Intelligent Design OM
Armond Perretta
designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others. All of
these a fashioned by an
intelligence.
Another example of one faction outplaying the other with language. Why is
it that the US Republicans have realized and capitalized upon the use of
specific phrases to control the discussion, and the US Democrats have
essentially ignored the method? Such has been the situation since at least
the early 1980's.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare
Pat Durkin
"Armond Perretta" <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:zv6dnRMOG62...@comcast.com...
> "Intelligent Design" is an oxymoron, a "squad squad." There are good
> designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others. All
> of
> these a fashioned by an
> intelligence.
>
> Another example of one faction outplaying the other with language.
> Why is
> it that the US Republicans have realized and capitalized upon the use
> of
> specific phrases to control the discussion, and the US Democrats have
> essentially ignored the method? Such has been the situation since at
> least
> the early 1980's.
Don't you think that the Dems have caught on to "1984", and don't
indulge in "newspeak/doublethink"
Of course, it means they tie themselves in knots trying to make GOPpish
stand still and mean something--a losing battle, I fear.
Armond Perretta
> "Armond Perretta" <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote ...
>>
>> Another example of one faction outplaying the other with language.
>> Why is it that the US Republicans have realized and capitalized upon the
>> use of specific phrases to control the discussion, and the US Democrats
>> have essentially ignored the method? Such has been the situation since
>> at least the early 1980's.
>
> Don't you think that the Dems have caught on to "1984", and don't
> indulge in "newspeak/doublethink"
Not at all. The Dems have made no coordinated effort to organize the
message of the moment in a manner that allows it to be presented with
phrases that galvanize, or at least coordinate, public reaction and opinion.
It often seems to me that Republican advisors work on the message first, and
later attach legislation that's remotely related.
> Of course, it means they tie themselves in knots trying to make
> GOPpish stand still and mean something--a losing battle, I fear.
They cannot lose a battle they haven't fought, but they certainly can lose
quite a few seats in the meantime.
bayskater
"Armond Perretta" <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:zv6dnRMOG62...@comcast.com...
> it that the US Republicans have realized and capitalized upon the use of
> specific phrases to control the discussion, and the US Democrats have
> essentially ignored the method? Such has been the situation since at
> least
> the early 1980's.
>
> --
You are so right.
"Clean Air Act", "stay the course", "the blame game", "no child left
behind", "compassionate conservative" etc.
The list used by Republicans is long and is used very effectively but I
can't think of any such phrases used by Dems.
Odd.
Fred
Ted Schuerzinger
<newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in
news:N-SdncaQNueoIAze...@comcast.com:
>> Don't you think that the Dems have caught on to "1984", and don't
>> indulge in "newspeak/doublethink"
>
> Not at all. The Dems have made no coordinated effort to organize the
> message of the moment in a manner that allows it to be presented with
> phrases that galvanize, or at least coordinate, public reaction and
> opinion.
I'd argue that the left have tried to appropriate the meanings of words
like "diversity" and "tolerance" to mean that we have to tolerate the
things they want tolerated. But being tolerant of, say, US evangelical
Christians? :-)
Or as another example, when elements of Third World cultures are exported
to the western world, we're told it's "multiculturalism", and a virtue.
When elements of US culture are exported to the rest of the western world,
it's not multiculturalism but "globalization", and something virtuous to
oppose.
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
--Homer Simpson
Pat Durkin
"Ted Schuerzinger" <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote in message
news:Xns972173608432A8j...@ID-121946.user.dfncis.de...
> Somebody claiming to be "Armond Perretta"
> <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in
> news:N-SdncaQNueoIAze...@comcast.com:
>
>>> Don't you think that the Dems have caught on to "1984", and don't
>>> indulge in "newspeak/doublethink"
>>
>> Not at all. The Dems have made no coordinated effort to organize the
>> message of the moment in a manner that allows it to be presented with
>> phrases that galvanize, or at least coordinate, public reaction and
>> opinion.
>
> I'd argue that the left have tried to appropriate the meanings of
> words
> like "diversity" and "tolerance" to mean that we have to tolerate the
> things they want tolerated. But being tolerant of, say, US
> evangelical
> Christians? :-)
What is intolerant about defending the principal that no US government
money should help pay the salaries of preachers? How about objecting to
allowing a tax excuse to churches in which political slogans abound? Or
objecting to a preaching presence on the podium at absolutely every
event (yes, even with paid admission) in which the public gathers--H.S.
sport events, etc. I don't like being accosted on the public streets by
individuals asking me if I have been saved, or if I believe in Jesus
Christ, etc, but I don't think there is much I can do, unless they ask
for money. Then I can call the police and charge them with
pan-handling (ranks with pissing in public, you know).
> Or as another example, when elements of Third World cultures are
> exported
> to the western world, we're told it's "multiculturalism", and a
> virtue.
> When elements of US culture are exported to the rest of the western
> world,
> it's not multiculturalism but "globalization", and something virtuous
> to
> oppose.
What elements of TW cultures are you referring to? Is it "exporting" or
"importing" to? What is this "western world"? Does it include Greece,
Bulgaria, Ukraine, Slovenia? What elements are being called
"multiculturalism"? Animal? Vegetable? Mineral? Recipes, formulas,
prescriptions, automobiles, wine, oil, pollution? Music, painting,
philosophy, religion?
I am not aware of the liberals (leftists?) opposing globalization, as
opposed to or distinct from multiculturalism. I think your discussion
groups approach some matters from a different perspective than mine.
The same words, with different meanings?
Yeah, I think that is right where I came in on this thread.
The Grammer Genious
> "Intelligent Design" is an oxymoron, a "squad squad." There are good
> designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others. All of
> these a fashioned by an
> intelligence. <...>
Maybe you're being too literal-minded. If by design is meant "a basic scheme
or pattern that affects or conrols function or development" (one of the
definitions in the AHD4), then that basic scheme could either be fashioned
by an intelligence (in which case there presumably is a God) or by the
mechanics of a godless nature (in which case there is not).
So the use of the adjective in the phrase "intelligent design" is an
assertion of the former case, and not an oxymoron.
Googling around, I note the following uses of "design." The writers may all
be implying that there is a God, but I bet they aren't.
"Always ask yourself how the flower's design encourages pollination."
"... interesting seasonal features of the plants, an explanation of the
flower's design, and a summary of the plant's life cycle..."
"What is the line of symmetry in a butterfly wing's design?"
"There are a lot of modifications to the basic running design of the insect
leg."
Fred
"Armond Perretta" <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:zv6dnRMOG62...@comcast.com...
> "Intelligent Design" is an oxymoron, a "squad squad." There are good
> designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others. All of
> these a fashioned by an
> intelligence.
So the word intelligence may be redundant, but that doesn't male it an
oxymoron.
>
>
>
>
>
Nick Worley
news:zv6dnRMOG62...@comcast.com...
> designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others. All of
> these a fashioned by an
> intelligence.
But surely the point of the term "intelligent design" isn't so much the fact
that the person who designed the thing in question possesses an
intelligence/brain/mind (every being has one of them surely), but rather the
fact that the design itself is a good, as opposed to a bad, design.
Surely that's what the term means???
I mean, how intelligent is someone who designs something badly? Not very I
reckon.
Regards
Nick
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
An argument for renaming it "External Directed Impulse" or EDI.
--
Can't get away, like a flea on a dog in a bog on a sinkin' log. Later
like amber of old, bog gone, log gone, even doggone, but not you.
Couldn't flee, essence extracted for science, secreted in dark room, at
least in brown bottle, anhydrously helping. DNA segment from blood
sipped by proboscis matches, Holy Grail, beyond grave, in your grave,
now you matter, final proof, there is a Dog. Or at least there was.
Ted Schuerzinger
news:JUkkf.29125$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
To be honest, the thought I had in mind was something more about the way
ministers in minority Christian sects (eg. Fred Phelps) are dismissed
(rightfully) as at best nutjobs, if not evil; similar nutjobs like Louis
Farrakhan get accorded much more respect.
As for "tax excuses" to churches engaging in politics, one should keep in
mind that it's common in the States for Democratic candidates to campaign
in predominantly Black churches, much in the same way that Republican
candidates would make the obligatory stop at fundie Bob Jones University
in the South Carolina presidential primary. It cuts across both major
political parties.
>> Or as another example, when elements of Third World cultures are
>> exported to the western world, we're told it's "multiculturalism",
>> and a virtue. When elements of US culture are exported to the rest
>> of the western world, it's not multiculturalism but
>> "globalization", and something virtuous to oppose.
>
> What elements of TW cultures are you referring to? Is it "exporting"
> or "importing" to? What is this "western world"? Does it include
> Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Slovenia? What elements are being called
> "multiculturalism"? Animal? Vegetable? Mineral? Recipes, formulas,
> prescriptions, automobiles, wine, oil, pollution? Music, painting,
> philosophy, religion?
I've heard in the past year multiple reports on various international
broadcasters where people in Western countries were trying to preserve
various aspects of the local culture, on the grounds that they were doing
so against increasing American influences (one was on the BBC a month ago
about Guy Fawkes Day vs. the American version of Halloween, with another
being a man interviewed on Radio Netherlands about teaching kids
traditional Dutch dancing). By the same token, I actually heard the
German word "Globalisierung" used pejoratively (I think) in a culture
program about an Icelandic artist. (I'll admit that since German isn't my
first language, and I wasn't listening to the program with a view towards
analyzing it, I may have gotten the context wrong.) What do you think the
response would be if people suggested we hold on to such cultural
traditions in the face of an influx of, say, Islamic culture?
Harvey Van Sickle
> "Ted Schuerzinger" <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote in message
> news:Xns972173608432A8j...@ID-121946.user.dfncis
>> I'd argue that the left have tried to appropriate the
>> meanings of words like "diversity" and "tolerance" to mean
>> that we have to tolerate the things they want tolerated. But
>> being tolerant of, say, US evangelical Christians? :-)
>
> What is intolerant about defending the principal
Oy!
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Bob
Hmm.
"Design" could be a verb ("I will design a widget") or it could be a noun
("The design of that widget is elegant"). In the first case we should
use "intelligently". In the latter case the adjective "intelligent" has
the meaning "appealing to the intellect" -- see AHD, definition 4 at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/I0178400.html.
One might agree or disagree that the design of the universe is
"intelligent" in this respect. I believe it is. It must appeal to the
intellect or so many scientists wouldn't bother devoting themselves to its
study.
But, contrary to what you say above, I think those who argue for
"Intelligent Design" are claiming that this implies an intelligent
designer (if I understand them correctly). Well this is either a leap of
faith or they have become confused by the semantics: a red apple need not
have been created by a red creator of apples. Nor does the creator need to
be anthropomorphic. (Anthropomorphism: "The attribution of human
characteristics ... to ... natural phenomena" -- also AHD,
http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/A0332500.html).
Bob
John O'Flaherty
Right, it may be a tautology, but there's no inherent contradiction.
--
john
Pat Durkin
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9721E266...@62.253.170.163...
> On 03 Dec 2005, Pat Durkin wrote
>> "Ted Schuerzinger" <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote in message
>> news:Xns972173608432A8j...@ID-121946.user.dfncis
>
>>> I'd argue that the left have tried to appropriate the
>>> meanings of words like "diversity" and "tolerance" to mean
>>> that we have to tolerate the things they want tolerated. But
>>> being tolerant of, say, US evangelical Christians? :-)
>>
>> What is intolerant about defending the principal
>
> Oy!
>
Got me on that!
Jeffrey Turner
> Somebody claiming to be "Pat Durkin" <dur...@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
>>"Ted Schuerzinger" <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote:
>>>Somebody claiming to be "Armond Perretta"
Farrakhan has a much larger following. You want to compare
nutjobs, compare Farrakhan to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
Or, dare I say, Sun Myung Moon. What's the most recent remark
you've got from Farrakhan? He's not an evangelical Christian,
BTW.
> As for "tax excuses" to churches engaging in politics, one should keep in
> mind that it's common in the States for Democratic candidates to campaign
> in predominantly Black churches, much in the same way that Republican
> candidates would make the obligatory stop at fundie Bob Jones University
> in the South Carolina presidential primary. It cuts across both major
> political parties.
So, which right-wing fundamentalist church is the IRS
investigating?
>>>Or as another example, when elements of Third World cultures are
>>>exported to the western world, we're told it's "multiculturalism",
>>>and a virtue. When elements of US culture are exported to the rest
>>>of the western world, it's not multiculturalism but
>>>"globalization", and something virtuous to oppose.
>>
>>What elements of TW cultures are you referring to? Is it "exporting"
>>or "importing" to? What is this "western world"? Does it include
>>Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Slovenia? What elements are being called
>>"multiculturalism"? Animal? Vegetable? Mineral? Recipes, formulas,
>>prescriptions, automobiles, wine, oil, pollution? Music, painting,
>>philosophy, religion?
>
> I've heard in the past year multiple reports on various international
> broadcasters where people in Western countries were trying to preserve
> various aspects of the local culture, on the grounds that they were doing
> so against increasing American influences (one was on the BBC a month ago
> about Guy Fawkes Day vs. the American version of Halloween, with another
> being a man interviewed on Radio Netherlands about teaching kids
> traditional Dutch dancing). By the same token, I actually heard the
> German word "Globalisierung" used pejoratively (I think) in a culture
> program about an Icelandic artist. (I'll admit that since German isn't my
> first language, and I wasn't listening to the program with a view towards
> analyzing it, I may have gotten the context wrong.) What do you think the
> response would be if people suggested we hold on to such cultural
> traditions in the face of an influx of, say, Islamic culture?
So, you're comparing people trying to preserve pieces of their
culture to...what, exactly? Globalization in this sense, the
steamrollering of local cultures by plastic Santas made in
China? Is that what you're defending? Are you worried that
some kid won't be able to eat at McDonald's because they're all
being replaced by falafel joints? Is that what's bothering you,
Bunky? Because unless you put forth more than vague "concerns"
that's what I'm gonna assume.
--Jeff
--
All men of conscience or prudence
ply to windward, to maintain their
wars to be defensive.
-Roger Williams
Jeffrey Turner
> On 03 Dec 2005, Pat Durkin wrote
>
>
>>>I'd argue that the left have tried to appropriate the
>>>meanings of words like "diversity" and "tolerance" to mean
>>>that we have to tolerate the things they want tolerated. But
>>>being tolerant of, say, US evangelical Christians? :-)
>>
>>What is intolerant about defending the principal
>
>
> Oy!
Now is the time for all good teachers to come to the aid of
their principal.
Jeffrey Turner
Dictionary of Republicanisms
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/kvh
Over the past few decades, the radical right has engaged in a
well-funded, self-conscious program of Orwellian doublespeak,
transforming the American political discourse to suit its ends.
Blue Hornet
Really? "Politics of meaning" (whatever that means); "vast right-wing
conspiracy"; "tolerance"; "diversity" and "muticulturalism" have been
mentioned above. And as they were pointed out, they do tend to mean
"tolerance of what WE approve of", "anything that is not white and/or
middle class" and "anything that is not American and/or Western
European". Let's also not forget that "racism" means (as it is used
most places these days) "white bigotry or chauvinism" against any other
race, but not the reverse.
I'm not here to defend Republicans or Christians (FSM knows!), but I
don't want to see the other side get a free pass, either.
Pat Durkin
"Nick Worley" <sp...@cornedbeef.com> wrote in message
news:3veguiF...@individual.net...
Ok, so the designer is betrayed by the draftsman. And after that comes
the execution of the design.
What kind of salesman do you have to be to persuade an amoeba to follow
your design? Pretty awesome, right?
Pat Durkin
"Blue Hornet" <horne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133655013.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I never heard of "politics of meaning". You aren't referring to "what
"is" is, are you?
OK. Who invented (and used most effectively) the term "politics of
personal destruction"?
And what brings you to the conclusion that "the other side" is getting a
free pass?
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Don't you wish that your spell checker would pop up on words like that
and give you a second shot?
Frances Kemmish
History in New York city couldn't find a corporate sponsor for its
Darwin exhibit?
Pat Durkin
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<Pablo....@Il.Postino.it> wrote in message
news:43923C5F...@Il.Postino.it...
>
>
> Pat Durkin wrote:
>>
>> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9721E266...@62.253.170.163...
>> > On 03 Dec 2005, Pat Durkin wrote
>> >>
>> >> What is intolerant about defending the principal
>> >
>> > Oy!
>> >
>>
>> Got me on that!
>>
> Don't you wish that your spell checker would pop up on words like that
> and give you a second shot?
>
And how!
Pat Durkin
"Frances Kemmish" <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3vetdiF...@individual.net...
> How widely-reported has it been that the American Museum of Natural
> History in New York city couldn't find a corporate sponsor for its
> Darwin exhibit?
Oh, yes. I had heard that.
Not much fuss made, though.
Of course, the museum probably has plenty of government support,
although the exhibit may (have) close(d) sooner than one would have
hoped.
Maybe one or the other pharmaceutical companies should have stepped in.
But then, one wonders how much interference any corporate subscribers
might occasion.
Ted Schuerzinger
news:11p4c8i...@corp.supernews.com:
> So, you're comparing people trying to preserve pieces of their
> culture to...what, exactly?
Either you misunderstood me, or I didn't make myself clear enough. If
it's suggested that one work to keep English culture English because it's
under threat from American cultural influences, that's considered
acceptable. But if it's suggested that one work to keep English culture
English because the culture is under threat from, say, the culture being
imported by all those Muslim immigrants, that's considered horrible.
> Globalization in this sense, the
> steamrollering of local cultures by plastic Santas made in
> China? Is that what you're defending? Are you worried that
> some kid won't be able to eat at McDonald's because they're all
> being replaced by falafel joints?
No; the point I'm trying to make is that if you suggest there are too many
McDonald's franchises replacing local restaurants, you're treated
seriously; if you suggest that there are too many "falafel joints"
replacing local restaurants, you'd be treated as some sort of xenophobe.
> Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
Bunky??? I fear that the tone of your comments is proving precisely the
point I've been trying to make. It's not only OK, it's the done thing to
denigrate certain (and only certain) non-native cultures. And look at how
we treat people who refuse to go in for that line of thinking.
Blue Hornet
The answer to your question about who mentioned "politics of personal
destruction" is the same person. Not her husband, but her.
The only mention I'd seen in this thread about hijacking language in
the way we've been discussing referred to The Right, specifically,
Republicans.
Robert Lieblich
> Somebody claiming to be Jeffrey Turner
[ ... ]
> > Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
>
> Bunky???
This is AUE. One question mark is quite sufficient to persuade us
that you're asking something.
As for "Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?" allow me to introduce
you to Eddie Lawrence, aka The Old Philosopher. You can google him,
and you'll get the hang of it pretty soon, although Bunky's a lot
harder to find than you'd expect.
--
Bob Lieblich
That's what's troublin' me, cousin
Chris Waigl
> Somebody claiming to be Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote
> in news:11p4c8i...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > So, you're comparing people trying to preserve pieces of their
> > culture to...what, exactly?
>
> Either you misunderstood me, or I didn't make myself clear enough.
> If it's suggested that one work to keep English culture English
> because it's under threat from American cultural influences, that's
> considered acceptable. But if it's suggested that one work to keep
> English culture English because the culture is under threat from,
> say, the culture being imported by all those Muslim immigrants,
> that's considered horrible.
The answer is right there in the terms of your question: I don't see a
great many Mc Donald's restaurants opened by your local American
immigrants who are glad to have found a way to make money by sharing a
bit of their home culture.
I do wonder why you focus on "Muslim immigrants". They hardly have one
particular culture in common. But then, that's just contemporary lingo.
Articles from the first half of the 20th century, and the practice of
deporting, say, Poles from Western Europe when they became uppity,
certainly opened my eyes to the longevity of immigration and xenophobia.
> No; the point I'm trying to make is that if you suggest there are too
> many McDonald's franchises replacing local restaurants, you're
> treated seriously; if you suggest that there are too many "falafel
> joints" replacing local restaurants, you'd be treated as some sort of
> xenophobe.
Bits of foreign culture have come into European countries for a long
time now, and they come via different channels. Not long before my
youth, in Germany, slurs against Italians were common playground
insults. My generation found this a bit stupid already, because we
frequented the local pizzerias and ice cream parlours and were quite
aware that insulting Italians meant insulting people we knew and
frequented. Bemoaning the influx of Italian cooking would have been a
stupid thing indeed. As an aside, I doubt very much that any of those
actually replaced local restaurants. If they did, it was probably for
the better.
American culture -- whatever that term may refer to -- on the other
hand arrives via big industries: movies, fast food chains etc. People
don't get to know any Americans when they partake in it. The reaction to
that is bound to be different.
When someone says, "Gosh, the kids today have been brought up on
[falafel, kebab, pizza, Hamburgers] (take your pick) and don't know how
to make a proper Yorkshire pudding any more; let's offer a class on
regional cooking at the local continuing education college," I don't see
anything xenophobic or anti-American about that.
For the record, I don't use "globalisation" much. It's a term that
covers a vast number of social, political and technological changes
that are not all in themselves good or bad. It's rather like
"industrialisation" as it refers to 19th century Europe, America etc.
Chris Waigl
--
blog: http://serendipity.lascribe.net/
eggcorns: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/
Jeffrey Turner
Thank you for saving me the trouble of making those points (and
doing it quite eloquently). America's a big place, it's got
lots of regional cultures. A "down-home Southern" restaurant
would be worth at least checking out.
Ted Schuerzinger
wrote in news:439273C5...@verizon.net:
> Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
>
>> Somebody claiming to be Jeffrey Turner
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> > Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
>>
>> Bunky???
>
> This is AUE. One question mark is quite sufficient to persuade us
> that you're asking something.
Doesn't the use of multiple question marks imply a different tone? I'm
thinking of something along the lines of that classic movie line, "Are you
talking to me? Are you talking to *ME*??" The repeat of the question is
spoken in a different tone.
In my case, I was trying to express my incomprehension at what seemed to
me Jeffrey's increasingly hectoring tone.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Somebody claiming to be Robert Lieblich <robert....@verizon.net>
> wrote in news:439273C5...@verizon.net:
>
> > Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
> >
> >> Somebody claiming to be Jeffrey Turner
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >> > Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
> >>
> >> Bunky???
> >
> > This is AUE. One question mark is quite sufficient to persuade us
> > that you're asking something.
>
> Doesn't the use of multiple question marks imply a different tone?
No. It implies an inability to say what you want to say without
artificial assistance, which in the case of your question is a false
implication. By singling out the one word and putting a question mark
after it, you signal your bafflement. Job done. Move on.
> I'm
> thinking of something along the lines of that classic movie line, "Are you
> talking to me? Are you talking to *ME*??" The repeat of the question is
> spoken in a different tone.
And the emphasis on "me," which I consider legitimate, does the job.
I haven't seen the script and have no idea how it's actually
punctuated.
> In my case, I was trying to express my incomprehension at what seemed to
> me Jeffrey's increasingly hectoring tone.
I assure you, I'd have gotten [1] the point just as well, and with
less irritation, if you'd stuck to one question mark. If you can't
get your point across with one question mark, tripling it won't help.
[1] AmE
--
Bob Lieblich
And I mean it!!!
Chess One
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4393010F...@verizon.net...
> Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
>> I'm
>> thinking of something along the lines of that classic movie line, "Are
>> you
>> talking to me? Are you talking to *ME*??" The repeat of the question is
>> spoken in a different tone.
Isn't the format for emphasis to use italics? And in a format which does not
permit the text to appear italicised, to represent the emphasis by /this/
method instead?
One advantage of using the form /me/ rather than *ME*?? is that the original
text can be quoted as it stands, in upper or lower case, or in combination,
and besides, is less ugly.
Exceptionally a form can be overemphasised, but the *ME*?? form is so strong
that there can be no shades between it and a plain me.
Phil
JF
Ted Schuerzinger <fe...@bestweb.spam> writes
>Somebody claiming to be Robert Lieblich <robert....@verizon.net>
>wrote in news:439273C5...@verizon.net:
>>>
>>
>> This is AUE. One question mark is quite sufficient to persuade us
>> that you're asking something.
>
>Doesn't the use of multiple question marks imply a different tone?
No.
bayskater
>>> > Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
>>>
>>> Bunky???
>>
>> This is AUE. One question mark is quite sufficient to persuade us
>> that you're asking something.
>
> Doesn't the use of multiple question marks imply a different tone? I'm
> thinking of something along the lines of that classic movie line, "Are you
> talking to me? Are you talking to *ME*??" The repeat of the question is
> spoken in a different tone.
>
> In my case, I was trying to express my incomprehension at what seemed to
> me Jeffrey's increasingly hectoring tone.
>
> --
> Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
> Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
> --Homer Simpson
I understood the reason for the three question marks and found that it
expressed more
than that he was merely asking something, which I assume was his intent.
I was not offended by the extra question marks.
Fred
New to AUE and its need for conformity and its scolding and hectoring of
posters.
Robert Lieblich
>
> >>> > Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
> >>>
> >>> Bunky???
> >>
> >> This is AUE. One question mark is quite sufficient to persuade us
> >> that you're asking something.
> >
> > Doesn't the use of multiple question marks imply a different tone? I'm
> > thinking of something along the lines of that classic movie line, "Are you
> > talking to me? Are you talking to *ME*??" The repeat of the question is
> > spoken in a different tone.
> >
> > In my case, I was trying to express my incomprehension at what seemed to
> > me Jeffrey's increasingly hectoring tone.
> I understood the reason for the three question marks and found that it
> expressed more
> than that he was merely asking something, which I assume was his intent.
> I was not offended by the extra question marks.
I'm not offended either, but neither did I find that the use of
multiple question marks added anything. I'm surprised that you did.
It distracts, and therefore it *sub*tracts. This isn't a question of
manners, it's a question of effective writing[1], and most competent
writers have no sympathy with someone who thinks he needs to lard his
prose with all sorts of gewgaws in order to get his point across.
Here are a few statements of agreement with my position:
<http://www.apsu.edu/majord/punctuate/questexcl.html> ("multiple
question marks or exclamation points aren't necessary or useful")
<http://www.answers.com/topic/interrobang> (It is not uncommon for
writers in very informal situations (or deliberate parodies) to use
several question marks and exclamation marks for even more emphasis:
He did what?!?!?! Like multiple exclamation marks and multiple
question marks, such strings are generally considered very poor
style.)
<http://www.writersblock.ca/fall2000/essay.htm>
Oh, I'm sure it's possible to find statements to the contrary. (ISTR
one such from Crystal about exclamation points, if not question
marks.) There are people who will believe, and say, almost anything.
Which is why I began my original comment in this thread with "This is
AUE." The anarchy of the Web has spawned all sorts of "creative"
punctuation. But most of the RRs in this group know a little
something about writing and don't need spoon-feeding -- and
spoon-feeding is about the most charitable description I can think of
for something like three question marks in a row.
Anyone awake out there?
[1] A pair of contrasting clauses like this can be divided by a
comma. There's a thread to this effect lying around somewhere.
--
Bob Lieblich
Pretentious -- moi?????????
Tony Cooper
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
><http://www.answers.com/topic/interrobang> (It is not uncommon for
>writers in very informal situations (or deliberate parodies) to use
>several question marks and exclamation marks for even more emphasis:
>He did what?!?!?! Like multiple exclamation marks and multiple
>question marks, such strings are generally considered very poor
>style.)
>
They are the newsgroup equivalent of "Biff!", "Bang!", "Sock!", and
"Zowie!"
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Laura F. Spira
Er, yes, I'm awake, Bob, and I agree with you. My English teacher cured
me of superfluous exclamation marks by writing "Vulgar ostentation" in
red ink next to them. I was mortified and have taken care to avoid being
vulgar or ostentatious in my writing and in the rest of my life ever since.
>
> [1] A pair of contrasting clauses like this can be divided by a
> comma. There's a thread to this effect lying around somewhere.
>
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Bob
> Er, yes, I'm awake, Bob, and I agree with you. My English teacher cured me
> of superfluous exclamation marks by writing "Vulgar ostentation" in red
> ink next to them. I was mortified and have taken care to avoid being
> vulgar or ostentatious in my writing and in the rest of my life ever
> since.
>
Me too!!!
(the other Bob)
Mike Page
Vulgar and ostentatious on a university salary? We should be so lucky.
Mike Page
mikeora...@portchimp.ac.uk
Kill the monkeys for email
Richard Bollard
wrote:
There is one domain where extra exclamations and question marks does
have meaning: chess notation.
A strong move might attract " ! " and a very strong move gets " !! ".
Similarly a poor move gets " ? ", a very poor move " ?? ". A move that
is probably poor but maybe strong gets " !? " and contrariwise " ?! "
(unless I have those arse-about).
Influenced by this, I read the above triple-query to be a form of
shorthand for something along the lines of "What? I say WHAT? I mean
WHAT THE FUCK?" as opposed to just "what?". Not just mild wonderment,
but incredulous, jaw-dropping, complete bafflement.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
pointed
Republican in office (although I don't consider myself one)...until
Bush Jr. put down roots in the top spot. I gotta tell you though, the
only reason politicos even grasp stuff like the newspeak/doublethink is
so that they can put it into practice. Methinks it would behoove us all
to disseminate Orwell's essay about "fuzzy speech and fuzzy thinking"
as widely as possible. Of course when you rip the blinders off a
horse's eyes, you usually get trampled unless you're quick on your
feet. Does anyone remember the name of that essay?
Charles Riggs
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> Anyone awake out there?
>
>Er, yes, I'm awake, Bob, and I agree with you. My English teacher cured
>me of superfluous exclamation marks by writing "Vulgar ostentation" in
>red ink next to them. I was mortified and have taken care to avoid being
>vulgar or ostentatious in my writing and in the rest of my life ever since.
Me too, and who doesn't? I'd be mortified otherwise -- mortified, I
tell 'ya! I just hate that Red Ink when I see it.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
>> In my case, I was trying to express my incomprehension at what seemed to
>> me Jeffrey's increasingly hectoring tone.
>
>I assure you, I'd have gotten [1] the point just as well, and with
>less irritation, if you'd stuck to one question mark. If you can't
>get your point across with one question mark, tripling it won't help.
>
>[1] AmE
>Bob Lieblich
>And I mean it!!!
I somewhat agree with your comments on triple question marks, noting
that Richard Bollard made an impressive argument for them, but I'm not
so sure that triple exclamation marks don't have their place. The
written language is an imperfect thing, after all. It not having body
language, facial expressions and tone of voice, I see no objection to
spicing up the written language now and then. There may be more
eloquent ways to do it, but a simple approach is not necessary a bad
approach in all cases.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>In message <v5qdnSYCtNGEig7e...@comcast.com>, bayskater
><efhu...@nospamcomcast.net> writes
>
>>I understood the reason for the three question marks and found that it
>>expressed more
>>than that he was merely asking something, which I assume was his intent.
>>I was not offended by the extra question marks.
>
>I doubt if anyone is offended. It's just plain wrong.
Aw, c'mon James. How can it be wrong? If it's wrong, I say we have too
many rules. Language is meant to be played with and experimented with,
is it not? If you say no, you'll have pretty much taken away my raison
d'ętre for contributing to AUE.
--
Charles Riggs
John Riley
Sez who???
Seriously, within the ambit your apparent conservative, linguistic snobbery,
how would you express incredulity in a one word question, such as "Bunky?"
To me, on usenet, "Bunky???" is accurate and succinct. I would be surprised
if you could do better. One question mark does NOT do it for me.
I find more than three of the same mark ineffective, mixed marks confusing,
and two neither here nor there. One or three exclamation marks, and one or
three question marks I find useful as a writer and reader of everyday
English. I bet you despise emoticons :)
"JF" <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4TExFSAU...@marage.demon.co.uk...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <v5qdnSYCtNGEig7e...@comcast.com>, bayskater
> <efhu...@nospamcomcast.net> writes
>
>>I understood the reason for the three question marks and found that it
>>expressed more
>>than that he was merely asking something, which I assume was his intent.
>>I was not offended by the extra question marks.
>
> I doubt if anyone is offended. It's just plain wrong.
>
> --
> James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
> The Silent Vulcan trilogy, starting with 'The Temple of the Winds', on
> BBC7
> Sundays 1840.
>
William
JF wrote:
[...]
> Yes. It was "What the Hell are we Going To Do About These Swarms of
> Inconsiderate Google Groups-Using Fuckwits Who Are Too Lazy, Too Stupid,
> Or Possibly Both to Use a Proper Newsclient?"
What's your problem with Google Groups, big boy?
William
JF wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <1133793771.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> William <willia...@hotmail.com> writes
> Read what I wrote above again. Move your lips at the same time if it
> helps. You've managed to set up your account correctly, but the majority
> can't be arsed. I'm considering setting a killrule to sink all posts
> floating downstream from the sewage culverts of google groups.
I've re-read it. I've even tried moving my lips at the same time. At
one point I considered following the words with my finger. All to no
avail. Epiphanies came there none.
You seem to think that I've set up my account correctly, but setting up
a Google Groups account simply requires a valid e-mail address and a
name. So far as I can determine, there's nothing else that the user
can do.
What I really want to know is what it is that users of Google Groups do
(or, more likely, don't do) that so spoils your Usenet experience. In
case you think I'm trolling - I'm not. From where I'm sitting, the
view of this thread on Google Groups looks fine, or as fine as any of
the countless other largely self-indulgent streams of typing in the
bogosphere.
Do tell.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
James is objecting to people hitting "Reply", which as you know doesn't
quote the message being replied to, instead of starting with "Show
Options".
--
Jerry Friedman has the same initials as James Follett (only not really)
and thus can read his mind at times.
Robert Lieblich
[responding to, and quoting, JF, but top-posting. I'm just going to
snip everything Jimbo wrote. The "you" in this post is he.]
>
> "It's just plain wrong."
>
> Sez who???
>
> Seriously, within the ambit your apparent conservative, linguistic snobbery,
> how would you express incredulity in a one word question, such as "Bunky?"
> To me, on usenet, "Bunky???" is accurate and succinct. I would be surprised
> if you could do better.
Apologies, Jimbo, for jumping in, but I have a dog in this hunt.
How about: Bunky? BUNKY? Accurate, succinct, and emphatic.
> One question mark does NOT do it for me.
We all dream of threesomes, no doubt. But in punctuation?
PUNCTUATION?
> I find more than three of the same mark ineffective, mixed marks confusing,
> and two neither here nor there. One or three exclamation marks, and one or
> three question marks I find useful as a writer and reader of everyday
> English. I bet you despise emoticons :)
I'm sure Jim does. I don't quite despise them, but I tend to use them
only in some sort of jest.
As to posting form, please see
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#Responding>.
--
Bob Lieblich
Take that!!!!!!!!
John Riley
Just wordy, waffling insult?
No substantive message?
Is this really your best effort?
Instead of this: "Bunky???"
YOU need this:
"Of course you do, my dear chap. Of course you do. I wouldn't
expect anything else from talentless, dank puddles of rancid, porridge-like
grey cells desperately trying to muster a modicum of intelligence to be
accepted on the dog-pee-stained, bloodied sidewalks of aue."
How pathetic! Fancy calling succinctness a crutch!
And my wife thought she might have heard of you :)
BTW [another crutch?] the reason I top posted in this instance (sorry if you
are having difficulty with it, but remember, practice will improve your
skills) is so that I could quote your entire message and you could not hide
your contributions from Google's magnigficent archiving. I am flexible with
my posting style, not stuck in some time-warp like some here who think
that there is a set of absolute rules of grammar handed down from on high.
Nothing that transmits the message is "wrong". You might not like it,
but that is really just your problem.
"JF" <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TF+bgEB6...@marage.demon.co.uk...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In message <dn1hbb$qv$1...@nnrp.waia.asn.au>, John Riley
> <johnr...@bigpond.com> writes
>>"It's just plain wrong."
>>
>> Sez who???
>>
>>Seriously, within the ambit your apparent conservative, linguistic
>>snobbery,
>>how would you express incredulity in a one word question, such as "Bunky?"
>>To me, on usenet, "Bunky???" is accurate and succinct. I would be
>>surprised
>>if you could do better. One question mark does NOT do it for me.
>>I find more than three of the same mark ineffective, mixed marks
>>confusing,
>>and two neither here nor there. One or three exclamation marks, and one or
>>three question marks I find useful as a writer and reader of everyday
>>English.
>
> Of course you do, my dear chap. Of course you do. I wouldn't expect
> anything else from talentless, dank puddles of rancid, porridge-like grey
> cells desperately trying to muster a modicum of intelligence to be
> accepted on the dog-pee-stained, bloodied sidewalks of aue.
>
> You see just how easy it is to make a point without the crutches of
> multiple exclamation marks and question marks?
>
> Now take your ludicrous top-posted dross away and come back when you've
> read about the conventions of effective posting to the Usenet. Eyes first
> and foremost; keyboard last and least.
John Riley
news:4394C55D...@verizon.net...
> John Riley wrote:
>
> [responding to, and quoting, JF, but top-posting. I'm just going to
> snip everything Jimbo wrote. The "you" in this post is he.]
>>
>> "It's just plain wrong."
>>
>> Sez who???
>>
>> Seriously, within the ambit your apparent conservative, linguistic
>> snobbery,
>> how would you express incredulity in a one word question, such as
>> "Bunky?"
>> To me, on usenet, "Bunky???" is accurate and succinct. I would be
>> surprised
>> if you could do better.
>
> Apologies, Jimbo, for jumping in, but I have a dog in this hunt.
>
> How about: Bunky? BUNKY? Accurate, succinct, and emphatic.
As explained previously, "Bunky?" merely means to me a request for
confirmation ( What name was that? Bunky?)
"Bunky???" is more an exclamatory question with an implied "WTF
are you on about???" Very useful IMHO.
BUNKY? Is an acronym? Anyway, if not, it is certainly bad form, like
speaking in an overly loud voice to non-English speakers.
>> One question mark does NOT do it for me.
>
> We all dream of threesomes, no doubt. But in punctuation?
> PUNCTUATION?
More yelling? I see no need for three question marks here anyway.
>> I find more than three of the same mark ineffective, mixed marks
>> confusing,
>> and two neither here nor there. One or three exclamation marks, and one
>> or
>> three question marks I find useful as a writer and reader of everyday
>> English. I bet you despise emoticons :)
>
> I'm sure Jim does. I don't quite despise them, but I tend to use them
> only in some sort of jest.
I use them to indicate that I'm writing this with a smile on my face*. Sort
of like ascii body language. That's more or less what written language is.
Surely the reason why we use for instance the word "sandwich" instead of
"two pieces of generally unsweetend wheat cake smeared with grease and
filled with almost anything edible" is for convenience? If you need to use
50 words like JF apparently does to indicate what can be admirably done with
a couple of extra question marks or an simple emoticon, then no-one will be
bothered reading you any further.
* A damn sight better than the inane LOL that some attach
to everything with apparent embarrassment. Or "tee hee"?
> As to posting form, please see
> <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#Responding>.
Been there, done that. As I said, I'm flexible.
Post at the top when not directly responding to the text quoted, (but decide
that the previous post is conveniently placed below for reference.)
Post at the bottom when directly answering the quoted text, and intersperse
when answering several points in the quoted message.
Simple, and works fine for me.
> Bob Lieblich
> Take that!!!!!!!!
Three would have been fine here (for my taste). More than that indicates
that the writer is substituting punctuation for prose.
William
jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
> James is objecting to people hitting "Reply", which as you know doesn't
> quote the message being replied to, instead of starting with "Show
> Options".
Ah, now I get it. Of course, seeing the thread in Google's environment
makes that a much less unnerving experience.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4394C55D...@verizon.net...
> > John Riley wrote:
> >
> > [responding to, and quoting, JF, but top-posting. I'm just going to
> > snip everything Jimbo wrote. The "you" in this post is he.]
> >>
> >> "It's just plain wrong."
> >>
> >> Sez who???
> >>
> >> Seriously, within the ambit your apparent conservative, linguistic
> >> snobbery,
> >> how would you express incredulity in a one word question, such as
> >> "Bunky?"
> >> To me, on usenet, "Bunky???" is accurate and succinct. I would be
> >> surprised
> >> if you could do better.
> >
> > Apologies, Jimbo, for jumping in, but I have a dog in this hunt.
> >
> > How about: Bunky? BUNKY? Accurate, succinct, and emphatic.
>
> As explained previously, "Bunky?" merely means to me a request for
> confirmation ( What name was that? Bunky?)
>
> "Bunky???" is more an exclamatory question with an implied "WTF
> are you on about???" Very useful IMHO.
>
> BUNKY? Is an acronym? Anyway, if not, it is certainly bad form, like
> speaking in an overly loud voice to non-English speakers.
You asked how I would express incredulity in a one-word question. I
responded by repeating the question, a little louder the second time.
If you don't like the answer, change the question.
Actually, I wouldn't do what I recommended, although I prefer it to
your three ???. I'd stick with the one word and the one question
mark: "Bunky?" I'd expect exactly the same answer that I'd get with
either of the other forms (triple question mark or repeating with
emphasis).
> >> One question mark does NOT do it for me.
> >
> > We all dream of threesomes, no doubt. But in punctuation?
> > PUNCTUATION?
>
> More yelling? I see no need for three question marks here anyway.
Nor do I. You will soon notice that regular participants here have a
strong tendency to adopt forms that they don't approve of, merely to
twit the forms (if not their supporters). Watch for the likes of
"another thing [sic] coming."
>
> >> I find more than three of the same mark ineffective, mixed marks
> >> confusing,
> >> and two neither here nor there. One or three exclamation marks, and one
> >> or
> >> three question marks I find useful as a writer and reader of everyday
> >> English. I bet you despise emoticons :)
> >
> > I'm sure Jim does. I don't quite despise them, but I tend to use them
> > only in some sort of jest.
>
> I use them to indicate that I'm writing this with a smile on my face*.
As with multiple punctuation marks, they're a crutch. Learn to write
so that the smile is apparent on the face of what you're writing.
[ ... ]
> * A damn sight better than the inane LOL that some attach
> to everything with apparent embarrassment. Or "tee hee"?
Amen to that. But it's still only the least of evils.
> > As to posting form, please see
> > <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#Responding>.
>
> Been there, done that. As I said, I'm flexible.
> Post at the top when not directly responding to the text quoted, (but decide
> that the previous post is conveniently placed below for reference.)
> Post at the bottom when directly answering the quoted text, and intersperse
> when answering several points in the quoted message.
> Simple, and works fine for me.
The practice in AUE is otherwise. With very rare exceptions for truly
introductory text, we don't abide top posting. In these precincts,
it's like a sweatshirt at a formal dinner -- or a tux at a track meet,
if you prefer.
And if you're not responding to the text quoted, why are you quoting
it?
Well, most of this is small beer anyway. Welcome to AUE, where small
beer is our favorite beverage.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who prefers large beers
Armond Perretta
> Armond Perretta <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote
>
>> "Intelligent Design" is an oxymoron, a "squad squad." There are good
>> designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others.
>> All of these a fashioned by an
>> intelligence. <...>
>
> Maybe you're being too literal-minded. If by design is meant "a basic
> scheme or pattern that affects or conrols function or development"
> (one of the definitions in the AHD4), then that basic scheme could
> either be fashioned by an intelligence (in which case there
> presumably is a God) or by the mechanics of a godless nature (in
> which case there is not).
>
> So the use of the adjective in the phrase "intelligent design" is an
> assertion of the former case, and not an oxymoron.
I don't believe "they" use "design" in the sense above. Elsewhere in this
thread there's discussion of the noun and verb forms of "design." I think
the ID people mean "to design" rather than "a design."
That then brings up the issue of whether the phrase "intelligent design" is
grammatical. If the verb "to design" is meant, then the phrase could be
rendered "intelligently design."
As noted elsewhere I incorrectly called the phrase an oxymoron. I want a
pass on this, because other sages are getting away with "acronym" where
"initialism" is better.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare
Armond Perretta
> "Armond Perretta" <newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote ...
>>
>> "Intelligent Design" is an oxymoron, a "squad squad." There are good
>> designs, and there are poor designs. There are of course others. All of
>
> ... how intelligent is someone who designs something badly? Not very I
> reckon.
This question should be put to the engineers who designed the exterior tiles
on the space shuttle.