From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41037
Date: 2005-10-04
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *kap-
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Grzegorz, I think you do not understand that implying someone
> > is "undereducated", as you do here below, is an insult, and
> > an argumentum ad hominem, even if it be true.
>
> Simply astounding!
>
> To write the above and then follow soon after with:
>
> > It seems you are the kettle calling the pot black -
>
> I read it five minutes ago and yet am still shaking my
> head in disbelief.
***
Patrick:
Well, I have no idea what the threshold of your belief is, or how long you
continue to shake after reading a simple sentence in an email.
Grzegorz was complaining about lack of civility; and I simply pointed out
instances of what appeared to me to be his own incivility. That seems to me
to be completely unobjectionable but, of course, you are entitled to your
opinion.
***
> Are you the same man who almost weekly tries to correct
> someone else's spelling (although more often than not
> erroneously, as he seems unaware of variations), or who
> lectures us about the proper use of words (about which
> too he is more often than not incorrect), or who told us
> that this is not "Sprachenkindergarten", or who asked
> if another list member was even a college graduate?
***
Patrick:
When I have been attacked, viciously, by someone, I used to feel that it was
legitimate to point out misspelled words, for which I thought there was a
high probability of an _ignorant_ spelling rather than a simple typo. Even
then, I would have never quibbled about a simple typo, which we all make
from time to time.
As for words, I believe, old-fashionedly, that there should be standards
required in what passes for educated conversation - for the sake of clarity
in communication if for no other reason. Of course, it is also interesting
from time to time to learn about words employed in lower registers.
As for variations, I do not think it would be appropriate for a communicator
on this list to attempt Ebonic commentary. Do you?
As for Sprachenkindergarten, I am on this list primarily to learn from
others who know more than I do, and to test my own hypotheses against the
views of others who are knowledgeable enough to criticize them meaningfully.
Whatever you may think, I do not want to waste time opening emails that ask
questions that can be answered by any elementary textbook. Perhaps you value
your time differently?
As for college graduates, I do not think it a bad idea at all to restrict
list participation to those who have, at a minimum, attained this
educational plateau.
***
> Gods what cheek you have!
***
Patrick:
Your opinion has been noted.
***
> > As all of us are aware, whether we publicly admit it or not,
> > men are very, very unequal.
>
> Indeed they are, but is it proper to qualify a word like
> 'unequal' with 'very', Patrick? I would think that the
> word admits not, just as the words 'perfect' and 'unique'
> admit not, to degrees.
***
Patrick:
4 over 1 is unequal; 1000 over 1 is unequal.
By "very unequal" I meant to express that there are enormous not just paltry
differences in equality.
How would you prefer to express this idea? It is not necessary that you
agree with it.
***
> (Now isn't that annoying?)
>
> David