JTT
 
  0  
Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:01 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
The sentence should read, "If I were a lawyer . . ."


That is absolutely, 100%, totally false, POM. It's a prescription, which as you may know, doesn't describe how English actually works. This silly prescription has been false for a few centuries.

"If I was a lawyer" means the same thing as "If I were a lawyer".
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:06 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Your basic syntax is terrible.


I haven't noticed that Okie has bad syntax at all, POM.
okie
 
  2  
Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:08 pm
@JTT,
Wow, JTT coming to my defense. I am amazed once again and reminded of the age old saying, "expect the unexpected."
JTT
 
  1  
Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:18 pm
@okie,
The defense of the truth, Okie. It doesn't really matter to me who it is, but you're welcome nevertheless.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 12 Aug, 2010 10:24 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
The defense of the truth, Okie. It doesn't really matter to me who it is
Somebody who not only believes that there is truth, but stands up for it as well??!!

Nor THATS unexpected in this day and age.....a real throw-back.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 06:52 am
@okie,
Slander would not apply. Slander applies to something said, not written. Also, slander only applies when the thing said is untrue. I have not seen this by POM.
JTT
 
  1  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 09:23 am
@okie,
Quote:
The great English and writing expert, pom, that likes to correct my writing and tells me how inept I am in that regard, she says "He has exhibits extreme...."


Here we have a nonstandard use of the relative pronoun 'that', Okie. Whether it was intended as a slight or it is part of your area's dialect, I don't rightly know.

But that's no biggie. There are tons of "errors" in writing, that's why there are editors and lots here at A2K.
okie
 
  1  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 09:30 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Slander would not apply. Slander applies to something said, not written. Also, slander only applies when the thing said is untrue. I have not seen this by POM.

This is what pom said to me with absolutely no evidence whatsoever:
"Seriously, I bet mrs. okie is a master at applying make up because I will bet he has blackened her eye more than once."
Now, I don't know about you and others here, but I consider that a personal insult and slanderous in nature. Do I expect an apology from pom? No, because she does not seem to have the honor, honesty, or courage to offer it. Her statements here tell us more about her than it does the people she critiques, and it ain't purty for her.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 09:35 am
I would like to see this piling on of Okie come to an end. I don't think it is warranted, even though I disagree with him on many issues.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 09:52 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
The great English and writing expert, pom, that likes to correct my writing and tells me how inept I am in that regard, she says "He has exhibits extreme...."


Here we have a nonstandard use of the relative pronoun 'that', Okie. Whether it was intended as a slight or it is part of your area's dialect, I don't rightly know.

But that's no biggie. There are tons of "errors" in writing, that's why there are editors and lots here at A2K.

It was not intended as a slight, JTT. I think most of us know that posts here on a forum like this is akin to emailing, and most everyone understands that email protocol is pretty lax in terms of capitalization of words, grammar, and sentence structure. In fact, I think some people purposely ignore capitalization of words in emails just to show that they are fitting in with how it is done these days. Perhaps it is a little like dressing down to go to work now? It is more stylish to look tacky now.

I would like to revisit the sentence or phrase: "If I was a lawyer." pom told me that it was wrong and I should have written "If I were a lawyer." I have a question, would it be correct to say "I were a lawyer" instead of "I was a lawyer" ? No, I don't think so, so my question is why would it therefore be any different to put an "if" in front of that phrase. Without definitive proof from pom, I am going to stick with "If I was a lawyer." At least I think JTT is correct, that using the word "was" is also permissable and correct. I think differently with the pronoun "you." It would be incorrect to say "you was a lawyer," and it would be correct to say "you were a lawyer," and so if you you placed an "if" in front of those phrases, the same principle would apply, it would be correct to say "if you were a lawyer," and incorrect to use the word "was."
okie
 
  2  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:04 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would like to see this piling on of Okie come to an end. I don't think it is warranted, even though I disagree with him on many issues.

Cycloptichorn

I actually think that the time has arrived for all decent posters here, both conservative and liberal, to condemn plainoldme for her blatant and unwarranted trash talk. Accusing me of beating my wife is an example. If no apology comes forth from her, I am going perhaps at some point place her on ignore, and I would invite everyone else to consider doing the same.

I will have to admit that I have engaged her in verbal combat much more than I should have, but I think my motivation has been to find out what makes an extreme and radical liberal tick. What makes pom think as she does, and why is she as extreme in her views as she apparently is? I have treated her as sort of an interesting and fascinating case study into the liberal or radical Democrat mindset, and so I have kept debating her for that reason. For example, I have heard that sometimes it is more instructive to allow the opposition to keep talking in order to win an argument or prove how wrong they are. Is it worth it to do that, and is it worth enduring the unreasonable and outlandish personal insults? Perhaps not? I would be interested in the opinions of others in regard to this, both conservative and liberal.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:06 am
@okie,
Quote:
"Seriously, I bet mrs. okie is a master at applying make up because I will bet he has blackened her eye more than once."
Now, I don't know about you and others here, but I consider that a personal insult and slanderous in nature.


Is this worse than the stuff you wrote about my divorce and my ex-husband? No.

During that episode, I gave you what would normally have been all the answer any person needed in terms of information.

You re-asked it, suggesting that I was a nag and scold (a word beyond your vocab but the gist was there). I ignored the insult and went on, without supplying what my kids would have called TMI, in the hope that you would be satisfied.

You were not.

Others here spoke openly to me, telling me that you were baiting me, which you were and I knew you were, but, because I have what I once told edgarblythe is "Luke Skywalker Syndrome (there is good in you, father, I know there is!)," I continued to treat you as I would treat an adult who was a close enough acquaintance to ask such personal questions.

I would guess it never occurred to you that members of this group chose to speak to me rather than to you because they knew I would listen and you would not.

From the personality you exhibit here, there are only two conclusions one can draw about your homelife. The first is that you are a tyrant, who brooks no opposition, no real discussion. The second is that your wife is a termagant and that you post here, anonymously, so that you can relieve the pressure that builds up within you. Frankly, I think the former is much closer to the truth than the latter.

If you want to make us believe that you are not a monster in your own home, then act like an adult and stop terrorizing these boards.

If your true self is not the personality you exhibit here, then be your true self.

Now, as for this part of your writing:
Quote:
Do I expect an apology from pom? No, because she does not seem to have the honor, honesty, or courage to offer it. Her statements here tell us more about her than it does the people she critiques, and it ain't purty for her.


1.) How is that any less angry, cruel or whatever appropriate (as opposed to slanderous) adjective you wish to insert here? Frankly -- and I know you will 'get up on your high horse (as my parents often said about situations like the one you created here),' and write that I am lying -- but I had a vague (absolutely correct word) memory of Truman sending some sort of military figures to Vietnam but, as I was eager to watch my movie (which I did not watch), I did not research the matter further.

When you posted your info, which seemed to come from wiki rather than some weird right-wing gobbledy gook source, I immediately would have said that you were, for once, right.

However, you insulted me and I chose not to respond other than in kind.

You are a bully. You always act the bully here.

2.) I chose to follow the left because the right, whether it is the right of no government regulation or the right of Christian Fundamentalism or whatever, has done nothing positive for this country. Furthermore, the right bears the burden of racism. I can not forgive the right for that nor should I.

In recent years, the right, following the philosophy of Leo Strauss, lies. For a right winger to accuse me of lying is beyond the pale.

For many years on abuzz, the right attacked me because I hate the word morality and prefer ethics. It is my speech pattern and my definition, although I have seen others use the same standard. I have explained it fully. I strive to always be ethical which is why I could never be on the right.

3.) There were few differences between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. Kennedy was actually more articulate and less frightening, which may be why he won the election. The left/right divide 'began (not a satisfactory or exact word)' during the 60s and, frankly, both men were pushed to do somethings that the would have been considered left-leaning in 1960. The ethics of the left pushed for the end of the Vietnam War and for civil rights for blacks and other minorities. The right stood in the way.

4.) The right still hasn't learned. There was a bill before Congress to provide medical care for the first responders at Ground Zero. Republicans, acting as the American right, spoke against that bill because it would deepen the deficit. That, to me, illustrates the immorality/lack of ethics of the right better than anything I could write off the cuff here.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:07 am
@okie,
Please do!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:13 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
"Seriously, I bet mrs. okie is a master at applying make up because I will bet he has blackened her eye more than once."
Now, I don't know about you and others here, but I consider that a personal insult and slanderous in nature.


Is this worse than the stuff you wrote about my divorce and my ex-husband? No.

The answer is yes. As I recall, you claimed that your ex used a POA without your permission and borrowed a ton of money under your name, to which I merely said to you that according to my experience, a person cannot obtain a POA for anyone, legally that is, without the permission of that person, unless that person is declared incompetent by a doctor. Now, I don't know about other posters here on this forum, but I believe simple common sense tells us that I am absolutely correct and right. I have in fact had to deal with this very issue for elderly parents that can no longer take care of their own business affairs. In fact, they voluntarily signed over the responsibility to me when they became aware of their own lack of ability. So pom, you are not dealing with some country bumpkin here. In fact, I have a close relative that is a paralegal, that knows almost as much about this as the attorney that she works for.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:17 am
@okie,
Quote:
As I recall, you claimed that your ex used a POA without your permission


That is not what I wrote.

I wrote that he signed my name to loan agreements as though he had power-of-attorney.

Can you see the difference? I never said he had power-of-attorney. I never gave it to him.

This inability to read carefully causes nothing but trouble. I work hard to use exact language.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:20 am
@plainoldme,
Maybe both of you could take your private arguments to PMs and just drop it? I'm no stranger to having spirited back-and-forth with people, but this is getting a little ridiculous, and pretty ******* boring.

Cycloptichorn
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:24 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I agree, but, as I responded the previous time, I have no desire to PM with okie. The idea "creeps me out."

I am sorry that you are bored, and, I hope that you do not interpret that as sarcasm. I am bored as well.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 10:43 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

I agree, but, as I responded the previous time, I have no desire to PM with okie. The idea "creeps me out."

I am sorry that you are bored, and, I hope that you do not interpret that as sarcasm. I am bored as well.


So cut it out and let's all move to more substantive conversation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 12:09 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I would like to revisit the sentence or phrase: "If I was a lawyer." pom told me that it was wrong and I should have written "If I were a lawyer." I have a question, would it be correct to say "I were a lawyer" instead of "I was a lawyer" ? No, I don't think so, so my question is why would it therefore be any different to put an "if" in front of that phrase.


It doesn't really have anything to do with how the "be" verb is usually conjugated, Okie.

There is an old form of the subjunctive, one of two subjunctive forms that have hung around in English. English used to have a much more expansive subjunctive system.

This particular one allows us to use 'were' in 'if' clauses with all the pronouns;

If I/you/he/she/it/we/they/you were a Martian/Martians, ...

Most subjunctive forms have been taken over by other grammatical styles, most notably the past tense FORM of lexical verbs, eg. If I went to ... ; If Bill lived in ...

It's perfectly natural that this past tense FORM of the "be" verb, 'was' in this case, parallels the meaning [normally] expressed by the subjunctive form 'were'.


Quote:

Without definitive proof from pom, I am going to stick with "If I was a lawyer." At least I think JTT is correct, that using the word "was" is also permissable and correct. I think differently with the pronoun "you." It would be incorrect to say "you was a lawyer," and it would be correct to say "you were a lawyer," and so if you you placed an "if" in front of those phrases, the same principle would apply, it would be correct to say "if you were a lawyer," and incorrect to use the word "was."


There will be no definitive proof from POM because there is no proof at all that this prescription has any validity. ENL [English native speakers] have a choice,

If I were a lawyer [more formal]

If I was a lawyer [more casual]

DO NOT EQUATE "formal" WITH CORRECT AND "casual/informal" WITH INCORRECT. That is a common but nonsensical idea.



ican711nm
 
  -2  
Fri 13 Aug, 2010 12:43 pm
WE MUST KNOW WHAT OUR ENEMY REALLY THINKS, IF WE ARE TO SUCCEED IN STOPPING THEM FROM DISASSEMBLING AMERICA.

THE FOLLOWING IS MERELY PART I OF A 1969 DECLARATION BY THE AMERICAN PROPONENTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, BEGINNING WITH AMERICA, OF A WORLD COMMUNIST STATE.

While Barack Obama was not among the authors submitting this declaration, he was and is associated with these authors and has already spoken out in support of much of what they wrote here. See the rest of this declaration by linking to the web address provided.
Quote:

http://www.archive.org/stream/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows/weather_djvu.txt

You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows

Submitted by Karin Asbley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John
Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Home Machtinger, Jim Mellen,
Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd and Steve Tappis.

From /New Left Notes/, June 18, 1969

I. International Revolution

The contradiction between the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa and
Latin America and the imperialists headed by the United States is the
principal contradiction in the contemporary world. The development of
this contradiction is promoting the struggle of the people of the whole
world against US imperialism and its lackeys.

Lin Piao, Long Live the Victory of People's War!

People ask, what is the nature of the revolution that we talk about-
Who will it be made by, and for, and what are its goals and strategy-
The overriding consideration in answering these guestions is that
the main struggle going on in the world today is between US
imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it. This
is essential in defining political matters in the whole world: because
it is by far the most powerful, every other empire and petty dictator
is in the long run dependent on US imperialism, which has unified,
allied with, and defended all of the reactionary forces of the whole
world. Thus, in considering every other force or phenomenon,
from Soviet imperialism or Israeli imperialism to "workers struggle"
in France or Czechoslovakia, we determine who are our friends and
who are our enemies according to whether they help US imperialism
or fight to defeat it.

So the very first question people in this country must ask in
considering the question of revolution is where they stand in relation
to the United States as an oppressor nation, and where they stand in
relation to the masses of people throughout the world whom US
imperialism is oppressing.

The primary task of revolutionary struggle is to solve this principal
contradiction on the side of the people of the world. It is the
oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this
empire and it is to them that it belongs; the goal of the revolutionary
struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interests of
the oppressed peoples of the world.

It is in this context that we must examine the revolutionary struggles
in the United States. We are within the heartland of a worldwide
monster, a country so rich from its worldwide plunder that even the
crumbs doled out to the enslaved masses within its borders provide for
material existence very much above the conditions of the masses of
people of the world. The US empire, as a worldwide system, channels
wealth, based upon the labor and resources of the rest of the world,
into the United States. The relative affluence existing in the United
States is directly dependent upon the labor and natural resources of
the Vietnamese, the Angolans, the Bolivians and the rest of the
peoples of the Third World. All of the United Airlines Astrojets,
all of the Holiday Inns, all of Hertz's automobiles, your television set,
car and wardrobe already belong, to a large degree to the people of
the rest of the world.

Therefore, any conception of "socialist revolution" simply in terms of
the working people of the United States, failing to recognize the full
scope of interests of the most oppressed peoples of the world, is a
conception of a fight for a particular privileged interest, and is a
very dangerous ideology. While the control and use of the wealth of the
Empire for the people of the whole world is also in the interests of
the vast majority of the people in this country, if the goal is not clear
from the start we will further the preservation of class society,
oppression, war, genocide, and the complete emiseration of everyone,
including the people of the US.

The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a
classless world: world communism. Winning state power in the US will
occur as a result of the military forces of the US overextending
themselves around the world and being defeated piecemeal; struggle
within the US will be a vital part of this process, but when the
revolution triumphs in the US it will have been made by the people of
the whole world. For socialism to be defined in national terms within
so extreme and historical an oppressor nation as this is only imperialist
national chauvinism on the part of the "movement."

...
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1743
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 01:27:48