This thread, by definition, concerns itself with opinions. Answers-dot-com provides this definition:
Quote:pet peeve n. Informal.
Something about which one frequently complains; a particular personal vexation.
I can think of few things which qualify more as a matter of opinion than "a particular personal vexation."
The member JTT is the only member i have known who has consistently arrived in this thread (and in a few others) to dictate to us what is and what is not correct usage. Although providing no evidence of special qualification, that member has always spoken with a tone of authority. The only sources for that authority which i have known him to present are anecdotal references to a single author, and the ludicrous "google search" method which he apparently favors.
The expression great, braying jackass also leaps to mind.
When i say that someone is in error for their contentions about history, i can provide sources to which one can refer, or i can provide a logical statement about why i claim that someone is in error. For example, people constantly state that history is written by the victors. I point out that this is a quote of Napoleon, and that Napoleon was not the victor, and yet that the history of his era is written almost exclusively from his point of view, and that he enjoys a favorable historical reputation. That despite the fact that the victors of the Napoleonic wars viewed him with the same horror and contempt as a later generation would view Hitler.
I have never known you to provide an outside source as an authority, nor have i ever seen you deploy much in the way of logic. Your reliance upon a google search result for the prevalence of a usage is a wonderful example of just how little in the way of reliable evidence you ever advance.
Pot . . . kettle.
Setanta wrote:This thread, by definition, concerns itself with opinions. Answers-dot-com provides this definition:
Quote:pet peeve n. Informal.
Something about which one frequently complains; a particular personal vexation.
I can think of few things which qualify more as a matter of opinion than "a particular personal vexation."
From the ridiculous to the sublimely inane? How do you do it, Set?
I've always said, let 'em express their opinions. These opinions fall faster than a "Setanta argument" when they meet fact.
What "facts" have you provided, O Wise Master? Please indicate a single, supported and unassailable fact which you have presented. In fact, i did not object to the core logic of your response to Bathsheba, as it had a logical basis. That doesn't make it fact, however.
You shovel **** faster than a farm hand in a pig lot.
Setanta wrote:When i say that someone is in error for their contentions about history, i can provide sources to which one can refer, or i can provide a logical statement about why i claim that someone is in error.
Your reliance upon a google search result for the prevalence of a usage is a wonderful example of just how little in the way of reliable evidence you ever advance.
As I mentioned, you've never stayed around long enough to find out. Merely pointing out that you are in error wrt a language issue sends you into the inane posting routine.
Care to pull up one of your prescriptions from anywhere in this thread and discuss it, Set?
I have offered no prescriptions--as i've pointed out, this thread is a quintessential venue for the expression of opinion.
At any event, i'm still waiting for you to provide an example of fact which you have presented, and for which you can adduce evidence.
Your snide and vitriolic attitude is clearly evident. I responded to Bathsheba, not to you. I did not refer to your response to Bathsheba. That was because i did not have any logical objections to it. However, it contained no facts. You, however, could not resist jumping on what i had written. What a putz.
Seems to me our entire country was f--ked in the ass over what the definition of the word "is" is.
One spinning liar SOB started it all and now the left wants to elect his wife?
I don't get it.
Setanta wrote:I have offered no prescriptions--as i've pointed out, this thread is a quintessential venue for the expression of opinion.
You've pointed out a number of things, Set, many of them wrong.
At any event, i'm still waiting for you to provide an example of fact which you have presented, and for which you can adduce evidence.
Your snide and vitriolic attitude is clearly evident. I responded to Bathsheba, not to you. I did not refer to your response to Bathsheba. That was because i did not have any logical objections to it. However, it contained no facts. You, however, could not resist jumping on what i had written. What a putz.
Set, Set, Set. I'm beginning to worry about you. Now you can't even remember what you say within one posting.
"Your snide and vitriolic attitude is clearly evident. ... What a putz."
I didn't jump on you at all. I politely pointed out the errors in your posting, the brunt of which you're falling all over yourself to avoid discussing.
What is it that would give you the right to respond to Bathsheba that would in turn, prevent me from responding to you? Your logic astounds, Set.
cjhsa wrote: I don't get it.
Tell us something we don't know.
Not at all. You pointed out no errors, you just said that i had offered opinion, anecdotal evidence. I haven't denied that, i've just pointed out that you've done the same. Your response has been to make insulting characterizations, which is why i have responded in like kind.
You continue to avoid providing an instance of any "facts" which you have presented.
Since you see fit to continue to address me as "Set" over my objections, i will take the opportunity to address you as Just Talking Trash.
The ball's in your court, Just Talking Trash--please show us where you have provided us with facts.
JTT wrote:cjhsa wrote: I don't get it.
Tell us something we don't know.
You're an idiot. But wait, you knew that.... it's in your DNA.
I'll leave you to your playmate, Just Talking Trash, since you seem unable to provide an example of you having presented a fact. He's more your calibre--big bore. You two deserve one another. I'm going to go walk the dogs--an activity far more interesting and edifying than conversing with you.
Setanta wrote:Not at all. You pointed out no errors, you just said that i had offered opinion, anecdotal evidence. I haven't denied that, i've just pointed out that you've done the same. Your response has been to make insulting characterizations, which is why i have responded in like kind.
Why would you try to pass off anecdotes as facts, Set?
You can choose to address me any way you like, Set. I prefer to use your name.
McTag wrote:They add subtitles for some Scots, for English audiences.
Mildly ironic--i turned on the television just at dinner time this evening, and there was a program about a railway disaster in Newzilund--and they had subtitles for several of the survivors who were telling their story. I don't know who makes the decisions, though. One of the guys whose remarks were added by subtitle was perfectly comprehensible to me; but one woman for whom they did not provide subtitles was completely a mystery to me, i couldn't make out even half of what she said.
Mame wrote:Joeblow wrote:What about folks who describe others as having "taken" a decision about something?
He's taken a decision.
He took a decision.
He'll take a decisionÂ….
When did that become common?
That's not common where I live. We westerners still use the word "made".
"Common" was poorly chosen, but I have heard it used several times in the last few months, even by the grand Pooh-Bah himself, the P.M.
It irked me.
You "take" a decision in French and Spanish apparently.
joeblow wrote :
Quote:"Common" was poorly chosen, but I have heard it used several times in the last few months, even by the grand Pooh-Bah himself, the P.M.
listening to QUESTION PERIOD in canada's parliament gives me the impression that many MP's have never learned how to construct a sentence - OR to give a straight answer :wink:
but i'm sure the members have all had special instructions in OBFUSCATION - and they all have been good students in that subject !
hbg
It's damn tiring, trying to listen, isn't it?
Quote:It's damn tiring, trying to listen, isn't it?
you ever listen to the supreme court proceedings that are usually broadcast on the parliamentary channel on saturday/sunday mornings ?
that'll turn your milk sour :wink:
hbg
Excellent article, McT. In the 80s and 90s, i quickly got sick to death of the use of paradigm, especially as it was usually used incorrectly. People would speak of a "unique paradigm," or a "paradigm shift"--but as paradigm means a pattern or a model, it would be effectively be meaningless to speak of a unique paradigm. If it truly were unique, if no one else were using it, it would not be a model or a pattern, and hence would not be a paradigm.
As with so many examples provided in the article you linked, paradigm and those terms are often quickly made meaningless because they are simply repeated by those who wish to appear to be in the know. At an Irish site i often visit, which has the subtitle "Wasting time at work," one of the members once posted what was in print a three page memorandum in which a development team described the project they were about to implement. Having read it, i summarized it as "this is what we intend to do, but we're not sure it will work out as we plan--please don't expect the impossible." Of course, that might have been too honest an admission for them, and anyway, they were able to waste a day or two writing up the three page memo.
I suspect, though, that obfuscation of this type is nothing new, and the only governing factor is the ability with which modern office denizens are able to proliferate their meaningless tripe by use of printers and email.
