind of like numbers; we have positive numbers and negative numbers. Technically you can have a positive negative number or a negative negative number, but the first is really just a negative number and the second is really just a positive one.

              – Jesse M
              Jul 27 '12 at 16:10













              Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

              – Chad Harrison
              Jul 27 '12 at 20:30





              Yeah, It's kind of like putting off procrastination...

              – Chad Harrison
              Jul 27 '12 at 20:30













              7














              The phrase "consistently inconsistent" is used for emphasis and a touch of humor, or at least more colorful language. It's not really redundant, as something could be "occasionally inconsistent".



              In any case, there's nothing wrong with redundancy when it's used for emphasis or to add vibrancy to the language. Redundancy is just bad when it's pointless.



              For example: "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and was late." Well duh, of course if he arrived after the scheduled time, he must have been late. That's a pointless redundancy. But, "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and delayed everything." That's not necessarily redundant. For example, others could have decided to go ahead without him when he was late. "Joe is always arriving late and missing appointments." Technically redundant, but it adds emphasis. Sometimes the difference between pointless redundancy and emphatic redundancy is highly subjective.






              share|improve this answer



























                7














                The phrase "consistently inconsistent" is used for emphasis and a touch of humor, or at least more colorful language. It's not really redundant, as something could be "occasionally inconsistent".



                In any case, there's nothing wrong with redundancy when it's used for emphasis or to add vibrancy to the language. Redundancy is just bad when it's pointless.



                For example: "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and was late." Well duh, of course if he arrived after the scheduled time, he must have been late. That's a pointless redundancy. But, "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and delayed everything." That's not necessarily redundant. For example, others could have decided to go ahead without him when he was late. "Joe is always arriving late and missing appointments." Technically redundant, but it adds emphasis. Sometimes the difference between pointless redundancy and emphatic redundancy is highly subjective.






                share|improve this answer

























                  7












                  7








                  7







                  The phrase "consistently inconsistent" is used for emphasis and a touch of humor, or at least more colorful language. It's not really redundant, as something could be "occasionally inconsistent".



                  In any case, there's nothing wrong with redundancy when it's used for emphasis or to add vibrancy to the language. Redundancy is just bad when it's pointless.



                  For example: "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and was late." Well duh, of course if he arrived after the scheduled time, he must have been late. That's a pointless redundancy. But, "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and delayed everything." That's not necessarily redundant. For example, others could have decided to go ahead without him when he was late. "Joe is always arriving late and missing appointments." Technically redundant, but it adds emphasis. Sometimes the difference between pointless redundancy and emphatic redundancy is highly subjective.






                  share|improve this answer













                  The phrase "consistently inconsistent" is used for emphasis and a touch of humor, or at least more colorful language. It's not really redundant, as something could be "occasionally inconsistent".



                  In any case, there's nothing wrong with redundancy when it's used for emphasis or to add vibrancy to the language. Redundancy is just bad when it's pointless.



                  For example: "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and was late." Well duh, of course if he arrived after the scheduled time, he must have been late. That's a pointless redundancy. But, "Joe arrived after the scheduled time and delayed everything." That's not necessarily redundant. For example, others could have decided to go ahead without him when he was late. "Joe is always arriving late and missing appointments." Technically redundant, but it adds emphasis. Sometimes the difference between pointless redundancy and emphatic redundancy is highly subjective.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jul 27 '12 at 17:50









                  JayJay

                  31.6k34691




                  31.6k34691





















                      4














                      "Consistently inconsistent" really is no different than "inconsistent," but the phrase carries either a humorous and/or a mocking or insulting tone to it.



                      I'd suggest that a single-word synonym might be maybe "erratic." The word "capricious" may also work sometimes, but is a bit more of a stretch as that usually refers to mood or feelings.






                      share|improve this answer



























                        4














                        "Consistently inconsistent" really is no different than "inconsistent," but the phrase carries either a humorous and/or a mocking or insulting tone to it.



                        I'd suggest that a single-word synonym might be maybe "erratic." The word "capricious" may also work sometimes, but is a bit more of a stretch as that usually refers to mood or feelings.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          4












                          4








                          4







                          "Consistently inconsistent" really is no different than "inconsistent," but the phrase carries either a humorous and/or a mocking or insulting tone to it.



                          I'd suggest that a single-word synonym might be maybe "erratic." The word "capricious" may also work sometimes, but is a bit more of a stretch as that usually refers to mood or feelings.






                          share|improve this answer













                          "Consistently inconsistent" really is no different than "inconsistent," but the phrase carries either a humorous and/or a mocking or insulting tone to it.



                          I'd suggest that a single-word synonym might be maybe "erratic." The word "capricious" may also work sometimes, but is a bit more of a stretch as that usually refers to mood or feelings.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Jul 27 '12 at 16:11









                          Ben DyerBen Dyer

                          51437




                          51437





















                              0














                              "Consistently inconsistent" is a philosophical concept first put forth by Aristotle in his Poetics, one of the earliest works of aesthetic theory. It means that any story told must be true to its internal logic, and that characters in a story must also behave within the confines of the story's logic. Take Middle Earth as an example. The setting is a world equivalent to pre-Industrial Revolution Earth. If Gandalf had suddenly produced a supersonic jet for the Nine Companions to take to Mordor to destroy the Ring, it would have violated the internal logic of the world in which the story is set.






                              share|improve this answer



























                                0














                                "Consistently inconsistent" is a philosophical concept first put forth by Aristotle in his Poetics, one of the earliest works of aesthetic theory. It means that any story told must be true to its internal logic, and that characters in a story must also behave within the confines of the story's logic. Take Middle Earth as an example. The setting is a world equivalent to pre-Industrial Revolution Earth. If Gandalf had suddenly produced a supersonic jet for the Nine Companions to take to Mordor to destroy the Ring, it would have violated the internal logic of the world in which the story is set.






                                share|improve this answer

























                                  0












                                  0








                                  0







                                  "Consistently inconsistent" is a philosophical concept first put forth by Aristotle in his Poetics, one of the earliest works of aesthetic theory. It means that any story told must be true to its internal logic, and that characters in a story must also behave within the confines of the story's logic. Take Middle Earth as an example. The setting is a world equivalent to pre-Industrial Revolution Earth. If Gandalf had suddenly produced a supersonic jet for the Nine Companions to take to Mordor to destroy the Ring, it would have violated the internal logic of the world in which the story is set.






                                  share|improve this answer













                                  "Consistently inconsistent" is a philosophical concept first put forth by Aristotle in his Poetics, one of the earliest works of aesthetic theory. It means that any story told must be true to its internal logic, and that characters in a story must also behave within the confines of the story's logic. Take Middle Earth as an example. The setting is a world equivalent to pre-Industrial Revolution Earth. If Gandalf had suddenly produced a supersonic jet for the Nine Companions to take to Mordor to destroy the Ring, it would have violated the internal logic of the world in which the story is set.







                                  share|improve this answer












                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer










                                  answered Mar 10 '16 at 9:13









                                  user164708user164708

                                  91




                                  91





















                                      0














                                      I suggest "consistently inconsistent" might accurately be used when evaluating the behavior or a particular person across a range of issues. For example, if an individual's words and deeds are routinely inconsistent, misaligned, and inaccurate in context of a range of policy issues such as immigration, national security, and international trade, human rights, the rule of law, etc., said individual might accurately be described as consistently inconsistent.



                                      Consistency of word and alignment between words and deeds being so closely tied to credibility, one might also describe said individual as "incredible" -- literally the opposite of credible, and arguably therefore untrustworthy. (Though of course affective trust is often granted despite numerous indicators that cognitive trust should not be.)



                                      [NOTE: In light of the high likelihood one might infer I was referencing a specific national leader in this example, please take my example at face value. I'm confident it will stand on its own merit; if it applies accurately to any given individual, that's not my fault.]






                                      share|improve this answer



























                                        0














                                        I suggest "consistently inconsistent" might accurately be used when evaluating the behavior or a particular person across a range of issues. For example, if an individual's words and deeds are routinely inconsistent, misaligned, and inaccurate in context of a range of policy issues such as immigration, national security, and international trade, human rights, the rule of law, etc., said individual might accurately be described as consistently inconsistent.



                                        Consistency of word and alignment between words and deeds being so closely tied to credibility, one might also describe said individual as "incredible" -- literally the opposite of credible, and arguably therefore untrustworthy. (Though of course affective trust is often granted despite numerous indicators that cognitive trust should not be.)



                                        [NOTE: In light of the high likelihood one might infer I was referencing a specific national leader in this example, please take my example at face value. I'm confident it will stand on its own merit; if it applies accurately to any given individual, that's not my fault.]






                                        share|improve this answer

























                                          0












                                          0








                                          0







                                          I suggest "consistently inconsistent" might accurately be used when evaluating the behavior or a particular person across a range of issues. For example, if an individual's words and deeds are routinely inconsistent, misaligned, and inaccurate in context of a range of policy issues such as immigration, national security, and international trade, human rights, the rule of law, etc., said individual might accurately be described as consistently inconsistent.



                                          Consistency of word and alignment between words and deeds being so closely tied to credibility, one might also describe said individual as "incredible" -- literally the opposite of credible, and arguably therefore untrustworthy. (Though of course affective trust is often granted despite numerous indicators that cognitive trust should not be.)



                                          [NOTE: In light of the high likelihood one might infer I was referencing a specific national leader in this example, please take my example at face value. I'm confident it will stand on its own merit; if it applies accurately to any given individual, that's not my fault.]






                                          share|improve this answer













                                          I suggest "consistently inconsistent" might accurately be used when evaluating the behavior or a particular person across a range of issues. For example, if an individual's words and deeds are routinely inconsistent, misaligned, and inaccurate in context of a range of policy issues such as immigration, national security, and international trade, human rights, the rule of law, etc., said individual might accurately be described as consistently inconsistent.



                                          Consistency of word and alignment between words and deeds being so closely tied to credibility, one might also describe said individual as "incredible" -- literally the opposite of credible, and arguably therefore untrustworthy. (Though of course affective trust is often granted despite numerous indicators that cognitive trust should not be.)



                                          [NOTE: In light of the high likelihood one might infer I was referencing a specific national leader in this example, please take my example at face value. I'm confident it will stand on its own merit; if it applies accurately to any given individual, that's not my fault.]







                                          share|improve this answer












                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer










                                          answered Jul 12 '18 at 21:52









                                          Cliff W. GilmoreCliff W. Gilmore

                                          91




                                          91





















                                              -1














                                              "Unpredictable" may be a good fit, depending on context.






                                              share|improve this answer





























                                                -1














                                                "Unpredictable" may be a good fit, depending on context.






                                                share|improve this answer



























                                                  -1












                                                  -1








                                                  -1







                                                  "Unpredictable" may be a good fit, depending on context.






                                                  share|improve this answer















                                                  "Unpredictable" may be a good fit, depending on context.







                                                  share|improve this answer














                                                  share|improve this answer



                                                  share|improve this answer








                                                  edited Jul 27 '12 at 21:02

























                                                  answered Jul 27 '12 at 20:57









                                                  JenniferJennifer

                                                  11




                                                  11





















                                                      -1














                                                      working on a criminal case i came across a pattern of what seemed "inconsistent" in different witness statements. When i broke the statements down it was clear that all the statements had at least 4/5 same entries inserted = consistent.



                                                      When we cross reference 6 different statements they were too consistent, meaning if these were genuine statement they would be more inconsistent that consistent.



                                                      We use the term inconsistent (reviewed as a whole)



                                                      It doesn't matter which way it is said but in our case we referred to these entries as inconsistently (as a whole) consistent (same paragraphs in each statement).



                                                      Each paragraph within the report was annotated with consistently inconsistent. The persons / authorities reviewing this report understood without the need for an explanation.



                                                      Therefore my point is if someone states consistently inconsistent what it means is i found something that matches or is the same but doesn't belong, or shouldn't be there.






                                                      share|improve this answer



























                                                        -1














                                                        working on a criminal case i came across a pattern of what seemed "inconsistent" in different witness statements. When i broke the statements down it was clear that all the statements had at least 4/5 same entries inserted = consistent.



                                                        When we cross reference 6 different statements they were too consistent, meaning if these were genuine statement they would be more inconsistent that consistent.



                                                        We use the term inconsistent (reviewed as a whole)



                                                        It doesn't matter which way it is said but in our case we referred to these entries as inconsistently (as a whole) consistent (same paragraphs in each statement).



                                                        Each paragraph within the report was annotated with consistently inconsistent. The persons / authorities reviewing this report understood without the need for an explanation.



                                                        Therefore my point is if someone states consistently inconsistent what it means is i found something that matches or is the same but doesn't belong, or shouldn't be there.






                                                        share|improve this answer

























                                                          -1












                                                          -1








                                                          -1







                                                          working on a criminal case i came across a pattern of what seemed "inconsistent" in different witness statements. When i broke the statements down it was clear that all the statements had at least 4/5 same entries inserted = consistent.



                                                          When we cross reference 6 different statements they were too consistent, meaning if these were genuine statement they would be more inconsistent that consistent.



                                                          We use the term inconsistent (reviewed as a whole)



                                                          It doesn't matter which way it is said but in our case we referred to these entries as inconsistently (as a whole) consistent (same paragraphs in each statement).



                                                          Each paragraph within the report was annotated with consistently inconsistent. The persons / authorities reviewing this report understood without the need for an explanation.



                                                          Therefore my point is if someone states consistently inconsistent what it means is i found something that matches or is the same but doesn't belong, or shouldn't be there.






                                                          share|improve this answer













                                                          working on a criminal case i came across a pattern of what seemed "inconsistent" in different witness statements. When i broke the statements down it was clear that all the statements had at least 4/5 same entries inserted = consistent.



                                                          When we cross reference 6 different statements they were too consistent, meaning if these were genuine statement they would be more inconsistent that consistent.



                                                          We use the term inconsistent (reviewed as a whole)



                                                          It doesn't matter which way it is said but in our case we referred to these entries as inconsistently (as a whole) consistent (same paragraphs in each statement).



                                                          Each paragraph within the report was annotated with consistently inconsistent. The persons / authorities reviewing this report understood without the need for an explanation.



                                                          Therefore my point is if someone states consistently inconsistent what it means is i found something that matches or is the same but doesn't belong, or shouldn't be there.







                                                          share|improve this answer












                                                          share|improve this answer



                                                          share|improve this answer










                                                          answered Feb 6 '16 at 22:14









                                                          kevin hollingsbeekevin hollingsbee

                                                          1




                                                          1





















                                                              -1














                                                              I agree 100% I think it's fine used in a light humorous term to emphasize something.. for example the Wendy's near my house one time you may come in and it's Fantastic the next time you come in it sucks and it repeats itself. so therefore when I say well here's the thing about our Wendy's near my house they are consistently inconsistent basically meaning you never know what you're going to get to either going to be good or it's going to be bad.






                                                              share|improve this answer








                                                              New contributor




                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                                              • Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                                                                – Chappo
                                                                4 hours ago















                                                              -1














                                                              I agree 100% I think it's fine used in a light humorous term to emphasize something.. for example the Wendy's near my house one time you may come in and it's Fantastic the next time you come in it sucks and it repeats itself. so therefore when I say well here's the thing about our Wendy's near my house they are consistently inconsistent basically meaning you never know what you're going to get to either going to be good or it's going to be bad.






                                                              share|improve this answer








                                                              New contributor




                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                                              • Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                                                                – Chappo
                                                                4 hours ago













                                                              -1












                                                              -1








                                                              -1







                                                              I agree 100% I think it's fine used in a light humorous term to emphasize something.. for example the Wendy's near my house one time you may come in and it's Fantastic the next time you come in it sucks and it repeats itself. so therefore when I say well here's the thing about our Wendy's near my house they are consistently inconsistent basically meaning you never know what you're going to get to either going to be good or it's going to be bad.






                                                              share|improve this answer








                                                              New contributor




                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                                              I agree 100% I think it's fine used in a light humorous term to emphasize something.. for example the Wendy's near my house one time you may come in and it's Fantastic the next time you come in it sucks and it repeats itself. so therefore when I say well here's the thing about our Wendy's near my house they are consistently inconsistent basically meaning you never know what you're going to get to either going to be good or it's going to be bad.







                                                              share|improve this answer








                                                              New contributor




                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                                              share|improve this answer



                                                              share|improve this answer






                                                              New contributor




                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                                              answered 7 hours ago









                                                              Kevin DuzinskiKevin Duzinski

                                                              1




                                                              1




                                                              New contributor




                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                                              New contributor





                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                                              Kevin Duzinski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                                              Check out our Code of Conduct.












                                                              • Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                                                                – Chappo
                                                                4 hours ago

















                                                              • Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                                                                – Chappo
                                                                4 hours ago
















                                                              Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                                                              – Chappo
                                                              4 hours ago





                                                              Hi Kevin, welcome to EL&U. There are some problems with your answer: (1) I don't think it's appropriate to use our site to comment on a recognised food chain - the name of the store is irrelevant and should be deleted; (2) EL&U is a site for "serious English language enthusiasts" - so we really do expect correct good expression and standard punctuation; and (3) you haven't answered the question, you've merely given an example of how you have the same issue. You can edit your post to address these issues. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the Tour. :-)

                                                              – Chappo
                                                              4 hours ago





                                                              protected by Mitch 5 hours ago



                                                              Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                              Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                              Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                                              Popular posts from this blog

                                                              How to create a command for the “strange m” symbol in latex? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?Writing bold small caps with mathpazo packageplus-minus symbol with parenthesis around the minus signGreek character in Beamer document titleHow to create dashed right arrow over symbol?Currency symbol: Turkish LiraDouble prec as a single symbol?Plus Sign Too Big; How to Call adfbullet?Is there a TeX macro for three-legged pi?How do I get my integral-like symbol to align like the integral?How to selectively substitute a letter with another symbol representing the same letterHow do I generate a less than symbol and vertical bar that are the same height?

                                                              Българска екзархия Съдържание История | Български екзарси | Вижте също | Външни препратки | Литература | Бележки | НавигацияУстав за управлението на българската екзархия. Цариград, 1870Слово на Ловешкия митрополит Иларион при откриването на Българския народен събор в Цариград на 23. II. 1870 г.Българската правда и гръцката кривда. От С. М. (= Софийски Мелетий). Цариград, 1872Предстоятели на Българската екзархияПодмененият ВеликденИнформационна агенция „Фокус“Димитър Ризов. Българите в техните исторически, етнографически и политически граници (Атлас съдържащ 40 карти). Berlin, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei Wilhelm Greve, 1917Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars

                                                              Category:Tremithousa Media in category "Tremithousa"Navigation menuUpload media34° 49′ 02.7″ N, 32° 26′ 37.32″ EOpenStreetMapGoogle EarthProximityramaReasonatorScholiaStatisticsWikiShootMe