Do the enemies of society bicycle?

Andre Jute said:

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",

But here in the newsgroups, we call those with an inflated sense of
self-importance and the condescending attitude of socially inept
academians just what they are.

"still just me" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andre Jute said:

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",

But here in the newsgroups, we call those with an inflated sense of
self-importance and the condescending attitude of socially inept
academians just what they are.

For many of us it is just so hard not to be arrogant when we are so great. A
terrible burden, we should feel sorry for them, not attack🙂

Dave

Quoted message said:

Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

In newsgroups, it appears that the first order of business for bullies is to
take on those who make use of common, well-understood phrases as being
ignorant, uneducated slobs with nothing worthwhile to say.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Andre Jute" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying. The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Trolling a fishing term for offering a tempting morsel to capture a
tasty fish which has migrated to the internet.

But how does trolling automatically become implausibility? And how
does implausibility automatically become proof of a lie? And now
trolling is suddenly equivalent to lying!

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

Andre Jute
Linguist

(1) Though the slack language does not pass without comment. I seem to
remember seeing Tom Sherman challenging these perverse usages.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

In newsgroups, it appears that the first order of business for bullies is to
take on those who make use of common, well-understood phrases as being
ignorant, uneducated slobs with nothing worthwhile to say.

--Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

It's not clear whether you agree with me, Mike, but either way I have
news for you: The criminals who undermine the language are not, repeat
not, ignorant, undereducated slobs -- they are educated people, very
often in universities, who might aspire to some power, and undermining
the language is one way to achieve their goals.

I've recently been victimized by a gang of bullies on this newsgroup
and all of them wrote perfectly acceptable English, nor do I suspect
that any of them is personally a slob, though we have seen much
immorality and brutality, and I and others have questioned the
rationality of their arguments (again, I suspect deliberate and
malicious misrationalization rather than stupidity or lack of
education). But they do abuse the language by weaseling the meaning of
words, as in my example. It is a dishonest. sleazy method of gaining
power or some small, temporary "victory" in a dispute that doesn't
quite rate as high as a storm in a pisspot.

I'm with Paul Johnson on this, though I would put the feminists and
the politically correct brigade before his first choice of language-
criminals -- IIRC, Johnson pointed the finger first at high-level
civil servants and their sidekicks, the politicians...

Andre Jute
Do your duty for society: run over a sociologist today

Quoted message said:

"Andre Jute" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jan 26, 8:27 pm, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying.  The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Quoted message said:

Trolling a fishing term for offering a tempting morsel to capture a
tasty fish which has migrated to the internet.

Quoted message said:

But how does trolling automatically become implausibility? And how
does implausibility automatically become proof of a lie? And now
trolling is suddenly equivalent to lying!

Quoted message said:

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

Quoted message said:

Andre Jute
Linguist

Quoted message said:

(1) Though the slack language does not pass without comment. I seem to
remember seeing Tom Sherman challenging these perverse usages.

"Andre Jute" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've recently been victimized by a gang of bullies on this newsgroup

Awww. You've been lightly flamed, that's all. Your response has that of a
drunk elephant, charging around as much as possible, not stopping to see how
you could approach any percieved problem in a fashion that would result in a
more peaceful resolution.

You clearly have no interest in rational discussion, preferring vicious
attacks over reasoned thought.

If you were new to usenet, you might have an excuse. But you're not, so you
don't.

clive

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andre Jute said:

Tim McNamara said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying. The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Trolling a fishing term for offering a tempting morsel to capture a
tasty fish which has migrated to the internet.

But how does trolling automatically become implausibility? And how
does implausibility automatically become proof of a lie? And now
trolling is suddenly equivalent to lying!

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

Andre Jute
Linguist

(1) Though the slack language does not pass without comment. I seem to
remember seeing Tom Sherman challenging these perverse usages.

This a new thread in the guise of a reply to
<[email hidden]>

The alleged quoted material is not a direct quote.
The direct quote is

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. Jute is lying. The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Putting text in quotes where the text is not an exact
quote is fraud, not to mention being an abuse of words.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andre Jute said:

On Jan 26, 8:27 pm, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying.  The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Quoted message said:

Trolling a fishing term for offering a tempting morsel to capture a
tasty fish which has migrated to the internet.

Quoted message said:

But how does trolling automatically become implausibility? And how
does implausibility automatically become proof of a lie? And now
trolling is suddenly equivalent to lying!

Quoted message said:

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

Quoted message said:

Andre Jute
Linguist

Quoted message said:

(1) Though the slack language does not pass without comment. I seem to
remember seeing Tom Sherman challenging these perverse usages.

This a new thread in the guise of a reply to
<[email hidden]>

The alleged quoted material is not a direct quote.
The direct quote is

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. Jute is lying.  The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Putting text in quotes where the text is not an exact
quote is fraud, not to mention being an abuse of words.

--
Michael Press

Okay, let's put the two versions side by side and compare:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. Jute is lying. The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying. The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

And Michael Press, probably not the sharpest in the drawer, claims:

Quoted message said:

Putting text in quotes where the text is not an exact
quote is fraud, not to mention being an abuse of words.

I didn't put the text in quotes, Press-Baby. The only difference is
that a name is blanked out -- common usage around the world. I am
much, much better qualified than you to decide what is an abuse of
words. In fact, you and your pals Krygo and Fogel, and you too, little
Michael Press, have just been convicted of crimes against truth and
decency by your cavalier disregard for the honest meaning of words.

Hey, sonny, if you're looking for a stick to beat me with, don't pick
up a matchstick. It just makes you look ridiculous. You need a lot
more selfconfidence, at least as much as I have, before a fat boy like
you can afford to give up his dignity.

Unsigned out of contempt for another Fogeltosser

DUMB

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:40:58 -0800, Michael Press <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

not to mention being an abuse of words.

If abuse of language is a high crime, can we impeach George Bush for
it? (He may have even committed murder).

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andre Jute said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andre Jute said:

On Jan 26, 8:27 pm, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying.  The overwhelming
> whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Quoted message said:

Trolling a fishing term for offering a tempting morsel to capture a
tasty fish which has migrated to the internet.

Quoted message said:

But how does trolling automatically become implausibility? And how
does implausibility automatically become proof of a lie? And now
trolling is suddenly equivalent to lying!

Quoted message said:

I am absolutely amazed at the misuse of words on this conference (1).
Paul Johnson called those who abuse words "the enemies of society",
pointing out that the first order of business of those who wish to
undermine society is always to undermine the meaning of the language.

Quoted message said:

Andre Jute
Linguist

Quoted message said:

(1) Though the slack language does not pass without comment. I seem to
remember seeing Tom Sherman challenging these perverse usages.

This a new thread in the guise of a reply to
<[email hidden]>

The alleged quoted material is not a direct quote.
The direct quote is

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. Jute is lying.  The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Putting text in quotes where the text is not an exact
quote is fraud, not to mention being an abuse of words.

--
Michael Press

Okay, let's put the two versions side by side and compare:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There can be little doubt that Mr. Jute is lying. The overwhelming
whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> There can be little doubt that Mr. xxxx is lying. The overwhelming
> whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.

And Michael Press, probably not the sharpest in the drawer, claims:

Quoted message said:

Putting text in quotes where the text is not an exact
quote is fraud, not to mention being an abuse of words.

I didn't put the text in quotes,

Yes you did. The initial right angle bracket `>'
in a line says that the remainder of the line
is quotation.

Quoted message said:

Press-Baby. The only difference is
that a name is blanked out -- common usage around the world. I am
much, much better qualified than you to decide what is an abuse of
words. In fact, you and your pals Krygo and Fogel, and you too, little
Michael Press, have just been convicted of crimes against truth and
decency by your cavalier disregard for the honest meaning of words.

Hey, sonny, if you're looking for a stick to beat me with, don't pick
up a matchstick. It just makes you look ridiculous. You need a lot
more selfconfidence, at least as much as I have, before a fat boy like
you can afford to give up his dignity.

--
Michael Press

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Andre Jute <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't put the text in quotes,

Yes you did. The initial right angle bracket `>'
in a line says that the remainder of the line
is quotation.

I recall you don't use killfiles, but in this case, the monotony of your
replies indicates the end of potential. The thread is busted. Please, let
the accused cope with the offensive writer; you need not serve as his
surrogate. Unless the principal has kill-filed the offender.

Cordially

Sandy
--
C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
-Delerm, P.

still just me said:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:40:58 -0800, Michael Press <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

not to mention being an abuse of words.

If abuse of language is a high crime, can we impeach George Bush for
it? (He may have even committed murder).

It is only murder when it is a few people. When the body count is in the
hundreds of thousands, we call it foreign policy.

However, we must accept certain forms of distorted language as not abuse
but an exercise in creativity. Google "datakoll" for examples.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Andre Jute <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't put the text in quotes,

Yes you did. The initial right angle bracket `>'
in a line says that the remainder of the line
is quotation.

I recall you don't use killfiles, but in this case, the monotony of your
replies indicates the end of potential. The thread is busted. Please, let
the accused cope with the offensive writer; you need not serve as his
surrogate. Unless the principal has kill-filed the offender.

Thanks, but I can figure that one out for myself.
Perhaps you would apply yourself and offer something more useful.

--
Michael Press

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andre Jute said:

I didn't put the text in quotes,

Quoted message said:

Yes you did. The initial right angle bracket `>'
in a line says that the remainder of the line
is quotation.

I recall you don't use killfiles, but in this case, the monotony of your
replies indicates the end of potential.  The thread is busted.  Please, let
the accused cope with the offensive writer; you need not serve as his
surrogate.  Unless the principal has kill-filed the offender.

Seems like you're a little confused, Sandy. I'm the accused. My name
is Andre Jute. I was falsely accused by Carl Fogel of lying. Fogel the
cowardly false accuser has run away. Press is his surrogate trying
ludicrously to make a case that Fogel didn't intend to call me a liar.
That's an abuse of common sense and our patience.

But you're right, the thread is bust and Press is repeating himself.
Time to leave him mattering to himself, sitting on the pavement with
his bottle of cheap wine and his grudge against the world.

Quoted message said:

Cordially

Sandy
--
C'est le contraire du vélo, la bicyclette.
Une silhouette profilée mauve fluo dévale
à soixante-dix à l'heure : c'est du vélo.
Deux lycéennes côte à côte traversent
un pont à Bruges : c'est de la bicyclette.
-Delerm, P.

Andre Jute
Cocky St Jacques
(first to let the cat out of the bag gets the second prize)

Andre Jute said:

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
Michael Press <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
Andre Jute <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I didn't put the text in quotes,
Yes you did. The initial right angle bracket `>'
in a line says that the remainder of the line
is quotation.

I recall you don't use killfiles, but in this case, the monotony of your
replies indicates the end of potential. The thread is busted. Please, let
the accused cope with the offensive writer; you need not serve as his
surrogate. Unless the principal has kill-filed the offender.

Seems like you're a little confused, Sandy. I'm the accused. My name
is Andre Jute. I was falsely accused by Carl Fogel of lying. Fogel the
cowardly false accuser has run away. Press is his surrogate trying
ludicrously to make a case that Fogel didn't intend to call me a liar.
That's an abuse of common sense and our patience....

Well, Sandy Leurre is a lawyer, so he should be able to identify the
accuser and accused.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:44:24 -0600, Tom Sherman

may have said:

It is becoming increasing obvious that Mr. de Wilde mostly wishes to
pick a fight with everyone. How tedious.

Once the nature of the beast is known, provoking it further is
pointless. (I don't regard plonking them as a provocative act, though
historically there is one infamous vandal that has objected to the
practice with a fervor and destructiveness that is legendary.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:44:24 -0600, Tom Sherman

may have said:

It is becoming increasing obvious that Mr. de Wilde mostly wishes to
pick a fight with everyone. How tedious.

Once the nature of the beast is known, provoking it further is
pointless. (I don't regard plonking them as a provocative act, though
historically there is one infamous vandal that has objected to the
practice with a fervor and destructiveness that is legendary.)

The talking horse?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:07:22 -0600, Tom Sherman

may have said:

Werehatrack said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:44:24 -0600, Tom Sherman

may have said:

It is becoming increasing obvious that Mr. de Wilde mostly wishes to
pick a fight with everyone. How tedious.

Once the nature of the beast is known, provoking it further is
pointless. (I don't regard plonking them as a provocative act, though
historically there is one infamous vandal that has objected to the
practice with a fervor and destructiveness that is legendary.)

The talking horse?

Worse. I will not invoke the name, lest we discover that he still
runs a global search for its usage.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:07:22 -0600, Tom Sherman

may have said:

Werehatrack said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:44:24 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> may have said:

> It is becoming increasing obvious that Mr. de Wilde mostly wishes to
> pick a fight with everyone. How tedious.

Once the nature of the beast is known, provoking it further is
pointless. (I don't regard plonking them as a provocative act, though
historically there is one infamous vandal that has objected to the
practice with a fervor and destructiveness that is legendary.)

The talking horse?

Worse. I will not invoke the name, lest we discover that he still
runs a global search for its usage.

That is no way to talk about Sheldon Brown! 😉

(For the humor impaired, the above is a joke.)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth