1
   

Dixie Chicks withdraw apology to Bush

 
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 11:34 am
yeah...that one and Run Through The Jungle...always gave me the creeps
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 11:49 am
Ticomaya wrote:
they're no "Rascal Flatts," but they are in rare company indeed.


You're darn tootin they're not Rascal Flatts...RF is a Disney-Nashville package...good looks and the best songs Disney can buy...now don't get me wrong Tico...I love those boys but they don't measure up to the chicks...who play dynamite banjo and fiddle and write their own songs
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 11:52 am
snood, Emily and Marty are not that ugly either. http://www.morethings.com/images/dixie_chicks/dchicks.jpg
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 12:13 pm
Snood:

I just found and am playing it now...."Deja Vu (All Over Again)" If you haven't heard it, I recommend it. It is powerful.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 12:23 am
My dictionary does not define, "Deja Vu" as "all over again". It defines "Deja Vu" as "Already seen" "Unoriginal" "Trite"
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 12:47 am
Ah, I see now why your baseball analogies so often don't work, Bernard. You're unfamiliar with the lore of the game. It's from a quote from the great Saint Yogi Berra, "It's like deja vu all over again". A dictionary definition just isn't relevant here. You may or may not remember others of his many pity sayings, like "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 01:33 am
Sir: I did not make up what I put in my post. I put down what the Dictionary gives as the definition of Deja Vu.

It means- Unoriginal or Trite

Check Page 350 of "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language"- Collge Edition- Random House- New York--1968

Yogi Berra was a great baseball player but his knowledge of English and word meanings was execrable!
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 01:41 am
<sigh> it's precisely because Yogi's viewpoint was so often aslant that people keep repeating them. It's because he reduplicated what was already a duplication that people found that statement funny. You seem to have missed the joke, but then that's deja vu. And actually it's been repeated so often over the years now that it's really deja vu all over again all over again.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 01:53 am
I do not read Yogi Berra when I am looking for the meaning of a word. I consult the Dictionary. Again-----

Sir: I did not make up what I put in my post. I put down what the Dictionary gives as the definition of Deja Vu.

It means- Unoriginal or Trite

Check Page 350 of "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language"- Collge Edition- Random House- New York--1968

Yogi Berra was a great baseball player but his knowledge of English and word meanings was execrable!
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 02:01 am
yep, Bernard, you're just like deja vu all over again.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 02:09 am
Now, please, Mr. Username, you know that Ad Hominem is not allowed. No personal references, please. I would respectfully suggest that you stay focused on the substance rather than on the personality of the poster. You know nothing about me. Try to rebut the post, sir!!!
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 02:25 am
Descriptive, Bernard, not ad hominem. You repeat essentially the same post. I've seen it before. that's deja vu, dear sir. over familiarity, why do I feel like I've seen this before? Could it be it's because I've seen it before. Yes, deja vu, and as Yogi said, deja vu all over again.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 03:38 am
Bernard - what username did was not ad hominem, it was ironic description.

this is ad hominem - you are undoubtedly the most clueless sumbitch to cross the pike in a hundred years.

See the difference?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 03:52 am
BernardR wrote:
Sir: I did not make up what I put in my post. I put down what the Dictionary gives as the definition of Deja Vu.

It means- Unoriginal or Trite

Check Page 350 of "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language"- Collge Edition- Random House- New York--1968

Yogi Berra was a great baseball player but his knowledge of English and word meanings was execrable!


As is yours. Or your dictionary's. Or, more probably, both.





• deja-vu

internal sense of a person as though he has already experienced the present situation at some point in his past Wikipedia English - Free Encyclopedia

• Déjà vu

For other uses, see Déjà vu (disambiguation).
The term déjà vu (French: "already seen", also called paramnesia) describes the experience of feeling that one has witnessed or experienced a new situation previously. The term was created by a French psychic researcher, Emile Boirac (1851–1917) in his book L'Avenir des sciences psychiques (The Future of Psychic Sciences), which expanded upon an essay he wrote while an undergraduate French concentrator at the University of Chicago. The experience of déjà vu is usually accompanied by a compelling sense of familiarity, and also a sense of "eerieness" or "strangeness". The "previous" experience is most frequently attributed to a dream, although in some cases there is a firm sense that the experience "genuinely happened" in the past.



The meaning you have lit upon (while sort of functionally onoematoepaeic, given your essence) is a sub meaning.

You find yourself in what is a far more complex word.


Hmmmm...THAT might be an ad hom., but its truth is a sort of defence.


Have you ever heard of projection as an ego defence mechanism ( a very primitive one) ?


You might profit from studying it.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 03:55 am
While Bernard R is talking about his dictionary, the Dixoe Chicks likely sold another 50,000 albums.

God bless the Dixie Chicks.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 04:49 am
Mr.Dlowan- I will replicate the entire definition found in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language- College Edition--copyright 1968- Random House - New York

de-ja vu 1.(italics) French. Already seen; unoriginal; trite. 2. Psychol. The illusion of having previously experienced something actually being encountered for the first time.

That, Mr.Dlowan, is the entire definition in the dictionary I possess.

I am aggrieved that it does not meet with your approval. I can only say that if you can show that the definition in the Dictionary I referenced is NOT as I wrote it, I will apologize to you profusely.

Failing that, I would suggest that you contact the publishers to communicate your displeasure with the definition as laid out.

Mr. Dlowan- You wrote
"The meaning you have lit upon...is a sub meaning"

You have every right to think so, Mr. Dlowan but I am sure that the Editors of the Dictionary I referenced do not agree with you( Of course, they may not have the learned background you possess )but here is what they wrote on P. xxviii- A Guide to the Dictionary-

quote

"Definitions within an entry are individually numbered in a single sequence, regardless of any division according to part of speech. The most common part of speech is listed first, AND THE MOST FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED MEANING APPEARS AS THE FIRST DEFINITION FOR EACH PART OF SPEECH"

Therefore, Mr.Dlowan----l. Already seen; unoriginal; trite.


I hope that I have been helpful to you.sir!!!!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 05:52 am
BernardR wrote:
Mr.Dlowan- I will replicate the entire definition found in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language- College Edition--copyright 1968- Random House - New York

de-ja vu 1.(italics) French. Already seen; unoriginal; trite. 2. Psychol. The illusion of having previously experienced something actually being encountered for the first time.

That, Mr.Dlowan, is the entire definition in the dictionary I possess.

I am aggrieved that it does not meet with your approval. I can only say that if you can show that the definition in the Dictionary I referenced is NOT as I wrote it, I will apologize to you profusely.

Failing that, I would suggest that you contact the publishers to communicate your displeasure with the definition as laid out.

Mr. Dlowan- You wrote
"The meaning you have lit upon...is a sub meaning"

You have every right to think so, Mr. Dlowan but I am sure that the Editors of the Dictionary I referenced do not agree with you( Of course, they may not have the learned background you possess )but here is what they wrote on P. xxviii- A Guide to the Dictionary-

quote

"Definitions within an entry are individually numbered in a single sequence, regardless of any division according to part of speech. The most common part of speech is listed first, AND THE MOST FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED MEANING APPEARS AS THE FIRST DEFINITION FOR EACH PART OF SPEECH"

Therefore, Mr.Dlowan----l. Already seen; unoriginal; trite.


I hope that I have been helpful to you.sir!!!!



Not in the least possum...you have but reinforced one's knowledge of your egregious wallydom.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 06:05 am
Sir- I have not, to the best of my knowledge, referred to you as anything other than Mr.Dlowan. Are you so lacking in your ability to respond to my post that you must create an AdHominem. As I am sure you are aware, calling people "possum" is very close to AdHominem. I can only surmise that my response left you with nothing else to say so you resorted to name calling.

May I respectfully suggest that you are much better than that and could really have argued the point in a more gentlemanly fashion.

However, so be it. And I will close with a comment from Cyrano De Bergerac who responded when an opponent said that Cyrano's nose was rather "large"

Cyrano said--"Rather" and then commented:"Oh,no,young blade, You might have said at least a hundred things by varying the tone....such my dear sir, is what you might have said, had you of wit or letters the least jot"


I am most disappointed in your cursory reply.I was hoping that you would at least try to rebut my comments.

Perhaps another time, sir?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 07:00 am
Possum or Gatos seems to work just fine.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 07:58 am
dyslexia wrote:
Possum or Gatos seems to work just fine.


Isn't "Gatos" an adhomminable strawman?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 12:15:16