Nieporent
zmobrien
thing that guaranteed that I would read a thread is a large number of
posts by Daiv Nieporent. His posts are informative, entertaining, and
if not always cordial, at least measured in their tone. Lately it has
become IMPOSSIBLE to wade throught these ubiquitous fake postings.
(This may also be due partly to the new Google format)
I understand someone not agreeing with most of the regular posters.
I can even understand someone feeling overwhelmed when they try to
present an opposing view.
But why would someone ACTIVELY work to ruin this newsgroup?
Its almost impossible to read now.
Maybe when the season gets underway there will be more wheat to
outweigh the chaff, but seriously, what is gained by ruining the
experience of reading a newsgroup for everyone.
I guess in a newsgroup populated by libertarians it doesn't even pay to
ask if there is anything that can be done about this.
I guess I will have to switch over to re.sport.baseball.marxistcabal to
read a newsgroup with a little bit more structure.
Sad.
Tim M
> I guess I will have to switch over to re.sport.baseball.marxistcabal
> to read a newsgroup with a little bit more structure.
You might hop on over to Baseball Primer. I did.
It is sad indeed because Usenet is a much more clean and flexible
format. Just proves, total freedom leads to things being ruined by
vandals.
Steve Grant
news:1106084696.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Come on. Killfiles solve this problem in an eigen ... , er, I mean
augenblick.
Tom MacIntyre
It is obvious which ones are real and which ones are fake, at least
with Free Agent. The fake ones show up as 0 size before accessing. The
titles/subjects (all OT) are pretty-much dead giveaways as well.
Tom
Kenny
news:1106078136.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism. Seriously.
It's worse than mere trolling.
Kenny
Tom MacIntyre
I'm watching... :-D
Tom
defaul...@yahoo.com
> >But why would someone ACTIVELY work to ruin this newsgroup?
> >Its almost impossible to read now.
> >I guess in a newsgroup populated by libertarians it doesn't even pay
to
> >ask if there is anything that can be done about this.
> It is obvious which ones are real and which ones are fake, at least
> with Free Agent. The fake ones show up as 0 size before accessing.
The
> titles/subjects (all OT) are pretty-much dead giveaways as well.
The main way to fix something like this is with a good newsreader that
can filter on various fields in the message header.
Unfortunately for the OP, there's no filtering at all with
groups.google, which is what he is using. Using an actual newsfeed with
a real newsreader, takes care of that. A free news service
http://news.individual.net is available with registration.
Before anyone points out that I'm using google as well, that's due to a
problem with our outgoing messages, I can read news just fine through
the normal feed.
Brian
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:59:56 GMT]
:Kenny <kpou...@deletemenetzero.com> trolled:
:
:> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
:> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
:
:Just put Nieporent in your killfile and the problem disappears. Or
:the little troll could just stop posting.
Considering that just about everyone knows that this is your mission,
that you're the one faking Nieporent's posts, why shouldn't everyone
simply killfile you, then killfile the anonymous posting server, and be
done with it?
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net
"You either do or you don't believe, that it can or can't be done.
An ounce of faith and a touch of grace, and it can happen.. to anyone."
[Lonestar, "From There To Here"]
Eric Ramon
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [Realto Margarino (r...@justlinux.nope.ca)]
> [Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:59:56 GMT]
>
> :the little troll could just stop posting.
>
> Considering that just about everyone knows that this is your mission,
> that you're the one faking Nieporent's posts, why shouldn't everyone
> simply killfile you, then killfile the anonymous posting server, and
be
> done with it?
>
Bryan, this might be your best baseball post ever. :-) To the point, as
it should be.
-Eric
Kenny
news:0qhHd.20057$K03.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Kenny <kpou...@deletemenetzero.com> trolled:
>
>> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
>> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
>
> the little troll could just stop posting.
Next you should try jumping up and down, waving your arms, and screaming
"Everybody look at me! I'm the one polluting this newsgroup! I really am so
obsessed with this man that I would drop to the level!".
Now go fuck off.
Kenny
Tom MacIntyre
<r...@justlinux.nope.ca> wrote:
>Kenny <kpou...@deletemenetzero.com> trolled:
>
>> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
>> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
>
>Just put Nieporent in your killfile and the problem disappears. Or
>the little troll could just stop posting.
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm
You're not fooling anybody...
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
<r...@justlinux.nope.ca> wrote:
>Tom MacIntyre <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> trolled:
>I am not trying to fool anybody. Nieporent is a troll. All he
>wants to do is argue. If you put him in a killfile then any
>postings with Nieporent's name at the top will not appear in your
>newsreader.
If you've done this yourself, why do you know so much about his recent
posts? If not, why do you advise others to do so?
Tom
>
>And that's a good thing.
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm
Kenny
> Kenny <kenp...@deletemecomcast.net> trolled:
>> "Realto Margarino" <r...@justlinux.nope.ca> wrote in message
>> news:0qhHd.20057$K03.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>>
>>> the little troll could just stop posting.
>>
>> Next you should try jumping up and down, waving your arms, and
>> screaming "Everybody look at me! I'm the one polluting this
>> newsgroup! I really am so obsessed with this man that I would
>> drop to the level!".
>>
>> Now go fuck off.
>
> Or do you just enjoy making guesses, pointing your finger, and
> telling people, from the safety of your little terminal, to fuck
> off?
Yes. Now fuck off.
Kenny
Gary Rosen
"zmobrien" <zmob...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> But why would someone ACTIVELY work to ruin this newsgroup?
Because they are a degenerate with a not only a criminal mind
but a criminal record?
- Gary Rosen
Gary Rosen
"Kenny" <kenp...@DELETEMEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:358nvgF...@individual.net...
While I agree wholeheartedly with your intent, Ken, telling RLM to
"fuck off" is a direct incitement to criminal activity.
- Gary Rosen
Steve Grant
news:1dGdnWUii7O...@comcast.com...
Normally I'd just let this modernism ("they" instead of "he") slide. But
this one time, it really is appropriate.
Richard Gadsden
Chaucer, are you? Modernisms that Shakespeare introduced are usually
accepted by now.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Dan Szymborski
ric...@gadsden.name says...
> In article <fNOdnTQUp4Y...@comcast.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
> 04:01:32 -0500, ACE...@comcast.net (Steve Grant) wrote:
>
> > "Gary Rosen" <garym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1dGdnWUii7O...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "zmobrien" <zmob...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > But why would someone ACTIVELY work to ruin this newsgroup?
> > >
> > > Because they are a degenerate with a not only a criminal mind
> > > but a criminal record?
> >
> > Normally I'd just let this modernism ("they" instead of "he") slide.
> > But this one time, it really is appropriate.
>
> Chaucer, are you? Modernisms that Shakespeare introduced are usually
> accepted by now.
And whan they herden the goodliche wordes of Richard, they weren so
supprised and ravysshed, and hadden so greet joye of hire that wonder
was to telle.
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@baseballprimerREMOVE.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not
a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
Dvd Avins
> In article <fNOdnTQUp4Y...@comcast.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
> 04:01:32 -0500, ACE...@comcast.net (Steve Grant) wrote:
>>"Gary Rosen" <garym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:1dGdnWUii7O...@comcast.com...
>>>"zmobrien" <zmob...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>But why would someone ACTIVELY work to ruin this newsgroup?
>>>
>>>Because they are a degenerate with a not only a criminal mind
>>>but a criminal record?
>>
>>Normally I'd just let this modernism ("they" instead of "he") slide.
>>But this one time, it really is appropriate.
>
> Chaucer, are you? Modernisms that Shakespeare introduced are usually
> accepted by now.
I doubt it was new with Shakespeare. I've read that it was standard
usage until the male-only environments at Cambridge and Oxford
encouraged the use of "he", even in cases of indeterminate gender. I'm
not sure that's right, but it seems more likely than that The Bard made
it up out of the blue.
Richard Gadsden
"They" comes from the Old Norse - the Old English is 'ze' and Chaucer
(Middle English) used both. Old English had grammatical gender rather
than personal (ie words had genders like modern German or French*).
Grammatical gender was fading in Chaucer's time, and the switch to
personal gender was coming in; by Shakespeare's time, the problem of the
indetermine pronoun was coming to the fore. 'It', 'he' and 'they' were
all used in Tudor times, but Shakespeare was considered unusual for using
'they' in high-register speech (almost everyone used it in low-register).
It was back-formation from Latin in the eighteenth century that led to
'he' being used exclusively. In languages with grammatical gender, the
indeterminate case is much rarer, as there is usually a noun to hang the
gender off; only when there isn't (as with the use of an abstract pronoun
like "someone" or a named person) does the indeterminate arise - and yes,
Latin did use a masculine pronoun in that case, though it generally
avoided the issue by dropping the prounoun altogether (not possible in
English, as it's not an inflected language).
However, the indeterminate is much more common in English than in Latin,
and the prounouns are much more closely tied to personal gender in
English. In a language with grammatical gender it's fine to call a man
"she" if you've used a feminine noun - famously, in German, "Mädchen"
(girl) is neuter, so the girl is "it" (es), and that sounds perfectly
normal to a German.
In English, "he" refers quite narrowly to a male human, or occasionally a
male animal - though it somewhat anthropomorphises the animal - and "she"
similarly to a female or rather poetically to a ship. The emotional
charge that there is when "he" or "she" is used in reference to anything
but a human and the equal and opposite case when "it" is used for a human
show why the indeterminate is such a problem in English. Really, we need
a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
instance.
* For instance in French, the person who is working to ruin the newsgroup
would be "elle" because "la personne" is feminine.
James Kahn
>Really, we need
>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>instance.
Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Tarkus
> In <memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>
>>Really, we need
>>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>instance.
>
> Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
What about You'ns?
--
"I don't think I've ever thrown him a changeup in my career and he's
sitting on it. I think he's from another planet, in my opinion."
- Kent Mercker on Barry Bonds
Now playing: the radio.
defaul...@yahoo.com
> "They" comes from the Old Norse - the Old English is 'ze' and Chaucer
> (Middle English) used both.
[much much more snipped]
Dang, I feel like I'm reading alt.usage.english all of a sudden. That's
not an insult, by the way, aue is a great group with a lot of
interesting participants.
Brian
Eric Opperman
> In <memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>
>
>>Really, we need
>>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>instance.
>
> Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
No. "Y'all" is singular. "All y'all" is plural.
Paul G. Wenthold
> On 1/20/2005 2:27:03 PM, James Kahn wrote:
>
>
>>In <memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Really, we need
>>>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>>instance.
>>
>>Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
>
>
> What about You'ns?
Y'all is singular. All y'all is plural.
paul
igor eduardo küpfer
<pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote:
You know, that's what I always thought, but Googling brought up hit after
hit claiming that this was wrong. For example, one person from Kentucky on
the LINGUIST List claims that "y'all seems to be limited to the plural."
http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/linguist/issues/4/4-731.html#1
Another thread on that list refers to the "y'all"-"all y'all" distinction:
"all" in this expression means "all", not "plural", just as it means
"all" in "all of the trees", where "trees" has its own plural marker.
http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/linguist/issues/4/4-720.html#9
Another person who agrees that "y'all" is already plural.
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/archives/9410/techwhirl-9410-00752.html
Finally, I will quote from Roy Blount, Jr, from an essay entitled "How to
Talk Southern." Writing about a book by Maureen Duffin-Ward titled "SUDDENLY
SOUTHERN: A Yankee's Guide to Living in Dixie," Blount says,
[Duffin-Ward] is not the first non-Southerner to insist that Southerners
may call a single person "y'all," but to my knowledge she is the first
to declare categorically, in the face of everyday evidence and all
philological authority, that it is always a single person we so address.
I think this means that at the very least, there is some ambiguity in the
matter.
--
all the best,
ed
Epitome:
Nice kid, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
NBA Stats:
http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/nba/nba_2005.htm
Email:
edkupfer. It's a gmail addy.
Eric Opperman
> In rec.sport.baseball on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:30:57 -0500 "Paul G. Wenthold"
> <pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Tarkus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 1/20/2005 2:27:03 PM, James Kahn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In <memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Really, we need
>>>>>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>>>>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>>>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>>>>instance.
>>>>
>>>>Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
>>>
>>>
>>>What about You'ns?
>>
>>Y'all is singular. All y'all is plural.
>
> You know, that's what I always thought, but Googling brought up hit after
> hit claiming that this was wrong. For example, one person from Kentucky on
> the LINGUIST List claims that "y'all seems to be limited to the plural."
Linguistics don't apply here in the South.
Roger Moore
>But we're not going to get one,
>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>instance.
I think that strictly "you" has migrated from formal to familiar, rather
than singular to plural. IIRC, older forms of English used "you" to refer
to the formal singular and plural and the familiar plural while using
"thou" for the familiar singular. Over time the formal/familiar
distinction disappeared, so "you" took over all forms of second person
address with the exception of the occasional "y'all".
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
Steve Grant
news:memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> In English, "he" refers quite narrowly to a male human, or occasionally a
> male animal - though it somewhat anthropomorphises the animal - and "she"
> similarly to a female or rather poetically to a ship. The emotional
> charge that there is when "he" or "she" is used in reference to anything
> but a human and the equal and opposite case when "it" is used for a human
> show why the indeterminate is such a problem in English. Really, we need
> a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
> so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
> satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
> instance.
The problem isn't that English lacks a common-gender third person singular
pronoun. It has one: "he." "He" has an unfortunate defect, though. One of
its prominent characteristics is that it's overloaded. Classically it does
double duty, also serving as the masculine pronoun. Its inherent ambiguity
(does the user mean an explicitly male human being, or an individual of
indeterminate and perhaps irrelevant sex?) leads careful rhetoricians like
Richard Gadsden to look for a superior, unambiguous alternative.
Some well-motivated idealists have tried to synthesize their way out of this
particular syntactic box with the typographically hideous "s/he." I harbor
no malice toward the solidus. It's a fine character for delimiting
components of path specifiers in Unix and its derivatives. It looks just
peachy in the middle of a fraction. I can get along quite happily without
it in my pronouns, thanks just the same.
"They" is a gallant effort at a solution to the ambiguity of "he," and
Richard (assuming I understand you correctly) is probably right that it's
what normal people use, and will continue to use, when they explicitly want
to refer to a nonspecific individual human being of indeterminate sex. I'm
probably more of a prescriptivist than is generally considered healthy,
though, and this is one particular windmill at which I intend to continue to
tilt. My own attempt at a solution is to try to use "he" and "she" randomly
except where context clearly suggests either "he" or "she" specifically.
Kim Ng, Sherri Nichols, Stephanie Martinez, Rachael Reid, and others have
shown me the folly of recklessly using "he" in discussions of baseball. But
Ila Borders has not yet made the case for anything but a confident "he" as a
pronominative reference for "major league baseball player."
Southern USAns have long since resolved the second person singular / plural
dichotomy, although I concede that not all of them always use their own good
solution to rigorous advantage. The regional "you / y'all" neatly solves
the issue of number in second person personal pronouns. Maybe some day we
Northerners will accept this linguistic gift.
Regardless of what you think of all this syntactic and semantic pedantry, we
do seem to agree vociferously about one thing: the accurate pronoun for
"Roger Maynard" is "they."
Dale Hicks
pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu says...
Only in TV land.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Craig Richardson
"All y'all" is always plural. "Y'all" can be either.
--Craig
--
"I have no sex appeal, a rum-pa-pum-pum," sang Gabe Fenton, in spirit
with the season. "My social skills are nil, a rum-pa-pum-pum."
"Did that actually rhyme?" asked Tuck. -- Christopher Moore,
"He's a bright guy," said Theo. _The Stupidest Angel_
Alice Faber
Actually, on the American Dialect Society mailing list, the subject of
singular "y'all" is one that recurs periodically, and the discussion is
usually as fruitful as the J*e C*rt*r HOF threads here of a few years
back.
--
"I now know far more about the personal lives of people I've never met
[than] I *ever* want to know"
-Jay O'Connor dicusses boundary issues
Richard Gadsden
> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>
> >But we're not going to get one,
> >so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
> >satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
> >instance.
>
> I think that strictly "you" has migrated from formal to familiar, rather
> than singular to plural. IIRC, older forms of English used "you" to
> refer
> to the formal singular and plural and the familiar plural while using
> "thou" for the familiar singular. Over time the formal/familiar
> distinction disappeared, so "you" took over all forms of second person
> address with the exception of the occasional "y'all".
...and in even older forms it was a straight singular plural distinction.
The analogy is to the first person forms, where the plural is used for the
singular as a sign of respect, in the so-called "royal we". I'm sure that
this is how RLM uses it.
Any I think this had better be the end of the discussion, as we're not
even slightly talking about baseball.
The Enigmatic One
r...@justlinux.nope.ca says...
>> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
>> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
>
>Just put Nieporent in your killfile and the problem disappears. Or
>the little troll could just stop posting.
Gee. How fucking convenient. Someone you don't like (mostly because
he's good at making you look stupid, not like that's a chore) happens to
me the target of a usenet terrorist. And you suggest just killfiling the
name, getting them both. Why do I suppose that, if Nieporent were to
change his posting name, you, er, the terrorist, would change to the
same?
Please, for the good of the world, just kill yourself. You really are
worthless.
-Tim
Dan Szymborski
says...
Actually, not all the trolls were Ronald L. Matthews, felon, of
London, Ontario. From the headers, it looks like RLM saw the other
troll's name forgeries, got jealous, and did a few baseball forgeries
of his own.
Tarkus
> In article <jS4Id.41554$St.25525@fed1read03>, t...@again.spammers
> says...
>> In article <0qhHd.20057$K03.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> r...@justlinux.nope.ca says...
>>
>>>> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
>>>> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
>>>
>>>Just put Nieporent in your killfile and the problem disappears. Or
>>>the little troll could just stop posting.
>>
>> Gee. How fucking convenient. Someone you don't like (mostly because
>> he's good at making you look stupid, not like that's a chore) happens
>> to me the target of a usenet terrorist. And you suggest just
>> killfiling the name, getting them both. Why do I suppose that, if
>> Nieporent were to change his posting name, you, er, the terrorist,
>> would change to the same?
>>
>> Please, for the good of the world, just kill yourself. You really
>> are worthless.
>
> Actually, not all the trolls were Ronald L. Matthews, felon, of
> London, Ontario. From the headers, it looks like RLM saw the other
> troll's name forgeries, got jealous, and did a few baseball forgeries
> of his own.
Yeah, but he should still kill himself.
--
"Do you frequent chat rooms and express outrage about all six 'Friends'
making a cool million bucks per episode? I've never understood exactly
why we hold baseball players to higher standards than other
entertainers." - Rob Neyer
Now playing: the radio.
Tom MacIntyre
<r...@justlinux.nope.ca> wrote:
>The Enigmatic One <t...@again.spammers> trolled:
>> In article <0qhHd.20057$K03.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> r...@justlinux.nope.ca says...
>>
>>>> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
>>>> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
>>>
>>>Just put Nieporent in your killfile and the problem disappears. Or
>>>the little troll could just stop posting.
>>
>> Gee. How fucking convenient.
>
>I thought so too.
>
>> Someone you don't like (mostly because he's good at making you
>> look stupid, not like that's a chore) happens to me the target of
>> a usenet terrorist.
>
>I don't dislike the Nieporent. And he has yet to make me look
>stupid. He's a troll. All he wants to do is argue. He never
>starts a thread. He just jumps in with his adversarial skills and
>beats people up.
There is a fine line between argument and discussion that some people
just can't comprehend.
Tom
>
>> And you suggest just killfiling the name, getting them both. Why
>> do I suppose that, if Nieporent were to change his posting name,
>> you, er, the terrorist, would change to the same?
>
>Terrorist? That's rich.
>
>At least you followed up one of my posts. When was the last time
>you followed up a Nieporent post?
>
>G'nite Wanda,
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm
Tom MacIntyre
>On 1/21/2005 5:10:27 AM, Dan Szymborski wrote:
>
>> In article <jS4Id.41554$St.25525@fed1read03>, t...@again.spammers
>> says...
>>> In article <0qhHd.20057$K03.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>>> r...@justlinux.nope.ca says...
>>>
>>>>> I don't know what else to call it other than newsgroup terrorism.
>>>>> Seriously. It's worse than mere trolling.
>>>>
>>>>Just put Nieporent in your killfile and the problem disappears. Or
>>>>the little troll could just stop posting.
>>>
>>> Gee. How fucking convenient. Someone you don't like (mostly because
>>> he's good at making you look stupid, not like that's a chore) happens
>>> to me the target of a usenet terrorist. And you suggest just
>>> killfiling the name, getting them both. Why do I suppose that, if
>>> Nieporent were to change his posting name, you, er, the terrorist,
>>> would change to the same?
>>>
>>> Please, for the good of the world, just kill yourself. You really
>>> are worthless.
>>
>> Actually, not all the trolls were Ronald L. Matthews, felon, of
>> London, Ontario. From the headers, it looks like RLM saw the other
>> troll's name forgeries, got jealous, and did a few baseball forgeries
>> of his own.
>
>Yeah, but he should still kill himself.
Someone recently posted here that wishing a person dead isn't a good
thing, if I remember correctly.
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
<edku...@example.com> wrote:
>In rec.sport.baseball on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:30:57 -0500 "Paul G. Wenthold"
><pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote:
>
>>Tarkus wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2005 2:27:03 PM, James Kahn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In <memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Really, we need
>>>>>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>>>>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>>>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>>>>instance.
>>>>
>>>>Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
>>>
>>>
>>> What about You'ns?
>>
>>Y'all is singular. All y'all is plural.
>
>You know, that's what I always thought, but Googling brought up hit after
>hit claiming that this was wrong. For example, one person from Kentucky on
>the LINGUIST List claims that "y'all seems to be limited to the plural."
Hmmm...should that be " "y'all" seems to be limited to the plural"? If
so, okaif not, it should be seem, not seems, I think. What is the
correct way to focus on the meaning of the word, as opposed to
actually using it in the sentence...what do they call
it...delineation? Steve?
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:30:57 -0500, "Paul G. Wenthold"
><pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote:
>
>>Tarkus wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2005 2:27:03 PM, James Kahn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In <memo.2005012...@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Really, we need
>>>>>a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>>>>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>>>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>>>>instance.
>>>>
>>>>Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
>>>
>>>
>>> What about You'ns?
>>
>>Y'all is singular. All y'all is plural.
>
>"All y'all" is always plural. "Y'all" can be either.
>
>--Craig
Hey...just like "you". :-)
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
(Roger Moore) wrote:
>ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>
>>But we're not going to get one,
>>so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>>satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>>instance.
>
>I think that strictly "you" has migrated from formal to familiar, rather
>than singular to plural. IIRC, older forms of English used "you" to refer
>to the formal singular and plural and the familiar plural while using
>"thou" for the familiar singular. Over time the formal/familiar
>distinction disappeared, so "you" took over all forms of second person
>address with the exception of the occasional "y'all".
In French (when I studied it in school way back when, anyway), tu (you
singular) was also informal, while vous (you plural) was also formal.
Tom
Matt Deres
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9303v05dshjl1knvt...@4ax.com...
If we were talking about a person, I'd agree.
Matt
Matt Deres
"Dvd Avins" <dvdNOav...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:jhRHd.7491$hC2.2883@trndny04...
If only Julio Franco was here to provide first-hand evidence...
Matt
Tarkus
They should kill themselves, too.
--
"Today, the Twins wake up with zero chance to make next year's playoffs.
Like the Pittsburgh Pirates. Like the Montreal Expos. Like about all
but five or six teams." - Bill Plaschke, L.A. Times, Dec. 12, 2000
Now playing: the radio.
The Enigmatic One
tom__ma...@hotmail.com says...
>>Yeah, but he should still kill himself.
>
>Someone recently posted here that wishing a person dead isn't a good
>thing, if I remember correctly.
Then that person is wrong.
RLM offers nothing positive to the world. The negative we, online, get
from him is only a mere hint of the worthlessness he brings to anyone he
meets in real life.
The world would be a better place if he were to off himself, plain and
simple.
-Tim
Tom MacIntyre
I am truly starting to believe that there are many in the world, and
here in this newsgroup, who are far more troubled than him. Some
people will just conform a little better.
Tom
M. Zaiem Beg
->>>> Actually, not all the trolls were Ronald L. Matthews, felon, of
->>>> London, Ontario. From the headers, it looks like RLM saw the other
->>>> troll's name forgeries, got jealous, and did a few baseball forgeries
->>>> of his own.
->>>
->>>Yeah, but he should still kill himself.
->>
->> Someone recently posted here that wishing a person dead isn't a good
->> thing, if I remember correctly.
->
->They should kill themselves, too.
Can't we just shoot them in the leg?
--
M. Zaiem Beg zb...@iglou.com
Stephanie Martinez
"M. Zaiem Beg" <zb...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0501242225090.8728-100000@shell1...
Can't we just all get along?
--
Truebluestef
with new e-mail address, and temporary blah sig
Tarkus
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Tarkus wrote:
>
>->>>> Actually, not all the trolls were Ronald L. Matthews, felon, of
>->>>> London, Ontario. From the headers, it looks like RLM saw the
>->>>> other troll's name forgeries, got jealous, and did a few baseball
>->>>> forgeries of his own.
>->>>
>->>>Yeah, but he should still kill himself.
>->>
>->> Someone recently posted here that wishing a person dead isn't a
>->> good thing, if I remember correctly.
>->
>->They should kill themselves, too.
>
> Can't we just shoot them in the leg?
And then let them bleed to death?
Okay.
--
"Professional baseball is on the wane. Salaries must come down or the
interest of the public must be increased in some way. If one or the
other does not happen, bankruptcy stares every team in the face."
- Chicago White Stockings owner Albert Spalding, 1881
Now playing: "Bush - Body"
Tarkus
> Can't we just all get along?
No, but thanks for asking.
--
Pitchers.bat found - delete dh.sys (Y/y)?
Ben
> >> look stupid, not like that's a chore) happens to me the target of
> >> a usenet terrorist.
> >
> >I don't dislike the Nieporent. And he has yet to make me look
> >stupid. He's a troll. All he wants to do is argue. He never
> >starts a thread. He just jumps in with his adversarial skills and
> >beats people up.
>
> There is a fine line between argument and discussion that some people
> just can't comprehend.
<john cleese impression>
no there isn't.
</john cleese impression>
--
Ben B
Paul G. Wenthold
"Nine out of ten Americans agree that whenever you hold a survey, one
out of ten people will always disagree."
pgw
Bob-Nob
> ric...@gadsden.name (Richard Gadsden) writes:
>> Really, we need
>> a fourth singular third-person pronoun. But we're not going to get one,
>> so "they" is the best we're going to get. "You" has migrated quite
>> satisfactorarily from being plural to both plural and singular, for
>> instance.
> Um, the plural of you is either "youz" (Northeast) or "Yall".
In some parts of the Northeast, it's "you guys," rather than "youz."
Most pleasurable to say was the possessive form of the second person
plural: "Your guys's"...
'You guys had a good team, but your guys's coach sucked.'
Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
IF1, IF3, IF9: best films, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
(What are YOU doing this weekend? See IF12 on May 23rd, 2004)