Appropriate Use Policy



"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:48:51 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>> I believe it appears in Terry Pratchett, but why should I need to?
>>>> Check out uk.rec.sheds some time.
>>
>>>I am convinced you are using the word (intransitive verb) improperly. I
>>>have
>>>read widely and I have never seen it used like how you used it. However,
>>>I
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>will do some research on this and get back to you.
>>
>> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was ********,
>> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.
>
> Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.
>
>>>I have a very keen sense
>>>of how words are to be used based on a life time of reading. Your usage,
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.
>>
>> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
>> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.
>
> No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
> were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
> matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
> the moment.
>
>> I maintain that the sentence was grammatically correct - and valid in
>> context.
>
> And I disagree. We shall see who is right! It looked stupid and it sounded
> stupid. It can't possibly be right. But I will admit those darn
> intransitive verbs can be tricky.

Guy Chapman originally wrote:

>> For differing values of truthful, helpful, defamation, harassment,
>> threats, obscenity and lawfulness.

Edward Dolan wrote:

>An incomplete sentence.

>Where the hell are (is) the verbs (verb)?

I have checked several dictionaries and there is no way your use of
"differing" makes any sense at all. Admittedly I would have to go the Oxford
English Dictionary to be positive about this. Unless you can find me a
"literary" usage of this word the way you used it, then you are clearly
wrong and I don't give a damn about what might be in the vernacular. It
looks stupid and it sounds stupid. Therefore, it can't be right. Case
closed!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:18:45 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was ********,
>> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.

>Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.

Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.

>>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.

>> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
>> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.

>No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
>were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
>matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
>the moment.

So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.

Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.

>And I disagree. We shall see who is right! It looked stupid and it sounded
>stupid. It can't possibly be right. But I will admit those darn intransitive
>verbs can be tricky.

But not as tricky as intransigent Septics.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:04:53 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>I have checked several dictionaries and there is no way your use of
>"differing" makes any sense at all. Admittedly I would have to go the Oxford
>English Dictionary to be positive about this. Unless you can find me a
>"literary" usage of this word the way you used it, then you are clearly
>wrong and I don't give a damn about what might be in the vernacular. It
>looks stupid and it sounds stupid. Therefore, it can't be right. Case
>closed!

So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
be.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:04:53 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>I have checked several dictionaries and there is no way your use of
>>"differing" makes any sense at all. Admittedly I would have to go the
>>Oxford
>>English Dictionary to be positive about this. Unless you can find me a
>>"literary" usage of this word the way you used it, then you are clearly
>>wrong and I don't give a damn about what might be in the vernacular. It
>>looks stupid and it sounds stupid. Therefore, it can't be right. Case
>>closed!
>
> So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
> all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
> flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
> be.

I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life. That is
because I am perfect. I do make lots of typos but that is because I can't
type worth a darn. I have always considered the ability to type to be an
appropriate activity for my inferiors. I spend my time thinking and writing,
not typing.

A dictionary would illustrate your use of the word as it is not common.
Since I do not see it illustrated, I conclude that it is just flat out
wrong.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:18:45 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> How can you when you are out of here? Oh, wait, that was ********,
>>> wasn't it? Sorry, I forgot.
>
>>Remember what I said about opera stars and their dozen farewell concerts.
>
> Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.

I spent every Saturday afternoon of my youth listening to the Met Opera
broadcasts on the radio. Man, those Wagner operas were really long. Some of
them would start at 12:30 and not be over until 5:00. How did you spend your
Saturday afternoons when you were a youth?

>>>>even if correct, is rare and most likely obsolete to say the least.
>
>>> Obsolete or emergent or arcane or just British. Who cares. Grammar
>>> flames are the last refuge of the loser, after all.
>
>>No, you have used the language improperly, of that I am convinced. If you
>>were true blue English you would ascribe the utmost significance to this
>>matter. I can't think of anything that is more important, at least not at
>>the moment.
>
> So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
> English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
> the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
> sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
> sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
> values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.

If it is not in a standard dictionary and it's use illustrated, then it
should not be used. The standard for all English usage is what an educated
person would be expected to know, not something that can be drudged up from
an obscure source.

> Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
> that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
> grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
> argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.

What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.

I go by whether or not something looks and sounds right to me. That is
because I have an unfailing sense of what is correct. If it doesn't pass MY
test, then it is wrong.

You need to find and show me a use of the word as you used it in a literary
text of some standing in order to convince me otherwise. Maybe something
from Charles Dickens or Anthony Trollope?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:36:22 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
>> all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
>> flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
>> be.

>I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life.

Message ID <[email protected]> "like how" instead
of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Message ID <[email protected]> "like how" instead
> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

Guy, there just isn't any point hurrying to hang someone when they are
doing /such/ a comprehensive job of feeding out the perfect length of
rope for themselves, checking the knot will slide, making sure the
gallows is robust and the trap door has very well oiled hinges...

Ed's cluelessness speaks for itself, there's really nothing to be gained
by pointing it out. Next you'll be telling us the Big News that the
Earth isn't flat...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:36:22 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> So you say. But I am disinclined to take your word for it - after
>>> all, you made a couple of childish grammatical errors in your grammar
>>> flame, so clearly you are not the authority you believe yourself to
>>> be.
>
>>I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life.
>
> Message ID <[email protected]> "like how" instead
> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

Nonsense, I was most likely just using a vernacular expression. Also, as
regards your second example, if in doubt whether to combine words or to
separate them, always separate them. You can never go wrong doing that.
Elementary my dear Watson.

However, if I wanted to pick apart your posts I could have a field day. That
is because you are not perfect like me.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Message ID <[email protected]> "like how" instead
>> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.
>
> Guy, there just isn't any point hurrying to hang someone when they are
> doing /such/ a comprehensive job of feeding out the perfect length of rope
> for themselves, checking the knot will slide, making sure the gallows is
> robust and the trap door has very well oiled hinges...

Why not put a period at the end of your sentence instead of trailing off
with three dots? What kind of punctuation is that?

> Ed's cluelessness speaks for itself, there's really nothing to be gained
> by pointing it out. Next you'll be telling us the Big News that the Earth
> isn't flat...

Again no period at the end of the sentence. What an idiot!

The English ceased being the experts in the language a long time ago. No one
in dowdy old England is capable of writing like the Victorians anymore. It
is a lost art. Not only has England's former power emigrated to the New
World, but so has it's former culture.

America is now the center of the universe in every respect. Even Minnesota
is a beehive of culture compared to that backwater known as England. Peter
Clinch and Guy Chapman are now only little brothers to us Americans not only
in power but also in culture. But anyone with any brains knows that power
and culture always go together in the long run.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:58:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.

>I spent every Saturday afternoon of my youth listening to the Met Opera
>broadcasts on the radio. Man, those Wagner operas were really long. Some of
>them would start at 12:30 and not be over until 5:00. How did you spend your
>Saturday afternoons when you were a youth?

Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
thousand-year-old school.

These days I'm more likely to be at home with the kids and listening
to the Met opera broadcast on BBC Radio 3...

>> So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
>> English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
>> the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
>> sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
>> sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
>> values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.

>If it is not in a standard dictionary and it's use illustrated, then it
>should not be used.

According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.

How about this: "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that
is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really Dim, and we sat in the
Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening,
a flip dark chill winter ******* though dry. The Korova Milkbar was a
milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these
mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody
very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither. Well,
what they sold there was milk plus something else. They had no license
for selling liquor, but there was no law yet against prodding some of
the new veshches which they used to put into the old moloko, so you
could peet it with vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom or one or two
other veshches which would give you a nice quick horrorshow fifteen
minutes admiring Bog And All His Holy Angels And Saints in your left
shoe with lights bursting all over your mozg. Or you could peet milk
with knives in it, as we used to say, and this would sharpen you up
and make you ready for a bit of dirty twenty-to-one, and that was what
we were peeting this evening I'm starting off the story with."

That is from a writer commonly cited as a master of the written
language, author of many books set as part of the English literature
syllabus (and this one of was filmed by Stanley Kubrick). In the full
OED (the big one seen only at major libraries) there are examples of
usage cited from his books but never, to my knowledge, seen elsewhere.
The conclusion, and one to which he freely admitted, is that he made
it up as he went along - only he called it extending the boundaries.
An American might call it "pushing the envelope" - a usage which only
appeared in the OED very recently, having been absorbed from aviation
slang (it was used by my father back in the 60s and 70s, and in those
days anybody outside the industry would look blankly at him if he used
it).

>The standard for all English usage is what an educated
>person would be expected to know, not something that can be drudged up from
>an obscure source.

And, speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
you go: the Dolan standard of proof.

>> Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
>> that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
>> grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
>> argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.

>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.

No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.

>I go by whether or not something looks and sounds right to me. That is
>because I have an unfailing sense of what is correct. If it doesn't pass MY
>test, then it is wrong.

I apply the same test. What you say feels wrong to me, therefore it
is wrong. And in this case I have the Google archive to help:

http://groups.google.co.uk/[email protected]&output=gplain

The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.

>You need to find and show me a use of the word as you used it in a literary
>text of some standing in order to convince me otherwise. Maybe something
>from Charles Dickens or Anthony Trollope?

Why stop there?

"Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne,
What with his wysdom and his chivalrie;
He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
And weddede the queene Ypolita,
And broghte hir hoom with hym in his contree,
With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
And thus with victorie and with melodye
Lete I this noble duc to Atthenes ryde,
And al his hoost, in armes hym bisyde."

So there you have English as it really should be used, from one of the
greatest writers who ever lived - still read and studied over six
hundred years after his death.

Or should we stick with Elizabethan English, as codified by Johnson in
the original OED?

"A victorie is twice it selfe, when the atchieuer
brings home full numbers: I finde heere, that Don Peter
hath bestowed much honor on a yong Florentine, called
Claudio"

"Much deseru'd on his part, and equally remembred
by Don Pedro, he hath borne himselfe beyond the
promise of his age, doing in the figure of a Lambe, the
feats of a Lion, he hath indeede better bettred expectation,
then you must expect of me to tell you how"

The aptly titled "Much adoe about Nothing", as accurate a description
of your complaint here as could be wished for. I find it amusing that
Eng. Lit students will often argue the toss regarding spelling and
grammar while cheerfully accepting the primacy in the canon of English
literature of a man who could not even spell his own name
consistently.

A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
have one) as hopelessly archaic now. Punctuation in particular has
changed almost beyond recognition. The books of Waugh read as well
and as wittily as ever, but if you study the punctuation and
word-order you see that it is not in line with modern usage, and if
you concentrate too hard on the language it grates in places and ruins
your enjoyment of the story. Who is right? Grammar is a largely
arbitrary construct, and is far less immutable than you might like to
think. I have no doubt that the freshest of modern texts will seem
archaic to my children when they reach adulthood.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:08:38 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Why not put a period at the end of your sentence instead of trailing off
>with three dots? What kind of punctuation is that?

I suggest you buy yourself a book on punctuation published some time
in the last quarter century.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:43:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>>>I do not believe I have ever made a grammatical error in my life.

>> Message ID <[email protected]> "like how" instead
>> of "as" and "life time" instead of lifetime.

>Nonsense, I was most likely just using a vernacular expression.

Hoist by your own petard.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:58:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Ed, you are without question far more Oprah than opera.
>
>>I spent every Saturday afternoon of my youth listening to the Met Opera
>>broadcasts on the radio. Man, those Wagner operas were really long. Some
>>of
>>them would start at 12:30 and not be over until 5:00. How did you spend
>>your
>>Saturday afternoons when you were a youth?
>
> Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
> afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
> helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
> local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
> thousand-year-old school.

Just as I thought - a busy body in perpetual motion. You were not focused
like I was.

> These days I'm more likely to be at home with the kids and listening
> to the Met opera broadcast on BBC Radio 3...

That is well and good.

>>> So potter along to an English newsgroup such as the quintessentially
>>> English uk.rec.sheds, where anything Leftpondian is eschewed and even
>>> the words Senapr and Treznal must be ROTed to save the delicate
>>> sensibilities - here you will find the phrase and its minor variants
>>> sufficiently common that they are often abbreviated to FSVO (for some
>>> values of), FCVO (for certain values of) etc.
>
>>If it is not in a standard dictionary and it's use illustrated, then it
>>should not be used.
>
> According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
> usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
> dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
> follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
> often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
> were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.

Granted, but that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we
please. Language changes around the edges only slowly over time, but the
basic sturcture and root words do not change much if at all. A verb like to
differ will stay the same forever.

> How about this: "There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that
> is Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really Dim, and we sat in the
> Korova Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening,
> a flip dark chill winter ******* though dry. The Korova Milkbar was a
> milk-plus mesto, and you may, O my brothers, have forgotten what these
> mestos were like, things changing so skorry these days and everybody
> very quick to forget, newspapers not being read much neither. Well,
> what they sold there was milk plus something else. They had no license
> for selling liquor, but there was no law yet against prodding some of
> the new veshches which they used to put into the old moloko, so you
> could peet it with vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom or one or two
> other veshches which would give you a nice quick horrorshow fifteen
> minutes admiring Bog And All His Holy Angels And Saints in your left
> shoe with lights bursting all over your mozg. Or you could peet milk
> with knives in it, as we used to say, and this would sharpen you up
> and make you ready for a bit of dirty twenty-to-one, and that was what
> we were peeting this evening I'm starting off the story with."
>
> That is from a writer commonly cited as a master of the written
> language, author of many books set as part of the English literature
> syllabus (and this one of was filmed by Stanley Kubrick). In the full
> OED (the big one seen only at major libraries) there are examples of
> usage cited from his books but never, to my knowledge, seen elsewhere.
> The conclusion, and one to which he freely admitted, is that he made
> it up as he went along - only he called it extending the boundaries.
> An American might call it "pushing the envelope" - a usage which only
> appeared in the OED very recently, having been absorbed from aviation
> slang (it was used by my father back in the 60s and 70s, and in those
> days anybody outside the industry would look blankly at him if he used
> it).

All of the above is hogwash and is not good English at all. It is the
English of the working class and/or jargon which is never acceptable. I am
only concerned with literary English, i.e., the English of the upper classes
as it is spoken and written today.

>>The standard for all English usage is what an educated
>>person would be expected to know, not something that can be drudged up
>>from
>>an obscure source.
>
> And, speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
> English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
> you go: the Dolan standard of proof.

And I know you are wrong. The way you used "differing" was wrong. It did not
make sense as a sentence. Why don't you run it past an English professor and
see what he says about it.

>>> Now provide an authority which states that I cannot use the phrase in
>>> that way. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. It's irrelevant - a
>>> grammar flame is a tacit acknowledgement that you have lost the
>>> argument, and I am happy to accept it as such.
>
>>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.
>
> No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
> and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
> Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
> ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.

I only retaliated against Ed Gin for parroting my words and forging my name
to his posts. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain
works. Like Tom Sherman, you equate that which cannot be equated. Ed Gin did
what no one else on this group has ever done in my two years experience
here. He is little better than a liar and a thief.

>>I go by whether or not something looks and sounds right to me. That is
>>because I have an unfailing sense of what is correct. If it doesn't pass
>>MY
>>test, then it is wrong.
>
> I apply the same test. What you say feels wrong to me, therefore it
> is wrong. And in this case I have the Google archive to help:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/[email protected]&output=gplain
>
> The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
> values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.

I think the use of the entire phrase makes all the difference. What you did
is not the same thing at all. Find me something in Charles Dickens why don't
you instead of these pitiful attempts which reek of desperation.

>>You need to find and show me a use of the word as you used it in a
>>literary
>>text of some standing in order to convince me otherwise. Maybe something
>>from Charles Dickens or Anthony Trollope?
>
> Why stop there?
>
> "Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,
> Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;
> Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,
> And in his tyme swich a conquerour,
> That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.
> Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne,
> What with his wysdom and his chivalrie;
> He conquered al the regne of Femenye,
> That whilom was ycleped Scithia,
> And weddede the queene Ypolita,
> And broghte hir hoom with hym in his contree,
> With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,
> And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.
> And thus with victorie and with melodye
> Lete I this noble duc to Atthenes ryde,
> And al his hoost, in armes hym bisyde."
>
> So there you have English as it really should be used, from one of the
> greatest writers who ever lived - still read and studied over six
> hundred years after his death.

Where is the "differing"?

> Or should we stick with Elizabethan English, as codified by Johnson in
> the original OED?
>
> "A victorie is twice it selfe, when the atchieuer
> brings home full numbers: I finde heere, that Don Peter
> hath bestowed much honor on a yong Florentine, called
> Claudio"
>
> "Much deseru'd on his part, and equally remembred
> by Don Pedro, he hath borne himselfe beyond the
> promise of his age, doing in the figure of a Lambe, the
> feats of a Lion, he hath indeede better bettred expectation,
> then you must expect of me to tell you how"

Where is the "differing"?

> The aptly titled "Much adoe about Nothing", as accurate a description
> of your complaint here as could be wished for. I find it amusing that
> Eng. Lit students will often argue the toss regarding spelling and
> grammar while cheerfully accepting the primacy in the canon of English
> literature of a man who could not even spell his own name
> consistently.
>
> A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
> have one) as hopelessly archaic now. Punctuation in particular has
> changed almost beyond recognition. The books of Waugh read as well
> and as wittily as ever, but if you study the punctuation and
> word-order you see that it is not in line with modern usage, and if
> you concentrate too hard on the language it grates in places and ruins
> your enjoyment of the story. Who is right? Grammar is a largely
> arbitrary construct, and is far less immutable than you might like to
> think. I have no doubt that the freshest of modern texts will seem
> archaic to my children when they reach adulthood.

That is all true but is beside the point.

We are only concerned here with present day grammar and usage. You have
gotten completely sidetracked on issues which have nothing to do with your
incorrect usage of "differing."

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> ... Next you'll be telling us the Big News that the Earth isn't flat...

What!?

Next you will be telling us a five ounce bird could not carry a one
pound coconut.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
 
How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a dipshit poster on A.R.B.R.

nget
 
nget said:
How can anyone take me serious? I'm just a fat ass poster at BROL and a dipshit poster on A.R.B.R.

nget
Click to expand...
Just a monkey wipe without a sense of humor.
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:15:02 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> Depends on what you mean by youth. Over the years I spent Saturday
>> afternoons reading, model making, playing games, riding my bike,
>> helping out at classical concerts and music festivals, helping in the
>> local cathedral and showing prospective parents round my
>> thousand-year-old school.

>Just as I thought - a busy body in perpetual motion. You were not focused
>like I was.

For differing values of focus, obviously. While you were listening to
the opera on the radio, I was meeting the musicians and listening to
music live. I have shaken hands with Menuhin, sung with Sarah Walker,
heard premieres of new organ works, met Peter Hurford, Thomas Trotter,
Kevin Bowyer, Gillian Weir, John Williams (the guitarist), Evelyn
Glennie, ensembles including the Academy of Ancient Music and Musica
Antiqua Koln - and sung works by Fauré, Mozart, Berlioz, Handel,
Vaughan Williams and Brahms in St Albans Cathedral. Not all
classical, either - I have met Humphrey Lyttleton, the jazz trumpeter,
Richard Stilgoe (who co-wrote the libretto for Lloyd-Webber's Phantom
of the Opera), bought beer for Jake Thackeray, danced to the Fairer
Sax, drunk with the cast of dozens of provincial productions of light
and comic operas. Although I've been to plenty of rock concerts and
ruined my hearing listening to Deep Purple, I have been listening to
and performing in classical music for most of the last 25 years.

Funny, though - a few hours ago I was sitting on the steps of the
Radcliffe Camera, debating which of Oxford's museums to visit. It
struck me then that the fountain source of all wisdom - the home of
the Oxford University Press - was but a few hundred yards away. Why
had I gone to Oxford, I hear you ask? Why, to visit Blackwell's Music
Shop, of course, where as a family we spent over $200 on sheet music.
Easily done - music is expensive (which is why I use CPDL so much).

>> According to this definition no new usage would ever be permitted, no
>> usage would be tolerated unless and until it had been cited in the
>> dictionary. That is the wrong way round. In practice the dictionary
>> follows usage, and changes over time; examples in the dictionary are
>> often taken from what were at the time new or emergent usage. If this
>> were not so we would all still be using English as Dr Johnson did.

>Granted, but that does not mean we are free to invent the language as we
>please.

Actually, yes, it means precisely that. Language is what we decide it
is. You and I may not like the antipodean quisitive ending or "he was
like, and I was like..." but we are not the final arbiters.

And actually I was not even inventing it. Not only is it a usage in
albeit uncommon currency, being restricted mainly to those of a
colourful turn of phrase (and certain scientific and mathematical
contexts), it is entirely consistent with the primary definition of
"differing", i.e. dissimilar or unlike in nature.

>Language changes around the edges only slowly over time, but the
>basic sturcture and root words do not change much if at all. A verb like to
>differ will stay the same forever.

And the usage "for differing values of" has been current for nearly a
decade on Usenet and I'm sure longer than that elsewhere. It is, to
coin a phrase, a colloquialism.

[ snip the first para of A Clockwork Orange ]

>All of the above is hogwash and is not good English at all. It is the
>English of the working class and/or jargon which is never acceptable. I am
>only concerned with literary English, i.e., the English of the upper classes
>as it is spoken and written today.

It is the English of Anthony Burgess, from a literary masterpiece the
like of which your feeble imagination (or mine) could never produce.

>> speaking as an educated person (and having passed public exams in
>> English language and literature to boot), I know I am right. So there
>> you go: the Dolan standard of proof.

>And I know you are wrong. The way you used "differing" was wrong. It did not
>make sense as a sentence. Why don't you run it past an English professor and
>see what he says about it.

So you say. And yet you have no proof beyond bluster and arm-waving.
I have shown that the usage is at least ten years old, you have posted
a grammatically questionable grammar flame. Who to believe? The man
who says he is out of here then argues the toss, starting an endless
grammar waffle to distract from his own hypocrisy? I think not.

>>>What argument? We are discussing the use of "differing" used as a verb.

>> No, Ed, we were discussing your hypocrisy in calling Ed Gin on abuse
>> and obscenity despite your own use of these, as the record shows.
>> Your grammar flame was a distraction, and one of your more common
>> ones. And, as it turns out, you were wrong.

>I only retaliated against Ed Gin for parroting my words and forging my name
>to his posts. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain
>works. Like Tom Sherman, you equate that which cannot be equated. Ed Gin did
>what no one else on this group has ever done in my two years experience
>here. He is little better than a liar and a thief.

Logical fallacy: ad-hominem. Diagnosis: no evidence is offered, only
denigration.

To return to the subject, you said that you never use abuse and
obscenity - that was untrue. You use both. And I venture to suggest
that at least as many people have left the group due to interminable
off-topic political threads than have been driven off by the easily
filtered Gin.

>> The first use in the Google archive of the phrase "for differing
>> values of" used in exactly the way I used it, back in November 1996.

>I think the use of the entire phrase makes all the difference. What you did
>is not the same thing at all. Find me something in Charles Dickens why don't
>you instead of these pitiful attempts which reek of desperation.

Find me the phrase "like how you used it" in Dickens. Or indeed in
any writing which was not dinged for poor grammar by a grade-school
English teacher.

[snip Chaucer]

>Where is the "differing"?

See that over there in the far distance? That's the plot, that is.
You lost it a while back. I'll wait here while you go and get it.
Everyone else realises that usage has changed since Chaucer's day,
since Shakespeare's day, even since Graham Green's day.

>> A 1950 text on correct grammar and usage would read (does read - I
>> have one) as hopelessly archaic now.

>That is all true but is beside the point.

No, it is entirely pertinent. You are saying that a usage with which
you are unfamiliar is incorrect, solely because you are not familiar
with it. Earlier you used a phrase which is downright ungrammatical
and defended it as "a colloquialism". At least my colloquialism is
literate. The fact that the precise usage is not shown in a
dictionary could mean one of a number of things: it could be that the
compilers view it as consistent with existing definitions of the word
(as I do); it could be that they have not yet caught up with it; it
could be reasons of space; it could be that you are not looking in a
new enough or extensive enough dictionary; it could be geographically
localised. Of these the most likely is the first: that, being
consistent with the definition of differing as dissimilar or unlike in
nature, the compilers see no need to use an example which adds nothing
to the body of knowledge save in the mind of one determined to see
things as they are not. Which is a long way round the point that
nobody else seems to have a problem with it.

>We are only concerned here with present day grammar and usage. You have
>gotten completely sidetracked on issues which have nothing to do with your
>incorrect usage of "differing."

We are concerned with usage and how it develops over time. As I have
demonstrated, text from great authors is seriously at variance with
modern usage. Clearly your grammar, too, ossified - seemingly at
around the time TV went to colour, a retrograde step if ever there was
one.

Actually not even that: we are concerned with your hypocrisy and your
use of a hypocritically ungrammatical grammar flame to try to deflect
attention from it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. am full of Nonsense!
I Ed Dolan am an idiot who is never truthful or helpful.
I Ed Dolan of A.R.B.R. defame, harassed and threaten with every
newsgroup post I make. I also am very obscene, pig headed, ignorant,
stupid and unlawful in all my messages on USEnet.

But that is what comes of living when one becomes a old
puttz like me into his seventies who takes many meds daily.
I pray that I die soon so the world and A.R.B.R. will be a better place.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Biggest Waste of Mankind - Minnesota
 
Subject: Re: Appropriate Use Policy
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
=> Just zis Guy, you know? <= wrote:

>From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>


FROM:
http://news.individual.net/rules.html

Rules for Usage

Users of the newsserver are expected to follow this set of rules.
Disregarding the rules may cause termination of access privileges without
further notice.

* Sender Address
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:" should
be your own and should be valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity).
Using addresses and name space of other people without their permission is
prohibited.

-------------------------------------

You do NOT have permission to use a US government owned email address in your
message headers. Please remove it.

-------------------------------------


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:29:09 -0600, G. Morgan
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>You do NOT have permission to use a US government owned email address in your
>message headers. Please remove it.

The reply-to address is valid and owned by me (and regularly used), so
the only people who will use the From address are spammers. All I am
doing is short-circuiting the process by having them send their ****
direct to [email protected] where it belongs. I'm sure if they have a
problem with that they will let me know. Ditto the nice people at
Berlin Free University - it's not like they will have trouble tracing
me, what with my reply-to being valid and my website being in my .sig,
after all.


Now here are the headers from your message:

Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: G. Morgan <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
Subject: Re: Appropriate Use Policy
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:29:09 -0600
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net
V+nSIvqTf/Mxmc8B84TN7gP/gDWPQ0XzXtN3a5yo/JTaJX52Pr
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent:149088


I note that your headers show you to be in violation of the AUP (it
makes no exception for munging) so you might want to clean up your act
before shopping me to the admins.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Re: Appropriate postings for this newsgroup
Replies
9
Views
362
Recumbent bicycles
Tom Kunich
T
F
LOL! Appropriate advertising!
Replies
1
Views
512
Recumbent bicycles
[email protected]
F
J
Ed Gi - Your Acceptable Ussse Policy - An Ultimatum
Replies
11
Views
737
Recumbent bicycles
[email protected]
J
Top Bottom Back