HOW CAN A GUY BE SO DUM?????

Forums: Satire, Stupidity
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I just saw on the TV news that an old man paid over his life savings
to the million-dollar lottery fone scam. That 's an old scam. How ofen do we get that in our spam???

Forgive my bragging, but when the scammers call me,
I have fun with them, giving them a hard time with my skepticism.
I 'm less than polite to them n don t mind insulting them.

David

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 4,056 • Replies: 71

@OmSigDAVID,

David, you do realize that there are any number of people who are in the earlier stages of dementia or Alzheimer's and are functional enough to live on their own but can be taken in by this kind of crap, right?

1 Reply

@jespah,

Well, now that u point that out, yea.

I forgot about that. (That shud start some jokes.)

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Hey, it happens.

0 Replies

A few years ago, I saw a middle-aged medical doctor on TV
(presumably non-demented) as the real life victim of a similar spam-scam. He had almost
emptied out his life savings and incrementally sent it to Africa. We know that it is IMPOSSIBLE
to graduate from medical school and then to get a license to practice
without being un-commonly intelligent. This is ostensibly oxymoronic.

I guess it just goes to prove what psychologists have said about mental compartmentalization.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

. . . I guess it just goes to prove what psychologists have said about mental compartmentalization.

Hmmm!

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Is it ironic if the title has a misspelled word?

3 Replies

@Alqaholic,

Well, if your phonetics are fonetic, your speling might be uneak. Laughing

1 Reply

@Alqaholic,

Alqaholic wrote:

Is it ironic if the title has a misspelled word?

No. I represent the concept
that paradigmatic, non-fonetic spelling
is an atavistic throw back to logical inefficiency.

My posting endeavors to show ez more fonetic ways to spell; better than the old way.

David

1 Reply

@neologist,

Many times have I posted that a consensus of fonetic lexicografers
will choose the finally accepted optimal ways to spell individual words.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

My issue with it is the fact that you spell your words how you possibly pronounce them, as opposed to the universal way that everyone is taught.
For instance, when I see your word 'cud' for could, I immediately think 'cow chewing'.
If you wish to spell could the way it is pronounced, surely you would try cood.
But then again, cood with a double o could also be pronounced like food is pronounced, or door.

So it's not very clever, is it? Better to stick to how we were all taught at school, rather than save a few seconds here or there on a misguided economy of effort,

2 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

Well said, Lordy. Our current serpentine spelling rules make exposition fun.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

Lordyaswas wrote:

My issue with it is the fact that you spell your words how you
possibly pronounce them, as opposed to the universal way that everyone is taught.

OF COURSE! I use English as spoken in New York.
That is how everyone shud speak it. Its Manifest Destiny, what Nature intended.

Lordyaswas wrote:

For instance, when I see your word 'cud' for could, I immediately think 'cow chewing'.

I know, but the same spelling can apply to 2 different definitions.
Seldom do we have occasion to refer to the digestion of cattle.
Maybe, to differentiate, we can decide that cows will chew their cudds.
I will not be invited to decide the details.
When I was on-the-job, my spelling was fully paradigmatic;
I feel guilty for that. I was complicit in illogic.

Lordyaswas wrote:

If you wish to spell could the way it is pronounced, surely you would try cood.
But then again, cood with a double o could also be pronounced like food is pronounced, or door.

My technique of doubling the d rendering it: cudd is easier to handle. "Where there is a will, there is a way."

Lordyaswas wrote:

So it's not very clever, is it?

No, it IS
and your question implies a non-sequitur.

Lordyaswas wrote:

Better to stick to how we were all taught at school,
rather than save a few seconds here or there on a misguided economy of effort,

No. That is very poor reasoning
and toxic for future generations whose minds will be abused in school
for no reason other than a lazy failure to up-date since Chaucerian times,
and disdain for logic and efficiency. We got to the top of the food chain by use of correct logic.
Let 's not betray that logic. I 'm very pleased that the young
have trained themselves in fonetic spelling for use in their fones despite their elders!!!
THAT is a testament to the versatility, creativity n liberty of the human mind.

David

1 Reply

Not to mention the fact that what david calls fonetic is not in fact consistently phonetic at all. "u" for "you" would be pronouned "oo" as in moon if it were phonetic, not "you" as david is using it. That is in fact logographic not phonetic, it's using the way the letter u is pronounced when it is not part of a word as if it were in fact a phonetic unit, which it is not. Similarly "ez" is not "easy" phonetically. It is again pronouncing it logographically, as the names of the letters are pronounced. In other words, david, you're completely inconsistent. Which basically means you're not trying to communicate, you're trying to make a point, and doing it very, very badly. Stop trying to force your ill-conceived ideas on us, and focus on communicating for a change.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Well said, Lordy. Our current serpentine spelling rules make exposition fun.

Its not fun for the juvenile victims
who have to learn it, u sadist!

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Not to mention the fact that what david calls fonetic is not in fact consistently phonetic at all. "u" for "you" would be pronouned "oo" as in moon if it were phonetic, not "you" as david is using it. That is in fact logographic not phonetic, it's using the way the letter u is pronounced when it is not part of a word as if it were in fact a phonetic unit, which it is not. Similarly "ez" is not "easy" phonetically. It is again pronouncing it logographically, as the names of the letters are pronounced.

Right; the idea is service of fast, ez convenience for those who use it.
Y shud the Spanish be better off than English speakers?????????

Simple recognition & acceptance is key.
To those who grow up with it, there will be little or no objection.
The Metric System is alien n obnoxious to my mind,
but I know that it is a better system than the one I know n love
(except its temperature scale).

MontereyJack wrote:

In other words, david, you're completely inconsistent.

Yes! I 'm being liberal about it, in a liberal forum!!

MontereyJack wrote:

Which basically means you're not trying to communicate, you're trying to make a point, and doing it very, very badly. Stop trying to force your ill-conceived ideas on us, and focus on communicating for a change.

When I'm being serious enuf,
then I do lay off a lot of the fonetics.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Tell it to the Chinese, David, who have to learn a minimum of 2000 symbols to be considered fairly literate (and 12000 or so if they want to be considered fully literate (and there have been suggestions that that is why they generally do better than caucasians on IQ tests, because their minds get far more exercise learning to write. You're dumbing us down, David, with your fixation on fewer symbols).

2 Replies

Quote:

Y shud the Spanish be better off than English speakers?????????

To repeat, Spanish has far fewer phonemes than English does, so they have almost a 1:1 correspondence between letter and sound. English has somewhere in the low 40s of phonemes, which means we have far more phonemes than we do letters to represent them (not to mention widespread dialects with significant differences in pronunciation). Do we do Aussie phonetics? Liverpool phonetics? Spell it like the Scots say it?Boston phonetics? valley girl phonetics? Mississippi phonetics? You're advocating complete anarchy, or else a whole lot of pissed off people because the allegedly "phonetic" spelling is nowhere near the way they pronounce the words.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Tell it to the Chinese, David, who have to learn a minimum of 2000 symbols to be considered fairly literate (and 12000 or so if they want to be considered fully literate (and there have been suggestions that that is why they generally do better than caucasians on IQ tests, because [????] their minds get far more exercise learning to write.

I doubt that there is much proof of causality there.
Its a less efficient system; we do MORE with less than thay do.
Thay have 12,OOO; we have 26.
Is there something that thay can say that we CAN T???

MontereyJack wrote:

You're dumbing us down, David,
with your fixation on fewer symbols).

I doubt it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

That you doubt it indicates that it's already started to affect you.

0 Replies

HOW CAN A GUY BE SO DUM?????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know