i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > i18n@... wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I safe in inferring that you've never had an introductory
> > linguistics
> > > > class?
> > >
> > > Am I safe in inferring you are not used to communicating with people as
> > > high and mighty as you are?
> >
> > Just answer the question. If you _have_ taken a linguistics class, your
> > ignorance about signed languages is shameful. If not, why are you
> > ashamed to say so?
>
> I told you way earlier in this thread that I was not interested in
> playing your rhetorical games. when you go back and answer thoughtfully
> to the best of your ability the questions I have posed to you over the
> last week or so, then I will give you the same courtesy.

I answered the questions you asked. The questions you asked suggested
that you have never been exposed to linguistics, so I asked whether you
had been. As Patrick points out, anyone who's had a year of linguistics
will have been exposed to the fact of the existence of signed languages
that differ from spoken languages only in modality.

I don't save messages, so I don't know what questions you may have asked
that you think I haven't answered.

It is also quite odd for a person to post to an academic list under a
pseudonym "i18n" or sign messages as nothing other than "Barry," and
that is not a little off-putting.

> I am not ashamed of anything except that I have actually gotten sucked
> into this pissing match with you. But you will only have my attention
> for one more round of messages so make sure your next one covers the
> issues in the previous paragraph or there will be no more responses for
> me. We can agree to disagree that your snide remarks are either trolling
> or rhetorical, whatever you want, but seriously dude, something is up
> with you lately...
>
> Peter, I'd have to go back in my archives sometime to dig it up but my
> gut feeling is that it dates to about the time suzmccarth started
> posting. Whether she is the cause, or if it is coincidental, or if there
> is some other reason, for those of us out here in listland, the change
> in your overall tone and helpfulness has been dramatic. I am sorry to
> point it out to you, but maybe someday you will look inside instead of
> lashing out and come back to this message. No response needed or
> necessary as that was not an invitation for discussion or debate, just a
> personal observation and a well-being wish for you....

Of _course_ she's the cause. She came to the list far less prepared than
you, with a chip on her shoulder. For instance, she used the term
"morphophonemic" for weeks or months, thoroughly confusing everyone,
before revealing that it was a word she made up to cover something that
had nothing to do with its meaning in linguistics.

And I could only sit by in wonder as she messed with the heads of all
the computer jocks with her insistence on inputs and processors and
keyboards or whatever it was that so confounded them.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...