Texas August Execution #1
Richard J.
Here you go everyone. The following press release from the Texas
Attorney General's office gives the details of the first of six
scheduled executions in Texas during August. Judge for yourself how
redeemable this murderer is.
--
Teflon
MEDIA ADVISORY
Richard William Kutzner Scheduled to be Executed
AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General John Cornyn offers the following
information on Richard William Kutzner, who is scheduled to be executed
after 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2002.
On Sept. 8, 1997, Richard William Kutzner was sentenced to die for the
capital murder of Kathryn Harrison, which occurred in Spring, Texas, on
Jan. 22, 1996. A summary of the evidence presented at trial follows.
FACTS OF THE CRIME
Kathryn Harrison owned and operated a real estate business in Spring,
Texas. Her body was found by a co-worker on Jan. 22, 1996, in her real
estate office. Police officers found the victim lying face down, her
wrists bound with red plastic-coated wire and her ankles locked in a
cable tie. A cable tie was also secured tightly around her neck. The
victim's purse had been turned inside out, and a computer keyboard and a
videocassette recorder were missing from the office.
Just 17 days earlier, on Jan. 5, 1996, Rita Sheron Van Huss was found
strangled to death in her living quarters, adjacent to the self-storage
business she managed in Houston. Van Huss's wrists, ankles and neck were
tightly bound with cable ties. Missing was Van Huss's purse, containing
$300 to $400 in cash; two money orders, one for $300 and one for $10;
her jewelry and approximately $40 in petty cash from the self-storage
office.
When Harris County detectives learned of Harrison's murder, they
immediately recognized the similarities and contacted Montgomery County
authorities. Investigators discovered Kutzner had cashed the $300 money
order at a Houston check-cashing business. The money order bore the name
of Roy Landry, but it was Kutzner who endorsed and cashed it according
to the clerk who recognized Kutzner as a repeat customer.
Kutzner and Roy Landry became suspects in the Harrison investigation,
and on Feb. 21, 1996, several detectives went to Kutzner's house.
Kutzner was not home at the time, but one of the detectives spotted and
recovered a 30-inch white plastic cable tie from Kutzner's driveway.
Kutzner's truck had been repossessed and taken to A.W. Enterprises, a
Houston used-car dealer. A subsequent investigation revealed that
Kutzner had confronted and threatened to unleash his dogs on the
employee sent to repossess the truck. Kutzner was offered several
opportunities to remove any personal property he had in the truck, but
he refused.
A.W. Enterprises received the truck on the next business day. Upon its
delivery, all personal items were removed from the truck and secured in
a locked storage building at the used-car lot. A day or two later,
Kutzner called to inquire about the possibility of retrieving his
personal belongings.
On Feb. 22, 1996, a detective went to the car lot to look for Kutzner's
truck and inquire if any personal items had been left in the truck. A
search warrant was obtained for seizure of the items, which included
four plastic cable ties and 14-gauge red electrical wires. Kutzner's
fingerprints were discovered on Van Huss's $10 money order that was
found among the items removed from the truck. Also found was a tenant
information sheet from Van Huss's self-storage business and a partially
completed lease agreement dated Jan. 5, 1996.
Later that night, officers went to arrest Kutzner at his residence.
When officers received no response, they entered and searched for
Kutzner. They obtained another search warrant in order to seize wire and
cable ties found in Kutzner's garage. The wire that was wrapped around
the victim's wrists, the wire recovered at the used-car lot and the wire
recovered from Kutzner's home all bore the same identification numbers.
The classification number indicated the pieces of wire were all of the
same type and had all been manufactured by the same company. This wire
was not common in Montgomery County. Additionally, the cable ties all
carried the same manufacturer's name. Kutzner was later arrested at a
friend's home.
The videocassette recorder and computer keyboard taken from Harrison's
real estate office were recovered in the homes of Kutzner's friends and
were identified by Harrison's co-worker. Harrison's notes, found in her
office, indicated that Kutzner had posed as a potential customer on Jan.
1, 1996. This matched the mode of operation in the Houston murder, where
Kutzner had posed as a potential customer by completing a lease
agreement for self-storage.
Roy Landry testified at trial that he had known Kutzner for many years
and had worked for him in the air conditioning business. Landry told the
jury that four or five months prior to Harrison's murder, Kutzner
suggested that Landry rob an elderly lady who worked alone in an office.
Landry asked Kutzner why he did not commit the robbery himself if it was
so easy, and Kutzner told him the office was too close to where he
lived. Harrison's real estate office was about a mile and a half from
where Kutzner lived.
A remodeling contractor that had worked for Kutzner told the jury that
on at least three separate occasions, Kutzner had commented that there
were no serial numbers on items like cable ties and "if you ever wanted
to kill anybody, this would be a good thing to use." An FBI forensic
physical scientist specializing in tool mark identification examined the
cable ties around the victim's neck and ankles and determined they had
been cut by the tin snips recovered from Kutzner's personal belongings
at the auto lot.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mar. 7, 1996 - A grand jury indicted Kutzner in the 359th Judicial
District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, for the capital offense of
murdering Kathryn Harrison while in the course of committing and
attempting to commit robbery.
Sept. 5, 1997 - A jury found Kutzner guilty of capital murder.
Sept. 8, 1997 - Following a separate punishment hearing, the court
assessed a sentence of death.
Nov. 5, 1998 - Kutzner filed an application for writ of habeas corpus
in the trial court.
June 9, 1999 - His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals in a published opinion.
June 23, 1999 - The Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas relief in
an unpublished order.
Jan. 13, 2000 - Kutzner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.
July 19, 2000 - The federal district court denied habeas relief and
permission to appeal.
Oct. 4, 2000 - Kutzner requested permission to appeal from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 16, 2001 - The Fifth Circuit denied permission to appeal.
Mar. 1, 2001 - The trial court set Kutzner's execution date for July
25, 2001.
July 16, 2001 - Kutzner filed a request for post-conviction DNA testing
in the trial court.
July 20, 2001 - The trial court denied Kutzner's request for DNA
testing; Kutzner filed a second application for writ of habeas corpus in
the Court of Criminal Appeals.
July 23, 2001 - Kutzner appealed the trial court's denial of DNA
testing to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
July 24, 2001 - The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed his second
state habeas application as an abuse of the writ, but stayed Kutzner's
execution in order to hear his DNA appeal in unpublished orders.
Apr. 10, 2002 - The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial
court's denial of DNA testing in a published opinion.
June 12, 2002 - The Court of Criminal Appeals declined to reconsider
its DNA decision; the trial court reset Kutzner's execution for Aug. 7,
2002.
Aug. 1, 2002 - Kutzner filed a motion for a stay of execution in the
U.S. District Court, Houston.
Aug. 5, 2002 - Kutzner's motion was denied.
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY
During the trial, the State proved that Kutzner had served several
years in a California prison for an armed robbery committed in the late
1960s. The State also showed he had been convicted of theft of stolen
property in Johnson County in May 1984 and had four convictions for
aggravated robbery from 1985. Finally, the State proved that on Jan. 5,
1996, just two and a half weeks before Kathryn Harrison's murder,
Kutzner murdered Rita Sheron Van Huss in Harris County under similar
circumstances. Kutzner also received the death penalty for Van Huss's
murder.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj1q0l$3j6$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:wKY49.136154$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> news:aj0qug$i0j$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > news:X5o49.226579$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > > news:air64m$32u$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lets examine that. You are willing to kill 786 people to save
> the
> > > > > > > life of 1 person, and you think that is a pragmatic argument?
>
> > > > > > > You think that makes sense in terms of logic? Think again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Pardon me... you would now DEFINE 'pragmatism' for the
> > > > > > rest of humanity? Forgive me for finding that holds a great
> > > > > > deal of hubris on your part. It rather presumes that the
> > > > > > innocent who might be murdered by someone who has
> > > > > > already been convicted of a murder, DESERVES to be
> > > > > > murdered,
> > > > >
> > > > > Same old PV, same old lies. This is a lie that you are particularly
> > > > > fond of. I have NEVER said that anyone "deserves to be murdered"
> > > > > What a disgusting concept, and what a sick mind you must have
> > > > > to come out with soimething like that.
> > > > >
> > > > What the hell are you even mumbling about? Take a look
> > > > at YOUR statement, to see some lies at work. You presume
> > > > that 'I' am willing to execute 786 people to save the life of 1
> > > > person. You have tried to put words IN MY MOUTH. That
> > > > makes YOU the liar. Since I never said that. As usually,
> > > > you took my words and twisted them. Which makes YOU
> > > > the liar. If you're going to 'quote' me, please put quotes
> > > > around it, and don't translate what you THINK I say.
> > > > Because it always comes out different when you talk
> > > > out of that 'other side of your mouth.'
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I think on pragmatic terms that 786 deaths are worse than 1 death.
> > > > > That does not in any way indicate that I think the 1 person
> "deserves
> > > > > to be murdered"
> > > > >
> > > > Well... just a minute.. either one or the other is GOING to
> > > > die. You can't piously say that 'one is worse than the other,
> > > > but I wash my hands of the RESULT.'
> > >
> > > See, this is an example of PV lies. he claims I said
> > > those exact words. He puts them in quote marks, as
> > > if it is an exact quote from me. Of course, it only sounds bad
> > > after he adds some words that I never said. I never ever said
> > > anything remotely approaching 'but I wash my hands of the result'
> > >
> > > Pathetic, PV, desperate and pathetic. Why do you bother?
> > >
> > Yes, you are, so nothing has changed. I just finished proving
> > YOU did that exact thing... and then you claim 'I' did it.
> > Why do you continue doing the same thing over and over, and
> > still expect different results, Peter? When will you learn
> > that lying is not a 'reasonable' argument? You accused
> > me EXACTLY with the words "You are willing to kill 786
> > people to save the life of 1 person." Now you tell me where
> > I've said that? And then answer the question on the bottom
> > about how YOU are willing to 'take' the life of that one person,
> > to save 786 proven murderers.
> >
> > > The really pathetic thing is that you just don't understand
> > > why people consider you dishonest..
> > >
> > No, the REALLY pathetic thing is
>
> you
>
No.. the REALLY pathetic thing is that you now realize
how totally flawed your trolley problem was if you expect
to hold to an abolitionist view. The 'Truth' is that by
opposing the execution of proven murderers you are
ACCEPTING the possibility of new innocents being
murdered. Now that may BE acceptable to you, but
recognize that it IS acceptable to you. If we have 876
TRUE murderers and 1 potential victim (either in or out
of prison), from even one of those 876 TRUE murderers,
then if we don't execute ALL those 876 TRUE murderers,
you are TRADING that innocent for those 876 TRUE
murderers. You just don't have the balls to admit that you
WOULD trade that one innocent for those 876 TRUE
murderers. Because that shoots your trolley problem
dead in the ass. In fact EVERY abolitionist who accepts
that 876 TRUE murderers if not executed would commit
at least one new murder (either in or out of prison) from
that TOTAL of 876 TRUE murderers, is ACCEPTING
such a trade-off. One can only argue they accept that
trade-off, or argue the very illogical argument that NONE
of those 876 TRUE murderers would murder again if not
executed. And history, and my list, demonstrate the
flaw in such an illogical argument.
PV
NOTE: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
quotations.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj1rpd$aov$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > You see, that's your problem, Peter. You lose sight of
> > > > the 'real problem.' I can presume that you'd make a good
> > > > concentration camp guard. As long as you don't actually
> > > > push them into the gas chamber, you haven't been
> > > > anything more than an innocent bystander.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another argument that PV has lost.
> > >
> > > The really pathetic thing is that he thinks this sort of thing
> > > has 'won' the argument.
> > >
> > > Every single one of his claims to have 'won' are based on stuff like
> this.
> > >
> > > Does anybody wonder that I despise him?
> >
> > So much hate spewing from you, Peter,
>
> As I have pointed out on many previous occasions, you
> flatter yourself when you think I 'hate' you. You simply
> aren't that important to me. I have great contempt for
> you, obviosly, but hate just isn't in my nature.
>
Umm... Peter... that's rather hypocritical. You claim
to 'despise' me in one breath, and then claim I flatter
myself by thinking you 'hate' me. Clearly, if you
'despise' me, you view me with contempt. I find it
hard to imagine that you could find anything but
'hate' for what you view with contempt. Or what you
despise. Now you may believe there is a 'fine line'
between the two. Or you may think you find that
line in your delusional, and totally sanctimonious
belief that you are ABOVE 'hate.' But you are only
piously deluding yourself. Hate is a more benign
term to me than despise. When you say 'I despise
her,' that sounds to me much more venomous than
'I hate her,' which could actually be only for the
latest act, for which you have formed an extreme
dislike or aversion (hate). While 'despise' seems
a more LASTING and a deeper 'hate' filled emotion.
Now, I don't care what YOU think, but the insult of
'despise' is what YOU'VE thrown at ME. Thus, I
must interpret it in MY framework, as I did when
you called me a 'coward,' and you thought that
was 'reasonable' as well. For example, if you throw
a racial epithet at someone of another 'race,' it
is recognized that it is not how YOU interpret the
insult, but how THEY (or others) interpret it.
But no matter what YOU think, when you say you
'despise,' me, 'I' recognize you 'hate' me, even if you
don't have the balls to admit it. And you've never
had the balls to admit much of anything. So for
that reason, I have no cause to hate or despise
you. Only a great well of pity forms in me for you.
And a certain pain that you have closed your mind
and blinded your eyes to the truth. Poor, pitiful
man.
In my framework, you're a rather sad, pitiful
man who needs to rely on buzz-word insults to
think he's made a point. You haven't you know.
You've just shown how frustrated you've become
because your ARGUMENT has been lost, and
you've reacted in a very recognizable psychological
pattern. Instead of arguing as to the THRUST of
my argument, you rely instead on 'despise' and
'coward,' silly clipping of relevant information,
refusal to address the issues, and claims that
I've insulted you.
> >and so
> > little time for you to spread it. So, wipe the spittle off
> > your monitor, silly boy, and pay attention. All you've
> > done is clip every comment; pick out one particular
> > point which is MADE in the entire argument; call it
> > an 'insult' because I've proven that you lose sight of
> > the 'real problem'; and then announce some sort of
> > victory. St.George has already identified this type
> > behavior in his six seminal axioms of responding to
> > a post without 'actually' responding to it. You used
> > at least 2 of the 6.... 2) Issue avoidance.. and 6)
> > Claim-victory-regardless. Clearly, clipping every
> > word of the argument and then claiming victory by
> > doing so, must be seen as rather silly. And becoming
> > aware of your own character defects has led you
> > to the next step of issue avoidance - blaming others.
>
> You have given nothing to respond to, little man. All
> you did was compare me to a concentration camp guard.
> You lose, again.
>
Clearly, Peter, you have become all foam, and no beer,
in any sense of a dialog.
PV
Note: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
>
snip
>
> NOTE: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
> phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
> independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
> double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
> quotations.
>
My explanation was neater and made more sense. As usual
your attempts to explain merely make the waters muddier.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped opening tirade which is _completely_ irrelevant to the post
upon which it purports to comment>
> It seems that
>Louise Woodward, a convicted murderer (okay.. 'only' manslaughterer),
>of a little baby, has now received her Law degree from Southbank
>University in London. Wasn't that where YOU received your
>'classical education' (sic), dirt?
No
> Good old Louise, now 24, attended
>the graduation with her controversial parents Gary and Sue, who
>split up after their daughter returned to England. Both were accused
>of bilking thousands from Louise's appeal fund, but were cleared by
>a judge. Louise smiled for photographers after being awarded her
>degree. When she first returned to England she went to work for
>the legal department of a collection agency in Edinburgh (your
>firm, perhaps?), before starting her three-year law degree course
>(a 'classical education' only takes three years, compared to the
>usual four). This is NO JOKE. Of course, Louise, dirt, and the
>entire United Kingdom legal profession IS A JOKE. But this is
>NO JOKE. In the U.S., a conviction for manslaughter usually
>creates a big problem for someone in pursuit of becoming a
>member of the legal 'profession' (sic).
>
You _are_ an ignorant little man, aren't you? And your cluelessness is
compounded by the fact that I have explained to you on many occasions
the elements which formed my classical education - enabling me to
become a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales.
Woodward has several more hoops to jump through before she becomes a
'lawyer'. NOt least one which is acceptance of her application to join
the Law Society as a student member - a matter which will involve
investigation of previous criminal convictions. At the moment,
Woodward is merely a graduate.
Still, if she does get in, good luck to her, that's what I say.
ANd BTW, what does your little hissy fit above have to do with the
fact that you _yet again_ brainlessly posted a source of evidence
which makes you look a tit?
w00f
Dave Proctor
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Fri, 09 Aug 2002 18:22:40 GMT, Dave Proctor <da...@spambait.proctor.net> a écrit :
>
>>>> I'm in NSW, John. The fair city of Sydney. The rest of Australia could
>>>> sink into the sea tomorrow and nobody would care. It's grimy. It's
>>>> dirty. It's pretentious. It's vulgar. It's full of materialistic
>>>> idiots who own 4WDs. It's still an international city and it's still
>>>> big enough to transcend being a flyspeck. It's quite nice, actually.
>
>> You are up here in COTU? When are we getting together for a piss-up?
>>
>>>What???? NSW???? I thought you were from Australia -- :-)
>>
>> LOL! NSW is Australia's most populous state, PV, as well as being
>> COTU!
>
>You might like to check your attributions, Dave ...........
Nothing wrong with the attributions - my first comment was to QZD, the
second to PV.
=====
Dave
There are 10 types of people - those who understand binary and
those who don't.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:kEZ49.136329$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> >
> > "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:dqS49.3479$fe3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > > >
> > >
> > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > Well... just a minute.. either one or the other is GOING to
> > > > > die. You can't piously say that 'one is worse than the other,
> > > > > but I wash my hands of the RESULT.'
> > > >
> > > > See, this is an example of PV lies. he claims I said
> > > > those exact words. He puts them in quote marks, as
> > > > if it is an exact quote from me. Of course, it only sounds bad
> > > > after he adds some words that I never said. I never ever said
> > > > anything remotely approaching 'but I wash my hands of the result'
> > > >
> > > > Pathetic, PV, desperate and pathetic. Why do you bother?
> > > >
> > > > why people consider you dishonest..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Not really. Its just that if I don't reply, PV considers it evidence
> > that he has 'won' the argument. I have to let him know that
> > his stuff impresses no-one
> >
> > > He knows
> > > just what sore spots to rub and you cannot resist responding
> > > in kind. However, you will note that the quotation marks
> > > are not doubled, therefore, they do not indicate a direct
> > > quote of yours. The single quote marks indicate, perhaps,
> > > the spirit or sense of a remark that you have made
> >
> > That's not a rule of grammar I'm familiar with. I was always
> > taught that reported speech indicating a spirit or sense of what
> > was said should be given WITHOUT quote marks. For a direct
> > quote, either single or double quotes are acceptable.
> >
> > In any event, the quote PV attributed to me, 'but I wash my
> > hands of the result' does NOT in any way indicate the spirit
> > or sense of what I said. Either way, its a direct lie.
> >
> Well, if you don't 'wash your hands of the result,' which of
> the choices represents your choice? The execution of
> 786 proven murderers, or the murder of one new innocent?
>
> > > although
> > > I wouldn't bet on it knowing PV's inventiveness when it
> > > comes to manufacturing straw dogs.
> > >
> BTW -- If it bothers you so much - we've had many, many
> lengthy dialogs, and I've always done this before. Yet only
> NOW does it bother you, since I seem to have hit the nail
> on the head, in respect to the SENSE of your words.
No, you have totally invented stuff I never said, as usual.
It is not remotely related to the SENSE of what I am saying.
> That's
> the only reason I can see for your rather perverse, and
> ill-conceived whining to everyone here, while at the same
> moment clipping a crucial question. So understand,
> that in all our future dialogs the following applies to my
> comments ------
No.
Its up to you to learn the correct usage of grammar, not
up to everyone else to learn your own peculiarities.
> I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words, phrases,
> paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words independent
> from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use double-quotation
> marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word quotations.
You might use it to mean that, but 99% of people reading it will
take it as a direct quote. As such, it is a direct lie.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
You have been trying to find a flaw in it for years.
Screaming that you have won indicates to everybody that
you have lost.
> to hold to an abolitionist view. The 'Truth' is that by
> opposing the execution of proven murderers you are
> ACCEPTING the possibility of new innocents being
> murdered. Now that may BE acceptable to you, but
> recognize that it IS acceptable to you. If we have 876
> TRUE murderers and 1 potential victim (either in or out
> of prison), from even one of those 876 TRUE murderers,
> then if we don't execute ALL those 876 TRUE murderers,
> you are TRADING that innocent for those 876 TRUE
> murderers. You just don't have the balls to admit that you
> WOULD trade that one innocent for those 876 TRUE
> murderers. Because that shoots your trolley problem
> dead in the ass.
Again, PV shouts that he has won, thus proving again that he
has lost.
> In fact EVERY abolitionist who accepts
> that 876 TRUE murderers if not executed would commit
> at least one new murder (either in or out of prison) from
> that TOTAL of 876 TRUE murderers, is ACCEPTING
> such a trade-off.
I happen to think that 879 lives have more value than 1 life.
You don't appear to understand the concept. That's your
flaw.
> One can only argue they accept that
> trade-off, or argue the very illogical argument that NONE
> of those 876 TRUE murderers would murder again if not
> executed. And history, and my list, demonstrate the
> flaw in such an illogical argument.
>
> PV
>
> NOTE: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
> phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
> independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
> double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
> quotations.
Or to put it another way, you use single quotes wrongly.
Peter Morris
It may have been neater, but it was just as wrong.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
But 99% of people reading it take single quotes to indicate
a direct quotation. As such, it is a direct lie.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:n3m9lucnvupokh9af...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 02:23:45 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped opening tirade which is _completely_ irrelevant to the post
> upon which it purports to comment>
>
irrelevant'? Since it was a response to one of YOUR posts, and
YOU claim to be a 'lawyer,' it appeared to me to be totally
relevant, and brought you to the boil that I intended to bring you
to. That ruddy face, those bulging eyes, the throbbing vein
in your temple, the trembling chin on the verge of tears of
frustration, the spittle now dripping down your monitor, the fist
beating futilely on your desk, as you scream in rage -- 'That fuckin'
PV... he got me again.'
> > It seems that
> >Louise Woodward, a convicted murderer (okay.. 'only' manslaughterer),
> >of a little baby, has now received her Law degree from Southbank
> >University in London. Wasn't that where YOU received your
> >'classical education' (sic), dirt?
>
> No
You could have fooled me... I have a feeling they're all the
same. And I have a feeling her grade-point average was
better than yours. And I have a feeling you have been 'had.'
>
> > Good old Louise, now 24, attended
> >the graduation with her controversial parents Gary and Sue, who
> >split up after their daughter returned to England. Both were accused
> >of bilking thousands from Louise's appeal fund, but were cleared by
> >a judge. Louise smiled for photographers after being awarded her
> >degree. When she first returned to England she went to work for
> >the legal department of a collection agency in Edinburgh (your
> >firm, perhaps?), before starting her three-year law degree course
> >(a 'classical education' only takes three years, compared to the
> >usual four). This is NO JOKE. Of course, Louise, dirt, and the
> >entire United Kingdom legal profession IS A JOKE. But this is
> >NO JOKE. In the U.S., a conviction for manslaughter usually
> >creates a big problem for someone in pursuit of becoming a
> >member of the legal 'profession' (sic).
> >
>
> You _are_ an ignorant little man, aren't you? And your cluelessness is
> compounded by the fact that I have explained to you on many occasions
> the elements which formed my classical education - enabling me to
> become a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales.
>
Ummm... do I still detect some 'rage' here, dirt? And some
very defensive posturing about the recognition that your 'classical
education' isn't all that 'much to speak of.' Since a little twit who
committed manslaughter in her inability to control her emotions
(much like you), is now your 'intellectual' equal.
Your 'classical education' (sic) has now been equaled by
Louise Woodward, a simple-minded girl who could not handle
the cries of a young baby. If that's good enough for you, so
be it. I simply report facts here.
> Woodward has several more hoops to jump through before she becomes a
> 'lawyer'. NOt least one which is acceptance of her application to join
> the Law Society as a student member - a matter which will involve
> investigation of previous criminal convictions. At the moment,
> Woodward is merely a graduate.
>
Ummm... isn't that what your 'classical education' made you?
'A graduate'??? Perhaps now that both of you are on the same
intellectual level, you might ask her to explain a 'mitigating
circumstance' to you.
> Still, if she does get in, good luck to her, that's what I say.
>
Why did I not believe you would think otherwise? The devil
will always welcome new members.
> ANd BTW, what does your little hissy fit above have to do with the
> fact that you _yet again_ brainlessly posted a source of evidence
> which makes you look a tit?
>
Ummm... that anger dirt... control that anger. Now what was the
question?
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:pR159.170$id3....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
double-quotation mark from me, that does not include
a DIRECT word-for-word quotation, let me know, and I'll
retract it. In all other cases, single-quotation marks mean
otherwise. Your explanation was "However, you will note
that the quotation marks are not doubled, therefore, they do
not indicate a direct quote of yours. The single quote marks
indicate, perhaps, the spirit or sense of a remark that you have
explain my using single-quotation marks in the case of
Peter. But I 'also' use them as emphasis, in respect to
'underline,' and 'italics,' as I just did, and to reflect phrases
that are not 'direct quotations' from 'quotable sources.'
And also, frequently when using words that are more in the
vernacular of the day, rather than totally accepted, such
as 'outted,' unless it's clear it is in the vernacular. The
word 'outted,' created such a brouhaha from the pedantic
arm here, but you will not find that I EVER used it without
putting the word in single-quotation marks.
My point is.. do not expect ANYTHING to be implied as
a DIRECT quotation when I use single-quotation marks.
Perhaps that's the simplest explanation of all.
PV
Peter Morris
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnalat09.bjk.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Note: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
> >> phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
> >> independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
> >> double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
> >> quotations.
>
> > But 99% of people reading it take single quotes to indicate
> > a direct quotation. As such, it is a direct lie.
>
> that he's largely ignorant of rules of English grammar, spelling,
> and punctuation ... but it hardly shows him to be 'a liar' ...
Who is LDB?
PV attributed a sentiment to me, which I did not say and
completely misrepresents what I actually said. He put it
in quotes, which would seem to indicate that it was a direct quote
from me. That is a lie. Even if it had been taken as an indirect
report of approximately what I said, it would stilkl be a lie,
as it was totally dissimilar to what I really said.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:31:03 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> >> He knows
> >> >> just what sore spots to rub and you cannot resist responding
> >> >> are not doubled, therefore, they do not indicate a direct
> >> >> quote of yours. The single quote marks indicate, perhaps,
>
> >> > That's not a rule of grammar I'm familiar with. I was always
> >> > taught that reported speech indicating a spirit or sense of what
> >> > was said should be given WITHOUT quote marks. For a direct
> >> > quote, either single or double quotes are acceptable.
>
> >> pure English (i.e. British English), single quotation marks are used
> >> to define a quotation. A quotation _within_ a quotation, is denoted
> >> by double quotation marks. Example ... John said, 'I'm from England',
> >> but ... John said, 'Desmond said, "I'm from France".'
>
> > It is quite the 'opposite' in U.S. English.
>
> Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>
This is just soooo delicious.. Yet ANOTHER 'desi SODS.' Another
of his 'Step on Dick Special.'
You will find no reference to 'bastardised' (sic) in the OED. It is of
course, 'bastardized,' and is reminiscent of how 'consumed'
with interest you were when dirt used an antiquated version of
'utilise.' If you intend to use 'bastardized' English, please
be sure to add the (sic), or at the least place it in some manner
that we can recognize you INTEND to do so. I was somewhat
mistaken in the case of dirtbag, since 'utilize' provided an alternate
'bastardized' spelling of 'Also -ise,' although a search on 'utilise,'
came up with 'There are no results.' 'Bastardised' also comes up
with 'There are no results.' But the difference is, that when going
to the CORRECT spelling of 'bastardized' in the OED, we find it
DOES NOT have such an 'also' spelling, nor does the verb 'bastardize,'
nor is there any 'DRAFT UPDATE' in the on-line version, which
'bailed you out,' from a position in which you were wrong at the
time you argued that point.
And please, neither Microsoft Word, nor Word Perfect 9.0 accept
'bastardised.'
PV
> --
> Des On The Road |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj3q18$2v4$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
marks are only used INSIDE of double-quotation marks if using
them as quotable mentions. Just the opposite of English-English,
which is certainly not 99% of anything.
From the Chicago Manual of Style, recognized by Americans
as the essential guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers in
U.S. English --
"QUOTATION MARKS - Double and Single -
10.26 Quoted words, phrases, and sentences run into text are
enclosed in double quotation marks... Single quotation marks
enclose quotations within quotations...British practice is often,
though not always, the reverse: single marks are used first,
then double, and so on."
And as usual, you are childishly hysterical. I imply no lie when
using single-quotation marks, nor do 99% of people take it
as a 'direct quotation.' It is similar to remarking like this --
I suppose you are saying 'blah..blah...blah..' As opposed to -
but you said "blah... blah...blah..."
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
> >> independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
> >> double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
> >> quotations.
>
> > But 99% of people reading it take single quotes to indicate
> > a direct quotation. As such, it is a direct lie.
>
> that he's largely ignorant of rules of English grammar, spelling,
> and punctuation ... but it hardly shows him to be 'a liar' ...
>
Of course, there is nothing wrong with my U.S. English grammar,
either. It's just that your nationalist fervor refuses to recognize
what even the OED recognizes. That ENGLISH is defined to be
English English and United States of America English as well,
with no stipulation that they must totally agree. And be afraid...
be very afraid.. because I understand the OED is going to
renounce English English in favor or the 'greater penis
endowed' presence of the U.S.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:44:44 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:22:18 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> My explanation was neater and made more sense. As usual
>>> your attempts to explain merely make the waters muddier.
>
>> My explanation is MY explanation.
>
>{ snip }
>
>All that to say that you make up the rules of English grammar as you
>go along ... pitiful ...
>
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!noos.f
r!not-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <XVL39.15994$U44.855085@newsfep2-gui>
><xZS39.220937$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipajc$fia$2...@helle.btinternet.com>
><Nc_39.222049$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air64m$32u$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><X5o49.226579$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0qug$i0j$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><wKY49.136154$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj1q0l$3j6$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><3s%49.136610$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><pR159.170$id3....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><euf59.143897$s8.27...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnalb2ab.cac.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:44:44 +0000
>Lines: 20
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2002 21:45:43 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1029015943 news.noos.fr 22924 212.198.68.117
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@noos.fr
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:41:59 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:22:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> You could have fooled me...
>
>No, really ..?
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!isdnet!noos.fr!no
t-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>References: <Nc_39.222049$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air64m$32u$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><X5o49.226579$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0qug$i0j$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><dqS49.3479$fe3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
><aj0v3j$68q$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><slrnal805q.3s3.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><b9Z49.136237$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><ikq8lukr7raj52ih4...@4ax.com>
><RO_49.136589$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><n3m9lucnvupokh9af...@4ax.com>
><iuf59.143908$s8.27...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnalb257.c9a.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:41:59 +0000
>Lines: 15
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2002 21:42:58 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1029015778 news.noos.fr 11283 212.198.68.117
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:14:01 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Note: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
>>> phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
>>> independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
>>> double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
>>> quotations.
>
>> But 99% of people reading it take single quotes to indicate
>> a direct quotation. As such, it is a direct lie.
>
>Come now, Peter. LDB's incorrect use of quotation marks, shows
>that he's largely ignorant of rules of English grammar, spelling,
>and punctuation ... but it hardly shows him to be 'a liar' ...
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!cam
bridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mi
t.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.clara.net!heighli
ner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net
>!noos.fr!not-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><xZS39.220938$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aip6dp$nna$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><SlW39.221031$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipf0a$m5p$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><EQ049.222382$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air49f$8jv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><VSn49.226575$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0q7v$mc4$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><xKY49.136156$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj1rpd$aov$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><bM%49.234183$XH.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj3q18$2v4$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnalat09.bjk.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:14:01 +0000
>Lines: 22
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2002 20:15:15 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1029010515 news.noos.fr 11285 212.198.68.117
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:17:57 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>
>> This is just soooo delicious.. Yet ANOTHER 'desi SODS.' Another
>> of his 'Step on Dick Special.'
>
>url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=bastardise
>
>Spank, spank, spank ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!noos.fr
!not-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <XVL39.15994$U44.855085@newsfep2-gui>
><xZS39.220937$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipajc$fia$2...@helle.btinternet.com>
><Nc_39.222049$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air64m$32u$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><X5o49.226579$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0qug$i0j$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><dqS49.3479$fe3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
><aj0v3j$68q$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><slrnal805q.3s3.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><b9Z49.136237$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnal9mlf.9j0.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><lcg59.144294$s8.27...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnalb48k.ceu.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:17:57 +0000
>Lines: 20
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2002 22:20:56 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1029018056 news.noos.fr 11282 212.198.68.117
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:12:38 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:58:38 GMT, Dave Proctor <da...@spambait.proctor.net>
>a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>You might like to check your attributions, Dave ...........
>
>> Nothing wrong with the attributions - my first comment was to QZD, the
>> second to PV.
>
>Not that it's worth getting our knickers into a twist about, Dave, but
>it's generally considered 'bad form' to respond directly to a poster
>whose words are preceded by two chevrons, as in ... >>
>
>So your attributions _were_ fucked. HTH. :-)
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.media.kyo
to-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!isdnet!noos.fr!not-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>References: <slrnal363p.6op.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><jhh49.19743$U44.1094590@newsfep2-gui> <soh49.19763$U44.1095495@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnal39c4.6op.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><ULh49.19842$U44.1098144@newsfep2-gui>
><jonathan-D7EA77...@news.pacific.net.au>
><XTv49.123627$s8.23...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><v128lus5o6hjhf1e3...@4ax.com>
><slrnal8299.45l.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><rhoalugkacdroc0i5...@4ax.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnalastm.bjk.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:12:38 +0000
>Lines: 20
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2002 20:15:15 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1029010515 news.noos.fr 11285 212.198.68.117
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:19:43 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:31:03 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> >> He knows
>>> >> just what sore spots to rub and you cannot resist responding
>>> >> in kind. However, you will note that the quotation marks
>>> >> are not doubled, therefore, they do not indicate a direct
>>> >> quote of yours. The single quote marks indicate, perhaps,
>>> >> the spirit or sense of a remark that you have made
>
>>> > That's not a rule of grammar I'm familiar with. I was always
>>> > taught that reported speech indicating a spirit or sense of what
>>> > was said should be given WITHOUT quote marks. For a direct
>>> > quote, either single or double quotes are acceptable.
>
>>> I'm not familiar with it, either, hence my question marks to John. In
>>> pure English (i.e. British English), single quotation marks are used
>>> to define a quotation. A quotation _within_ a quotation, is denoted
>>> by double quotation marks. Example ... John said, 'I'm from England',
>>> but ... John said, 'Desmond said, "I'm from France".'
>
>> It is quite the 'opposite' in U.S. English.
>
>Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>
>{ snip irrelevancies }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.43.194.69!fr.clara.net!heighlin
er.fr.clara.net!teaser.fr!noos.fr!not-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <XVL39.15994$U44.855085@newsfep2-gui>
><xZS39.220937$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipajc$fia$2...@helle.btinternet.com>
><Nc_39.222049$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air64m$32u$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><X5o49.226579$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0qug$i0j$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><dqS49.3479$fe3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
><aj0v3j$68q$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><slrnal805q.3s3.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><b9Z49.136237$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnal9mlf.9j0.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:19:43 +0000
>Lines: 31
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2002 09:21:00 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1028971260 news.noos.fr 12245 212.198.68.117
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj3piq$2bk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
find my comments troubling, you may do whatever you
wish, EXCEPT tell ME what to do. There is no 'grammatical'
rule concerning placement of an underline before and after
a word to indicate underline. But people here do so. We
do not have the capability of underlining or emphasizing,
thus we use the tools available. In U.S. English, the
single-quotation mark does NOT indicate a 'direct quote,'
unless IT is FIRST enclosed in double-quotation marks.
So standing alone, I can make any rule I wish, since in
U.S. English it is recognized that it CANNOT be a 'direct
quote' since it is not enclosed first in double-quotation marks.
Sorry about English English, but I'm American. You can
use whatever you wish, and I'll figure it out. But it seems
beyond your capabilities to do so with mine.
> > I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words, phrases,
> > paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words independent
> > from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use double-quotation
> > marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word quotations.
>
> You might use it to mean that, but 99% of people reading it will
> take it as a direct quote. As such, it is a direct lie.
>
in single-quotes was MEANT to be a direct quote, without
at least ASKING if it was MEANT to be one. If you had asked
ME, I would have explained it to you. But you decided to take
your usual path, which is to insult and explode in some
paedomorphic rage. Stamping your foot to others in silliness.
Clearly you've 'lost it' in any dialog with me.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:22:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > You could have fooled me...
>
>
I'll let you know when YOU ACTUALLY do, FDP.
PV
> { snip }
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj42n0$3k0$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnalat09.bjk.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
> écrit :
> >
> > { snip }
> >
> > >> Note: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
> > >> phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
> > >> independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
> > >> double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
> > >> quotations.
> >
> > > But 99% of people reading it take single quotes to indicate
> > > a direct quotation. As such, it is a direct lie.
> >
> > Come now, Peter. LDB's incorrect use of quotation marks, shows
> > that he's largely ignorant of rules of English grammar, spelling,
> > and punctuation ... but it hardly shows him to be 'a liar' ...
>
> Who is LDB?
>
It stands for 'Logically Devastating Bastard.' Such as when
I destroy one of his arguments, and he remarks 'PV, you
LDB... you got me again.'
> PV attributed a sentiment to me, which I did not say and
> completely misrepresents what I actually said. He put it
> in quotes, which would seem to indicate that it was a direct quote
> from me. That is a lie. Even if it had been taken as an indirect
> report of approximately what I said, it would stilkl be a lie,
> as it was totally dissimilar to what I really said.
>
Oh.. the 'sentiment' was there.. quite clearly... and it still hangs
in the air, like a heavy, bilious, room-emptying, disgusting fart.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj3ps9$su4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
flawed, since you now realize that by selecting to
'save' those 876 proven murderers, with your opposition
to the DP, you have effectively murdered that one new
innocent. There are no 'winners' here, sport. There are,
as the trolley problem ALWAYS demonstrated - and what
is also obviously recognized in murder and the penalties
we exact for that crime - only losers. What is necessary
is to determine what path leads to the least loss. I know
you think very much in terms of 'winner' and 'loser' here,
but that's simply your arrogance speaking again. As it
did at the VERY BEGINNING of this thread, when you
sanctimoniously announced "How redeemable are the
people that support this sort of thing?" You're one of the
worst forms of abolitionist.. a conceited and self-important
puritan, who sees those who support the DP as irredeemable.
Which I quite reasonably assumed to mean you felt that
abolitionists have 'corroded souls.' You don't have to say
the EXACT two words to gain a meaning from 'how
redeemable?'
> > to hold to an abolitionist view. The 'Truth' is that by
> > opposing the execution of proven murderers you are
> > ACCEPTING the possibility of new innocents being
> > murdered. Now that may BE acceptable to you, but
> > recognize that it IS acceptable to you. If we have 876
> > TRUE murderers and 1 potential victim (either in or out
> > of prison), from even one of those 876 TRUE murderers,
> > then if we don't execute ALL those 876 TRUE murderers,
> > you are TRADING that innocent for those 876 TRUE
> > murderers. You just don't have the balls to admit that you
> > WOULD trade that one innocent for those 876 TRUE
> > murderers. Because that shoots your trolley problem
> > dead in the ass.
>
> Again, PV shouts that he has won, thus proving again that he
> has lost.
>
I don't see you saying what you'd do.' And I haven't won
anything. It's you who has chosen to lose. How can I
claim to have 'won,' when another selects to murder an
innocent to save 876 proven murderers? There are no
winners here, sport. In your arrogant belief in your own
false morality, you have taken a direct act (opposition to
what society has placed on the unswitched track, which
is beyond your control), to THROW THE SWITCH (If you
could), to prevent those executions EVEN IF one new
innocent will be murdered through the realization of
your opinion.
> > In fact EVERY abolitionist who accepts
> > that 876 TRUE murderers if not executed would commit
> > at least one new murder (either in or out of prison) from
> > that TOTAL of 876 TRUE murderers, is ACCEPTING
> > such a trade-off.
>
> I happen to think that 879 lives have more value than 1 life.
> You don't appear to understand the concept. That's your
> flaw.
>
Whoa.. you certainly didn't appear to believe that 5 lives
had more value than 1 in your 'original' trolley problem!!!!
Perhaps your view has changed because it's not 5 innocents
now, but 876 murderers.
In respect to the trolley problem you would now MURDER
that one innocent, through throwing the switch, in your
choice to save those 876 murderers. That's YOUR
choice!!! Good show. Just so everyone understands what
your CHOICE is.
> > One can only argue they accept that
> > trade-off, or argue the very illogical argument that NONE
> > of those 876 TRUE murderers would murder again if not
> > executed. And history, and my list, demonstrate the
> > flaw in such an illogical argument.
> >
> > PV
> >
> > NOTE: I use single-quotation-marks to emphasize words,
> > phrases, paraphrases, or the sense I find in someone words
> > independent from a DIRECT word-for-word quotation. I use
> > double-quotation marks to indicate DIRECT word-for-word
> > quotations.
>
> Or to put it another way, you use single quotes wrongly.
>
Or to put it accurately... you're a big baby.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>
> > This is just soooo delicious.. Yet ANOTHER 'desi SODS.' Another
> > of his 'Step on Dick Special.'
>
OED... OED... OED.. spank...spank...spank. You are the one
who claimed that "_The OED_, and its status as supreme arbiter
of correct English usage." Thus you have to live by what you
claimed. I can use U.S. English since I have never claimed the
OED is the "supreme arbiter of correct English usage.' And it's
hilarious how dictionary.com has now becomes the linch-pin of
your clumsy argument. If you belongs to the BOMC, you would
have free access to the on-line version.
<belly laugh off>
PV
> { snip }
A Planet Visitor
PV
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:sKj59.238395$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Dave Proctor
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:58:38 GMT, Dave Proctor <da...@spambait.proctor.net> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>You might like to check your attributions, Dave ...........
>
>> Nothing wrong with the attributions - my first comment was to QZD, the
>> second to PV.
>
>Not that it's worth getting our knickers into a twist about, Dave, but
>it's generally considered 'bad form'
Not if the original post has not arrived on the server, and you need
to reply to it.
>to respond directly to a poster
>whose words are preceded by two chevrons, as in ... >>
>
>So your attributions _were_ fucked. HTH. :-)
Stop being a pedant. :-)
Jake Snorfion
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped almost obsecene squirming and bullsitting>
>
>And please, neither Microsoft Word, nor Word Perfect 9.0 accept
>'bastardised.'
LOL!
That's because you installed them with the US English spellchecker!
Oh, this is too delicious [sic]
w00f
Jake Snorfion
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>news:slrnalb48k.ceu.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
>> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>>
>> { snip }
>>
>> >> Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>>
>> > This is just soooo delicious.. Yet ANOTHER 'desi SODS.' Another
>> > of his 'Step on Dick Special.'
>>
>> url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=bastardise
>>
>> Spank, spank, spank ...
>>
><belly laugh on>
>OED... OED... OED.. spank...spank...spank.
Ho ho ho
I am beginning to think you have the US version of the OED. Ae you
sure the 'O' in your case doesn't stand for 'Ohio'?
A sore bottom and a very painful foot - the down side of old age, eh?
w00f
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
You just don't know when to quit the lies, do you, PV?
Why don't you just admit that you read something into
my post that was never there, and apologise?
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
As such, I'm being right.
> No one expects that a phrase
> in single-quotes was MEANT to be a direct quote, without
> at least ASKING if it was MEANT to be one.
99% of people would assume that anything in quotes, either single or
double is a direct quote.
Look at almost any novel, or any newspaper. There you will
find direct quotes surrounded by sinle quote marks.
> If you had asked
> ME, I would have explained it to you.
Its not up to me to ask you what YOU mean by a certain word, or
punctuation mark, its up to you to find out what they actually
mean, and use them correctly.
> But you decided to take
> your usual path, which is to insult and explode in some
> paedomorphic rage. Stamping your foot to others in silliness.
> Clearly you've 'lost it' in any dialog with me.
YOU accuse ME of using insult? This from the man who said
' You see, that's your problem, Peter. You lose sight of
the 'real problem.' I can presume that you'd make a good
concentration camp guard. As long as you don't actually
push them into the gas chamber, you haven't been
anything more than an innocent bystander.'
Note this is in single quotes, because it is a direct quote
from PV. That is the correct usage.
Peter Morris
> >
> No, actually, U.S. English is quite the opposite. Single-quotation
> marks are only used INSIDE of double-quotation marks if using
> them as quotable mentions. Just the opposite of English-English,
> which is certainly not 99% of anything.
> From the Chicago Manual of Style, recognized by Americans
> as the essential guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers in
> U.S. English --
>
> "QUOTATION MARKS - Double and Single -
> 10.26 Quoted words, phrases, and sentences run into text are
> enclosed in double quotation marks... Single quotation marks
> enclose quotations within quotations...British practice is often,
> though not always, the reverse: single marks are used first,
> then double, and so on."
You will note that it says nothing about using single quotes
for emphasis, nor for approximate quotes of the general
sense of what was said. Using them for such is YOUR
invention and totally non-standard.
This is another of those occasions when your own source
contradicts you. Your usual rreactioin is to start screaming
about how wrong your source is, and how anyone that accepts
it must be stupid.
> And as usual, you are childishly hysterical. I imply no lie when
> using single-quotation marks, nor do 99% of people take it
> as a 'direct quotation.' It is similar to remarking like this --
Only the ones that know grammar.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:04:15 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:23:23 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> enclosed in double quotation marks... Single quotation marks
>>> enclose quotations within quotations...British practice is often,
>>> though not always, the reverse: single marks are used first,
>>> then double, and so on."
>
>> You will note that it says nothing about using single quotes
>> for emphasis, nor for approximate quotes of the general
>> sense of what was said. Using them for such is YOUR
>> invention and totally non-standard.
>
>Maybe he works for Microsoft ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:04:15 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnaldkaf.27i.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><xZS39.220938$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aip6dp$nna$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><SlW39.221031$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipf0a$m5p$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><EQ049.222382$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air49f$8jv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><VSn49.226575$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0q7v$mc4$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><xKY49.136156$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj1rpd$aov$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><bM%49.234183$XH.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj3q18$2v4$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><gLi59.238012$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj6h3q$gpi$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029099972 42802034 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
A Planet Visitor
"Jake Snorfion" <jake.s...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:j9mclu06vmh6tkulb...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped almost obsecene squirming and bullsitting>
>
> >
> >And please, neither Microsoft Word, nor Word Perfect 9.0 accept
> >'bastardised.'
>
> LOL!
>
> That's because you installed them with the US English spellchecker!
>
not exist in U.S. English. While the OED is, as FDP claimed,
the supreme arbiter of English English, and it doesn't exist there
as well. I know now that your 'education' (sic) was limited, since
a twit who managed to kill a child in incompetence holds the
same level of 'education' (sic) that you do. But do try to concentrate!
Whenever dirt feels depressed about having been spanked so
badly, he assumes another persona and creates childish one-line
'idiot-speak.'
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Jake Snorfion" <jake.s...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:4mmcluk2025rpii1c...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 02:12:40 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> >news:slrnalb48k.ceu.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> >> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
> >>
> >> { snip }
> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
> >>
> >> > This is just soooo delicious.. Yet ANOTHER 'desi SODS.' Another
> >> > of his 'Step on Dick Special.'
> >>
> >> url:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=bastardise
> >>
> >> Spank, spank, spank ...
> >>
> ><belly laugh on>
> >OED... OED... OED.. spank...spank...spank.
>
> Ho ho ho
Whenever dirt feels depressed about having been spanked so
A Planet Visitor
"Dave Proctor" <da...@spambait.proctor.net> wrote in message news:glqblusr97hu1pc6j...@4ax.com...
> Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, Desmond Coughlan
> <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>
> >Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:58:38 GMT, Dave Proctor <da...@spambait.proctor.net> a écrit :
> >
> >{ snip }
> >
> >>>You might like to check your attributions, Dave ...........
> >
> >> Nothing wrong with the attributions - my first comment was to QZD, the
> >> second to PV.
> >
> >Not that it's worth getting our knickers into a twist about, Dave, but
> >it's generally considered 'bad form'
>
> Not if the original post has not arrived on the server, and you need
> to reply to it.
>
> >to respond directly to a poster
> >whose words are preceded by two chevrons, as in ... >>
> >
Potty mouth.
> Stop being a pedant. :-)
>
One might as well ask the sun to 'stop coming up.' :-)
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj6glt$nr1$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
writer uses single-quotation marks as a 'direct quote,' unless
it is FIRST enclosed in double-quotation marks. Standing
alone they mean NOTHING. You can call them 'bad grammar'
or 'bad punctuation' if you wish. If you think that 'bothers' me.
But you cannot call them a 'direct quotation' if I didn't first
enclose them in double-quotation marks. Understand that
I am American, and I post by the U.S. standard of quotation
marks, which is the opposite of the U.K. method.
> > No one expects that a phrase
> > in single-quotes was MEANT to be a direct quote, without
> > at least ASKING if it was MEANT to be one.
>
> 99% of people would assume that anything in quotes, either single or
> double is a direct quote.
>
INTERPRET what is meant, if the grammar or punctuation is
NOT standard. And your 99% just shows how full of it you
are. Since ONLY the English have ever complained about
this, because THEY use quotation-marks the opposite from the
U.S. But if you don't LIKE my posting in U.S. style, you
know quite well what you can do.
> Look at almost any novel, or any newspaper. There you will
> find direct quotes surrounded by sinle quote marks.
>
Not in the U.S. sport. I am looking at my Time magazine at this
moment. And I find NO single-quotation marks at all, that
refer to a 'DIRECT QUOTATION.' EVERY quotation in in
double-quotation marks.
> > If you had asked
> > ME, I would have explained it to you.
>
> Its not up to me to ask you what YOU mean by a certain word, or
> punctuation mark, its up to you to find out what they actually
> mean, and use them correctly.
>
Of course it's 'up to you,' if it's not proper grammar or punctuation.
You CANNOT interpret for yourself what is meant.
> > But you decided to take
> > your usual path, which is to insult and explode in some
> > paedomorphic rage. Stamping your foot to others in silliness.
> > Clearly you've 'lost it' in any dialog with me.
>
> YOU accuse ME of using insult? This from the man who said
> ' You see, that's your problem, Peter. You lose sight of
> the 'real problem.' I can presume that you'd make a good
> concentration camp guard. As long as you don't actually
> push them into the gas chamber, you haven't been
> anything more than an innocent bystander.'
>
Oh, but you DO lose sight of the problem, Peter. You've
descended into the pedantic world that so many of you
English like to dwell in, because you can then avoid
confronting the argument of the DP, and can confront the
'differences' of U.S. English, and petty nationalistic
claims.
> Note this is in single quotes, because it is a direct quote
> from PV. That is the correct usage.
>
And I stand by those words... but they are NOT correct
U.S. punctuation rules. You can use them if you wish,
and you'll find no hysteria from me, as I found from you.
Because I am flexible to the grammatical rules of you
strange Englishmen. While I find an almost 'hard-headed'
inflexibility in many Englishmen.
But notice how you have purposely tried to divert the
core argument, using your silly pedantic adventure.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj6h3q$gpi$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
>
> > >
> > No, actually, U.S. English is quite the opposite. Single-quotation
> > marks are only used INSIDE of double-quotation marks if using
> > them as quotable mentions. Just the opposite of English-English,
> > which is certainly not 99% of anything.
> > From the Chicago Manual of Style, recognized by Americans
> > as the essential guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers in
> > U.S. English --
> >
> > "QUOTATION MARKS - Double and Single -
> > 10.26 Quoted words, phrases, and sentences run into text are
> > enclosed in double quotation marks... Single quotation marks
> > enclose quotations within quotations...British practice is often,
> > though not always, the reverse: single marks are used first,
> > then double, and so on."
>
> You will note that it says nothing about using single quotes
> for emphasis, nor for approximate quotes of the general
> sense of what was said. Using them for such is YOUR
> invention and totally non-standard.
>
Thus, YOU cannot read anything into it, in terms of presuming
it suddenly becomes standard. You are presuming that
what is non-standard, must meet YOUR standard. It would
seem you've shot yourself in the foot by ADMITTING it is
non-standard. And by being NON-STANDARD, you cannot
presume what is meant. If I used an asterisk, such as *you
don't know what you're talking about,* to refer to your last
comment, it would be the SAME as having put it in
single-quotation marks. Because BOTH do not indicate
DIRECT QUOTATIONS, where there are NO double-quotation
marks. BOTH are examples of NON-STANDARD incorrect
punctuation, and nothing can be ASSUMED from what is
incorrect usage. Chee... did you sleep through Logic 101?
> This is another of those occasions when your own source
> contradicts you. Your usual rreactioin is to start screaming
> about how wrong your source is, and how anyone that accepts
> it must be stupid.
>
What source? My source directly SUPPORTS me. The use
of single-quotation marks standing alone do not mean ANYTHING.
To indicate any sort of quotation they must FIRST be enclosed
in double-quotation marks. And perhaps YOUR accusation
requires other than the meaningless and totally contrived attack
you've made right in your last comment. When have I done
what you've claimed? And give me a 'direct quotation.'
> > And as usual, you are childishly hysterical. I imply no lie when
> > using single-quotation marks, nor do 99% of people take it
> > as a 'direct quotation.' It is similar to remarking like this --
>
> Only the ones that know grammar.
>
Obviously you are nationalist... and a hard-headed one at that.
And you have tried to divert this argument from its core point,
just as you would throw the switch to murder an innocent to
protect 876 proven murderers, knowing that by so doing you
have condemned an innocent to be murdered.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:23:23 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> enclose quotations within quotations...British practice is often,
> >> though not always, the reverse: single marks are used first,
> >> then double, and so on."
>
> > You will note that it says nothing about using single quotes
> > for emphasis, nor for approximate quotes of the general
> > sense of what was said. Using them for such is YOUR
> > invention and totally non-standard.
>
I simply said that standing alone as 'single-quotation
marks' it has NO grammatical significance, while everyone
is presuming it MUST have a 'quotation' significance. Thus,
my use, although not grammatically correct DOES NOT
imply a 'direct quotation.' Which is the entire point here,
with Peter. You may call it anything you wish, in terms of
'bad grammar.' But you CANNOT call it a reference to a
DIRECT QUOTE. Because in U.S. English, DIRECT
QUOTES are FIRST enclosed in 'double-quotation marks.'
Jesus... you both really missed out by sleeping through
Logic 101. It is exactly how you use the underline
before and after words. That's NOT correct punctuation,
as well, but only you (and Pathetic Peter, who is using
this ruse to change the subject, as usual) raise a stink
about MY 'incorrect' punctuation, which DOES NOT imply
a 'direct quotation.'
PV
>
> { snip }
>
> --
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:aj6gcf$kl5$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
THERE. You're a sanctimonious little tit who has tried to
cover up the meaning of your pious piece of crap.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
>
snip
> But notice how you have purposely tried to divert the
> core argument, using your silly pedantic adventure.
>
>
> PV
>
Funny that. I thought it all started with a little straw
dog from you-know-who.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> >
> > Non-stick Dick sez :
> >
> > "Richard J." <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D4F1478...@hotmail.com...
> > > Monday, Aug. 5, 2002
> > >
> > > Here you go everyone. The following press release from the Texas
> > > Attorney General's office gives the details of the first of six
> > > scheduled executions in Texas during August. Judge for yourself how
> > > redeemable this murderer is.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Teflon
> >
> > He may or may not be redeemable, Richard. This doesn't change
> > the basic fact that if we kill him, we commit a brutal, evil act, we
> > lower ourselves and we take a step in his direction.
> >
> > How redeemable are the people that support this sort of thing?
> >
> the murderer is the 'real' victim. You're assured of 'going to heaven,'
> so rest easy in your mind. In your 'Spiritual Evangelism' we should
> permit every human on our planet to be killed, before we take one
> step to prevent that from happening by killing one of our own. So
> you'll 'go to heaven.' When will you ever learn?
>
> PV
>
Pardon me, PV, but I honestly thought that the ugly phrase
'corroded soul' emanated from Earl not Peter?
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:JnO59.32121$U44.1649435@newsfep2-gui...
isn't exactly the same. Simply because he didn't use that EXACT
phrase, doesn't mean it did not mean the same thing. It was my
COMPARISON of Earl's 'ugly phrase,' to the 'ugly phrase' of
Peter. For example... think of desi's (Flopping drunk puppet), use
of the phrase 'deathies,' as the phrase 'corroded soul.' Then think
of someone who says 'retentionists support state-sponsored
murder.' They are saying EXACTLY the same thing as 'deathies,'
but using different words. Peter stating that those who support
the DP are irredeemable, IMPLIES they have 'corroded souls.'
PV
<feeble joke hat on>
PS -- As an 'atheist,' you wouldn't understand.
<feeble joke hat off>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:IdL59.31815$U44.1635318@newsfep2-gui...
that you commented on yourself. The core argument, as far
as I'm concerned, and the one I keep trying to return to, was
Peter's comment "How redeemable are the people that
support this sort of thing?" Which holds the very clear implication
that those who 'support' the DP are irredeemable in the sense
of 'spirituality.' It's a sanctimonious pile of pious horse manure.
Similar to believing one may arrogantly judge 'morality,' and
find others who disagree with his opinions to be 'spiritually'
flawed.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
So Peter did NOT use the phrase 'corroded soul'. How on
earth he could have IMPLIED it when using another phrase
is best left to your over lively imagination. IRREDEEMABLE
in no way conveys the same meaning, it may have religous roots
but it used in many other connectiuons. Here is the full entry
in the OED. You will note that there is no mention of SOUL
corroded or otherwise:
irredeemable a. (n.)
[ir-2.]
A. adj.
1. a. Incapable of being redeemed or bought back.
Of Government annuities: Not terminable by repayment of the sum originally
paid by the annuitant. irredeemable debenture (see quot. 1965).
1609 Skene Reg. Mag. Table 105 Gif ane pley is anent lands, quhither they be
redemable, or irredemable, ane warrant may be called.
1732 Gentl. Mag. II. 709 There was 1,200,000l. due to the Bank, 2,000,000l.
to the East India Company, and the irredeemable Annuities, being about as
much as both.
1742 Ld. Hardwicke in Mod. Rep. IX. 278 If this had been land which had been
mortgaged, the defendants could not have held it irredeemable without coming
into this court for a foreclosure.
1818 Cruise Digest (ed. 2) II. 125 If a mortgage becomes irredeemable by
this statute, it will remain so in the hands of an assignee.
1820 G. G. Carey Funds 17 The debt_for which annuities have been granted for
a limited period is called the Irredeemable debt.
1855 J. D. Maclaren in Mem. (1861) 245 Time is irredeemable.
1900 Daily News 3 July 2/5, _800,000 in Four-and-a Half per Cent.
Irredeemable Mortgage Debenture stock at _108.
1965 Perry & Ryder Thomson's Dict. Banking (ed. 11) 317/1 Irredeemable
debenture, a debenture which does not contain any provision for repayment of
the principal money. Even if irredeemable, it falls to be paid upon the
company going into liquidation.
b. Of paper currency: For which the issuing authority does not undertake
ever to pay coin; not convertible into cash.
1837 D. Webster in Niles' Weekly Reg. 6 May 155/3, I abhor paper; that is to
say irredeemable paper, paper that may not be converted into gold or silver
at the will of the holder.
_1850 J. C. Calhoun Wks. I. 362 It left the country nearly without any
currency, except irredeemable bank notes.
1866 H. Phillips Amer. Paper Curr. II. 82 All such bills not presented by a
certain reasonable time_should be forever after irredeemable.
1879 Lubbock Addr. Pol. & Educ. ii. 28 Those who regard an unlimited and
irredeemable paper currency as a panacea for all financial evils.
2. fig. That admits of no release or change of state; absolute, fixed,
hopeless.
1839 Poe Fall House of Usher Wks. 1864 I. 295 An air of stern, deep, and
irredeemable gloom hung over and pervaded all.
1855 Tennyson Maud ii. i. 22 He_Wrought for his house an irredeemable woe.
3. Beyond redemption; irreclaimable; thoroughly depraved.
_1834 Coleridge Notes Lear in Lit. Rem. (1836) II. 196 The Steward_the only
character of utter irredeemable baseness in Shakspeare.
1892 Columbus (O.) Disp. 1 Sept., They are irredeemable in their
thriftlessness.
B. n.
_ a. An irredeemable annuity. Obs.
1720 Lond. Gaz. No. 5877/3 That for the Redeemables and Irredeemables
subscribed_no Stock be allowed but in even 5l.
b. Anything that is irredeemable; spec. an irredeemable debenture.
1904 Daily Chron. 6 Feb. 3/2 The redemption of the irredeemable by woman's
sweet and subtle influence the author has spared us.
1952 Economist 30 Aug. 514/1 Prices of most stocks at their lowest for
twenty years, with irredeemables offering flat yields ranging up to_434 per
cent.
1967 Ibid. 18 Nov. 785/2 The main effect_would eventually be felt by the
long end of the market, especially by the irredeemables.
1973 Daily Tel. 24 Nov. 27/4 Most of the irredeemables return over 12 p.c.
on income.
Hence
irredeema_bility, irre_deemableness, _the quality of being not redeemabl
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
See above and weep.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Jake Snorfion" <jake.s...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:j9mclu06vmh6tkulb...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped almost obsecene squirming and bullsitting>
>>
>> >
>> >And please, neither Microsoft Word, nor Word Perfect 9.0 accept
>> >'bastardised.'
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> That's because you installed them with the US English spellchecker!
>>
>No shit, Sherlock!! My point is the word 'bastardised' (sic), does
>not exist in U.S. English.
No it wasn't. You claimed that it was an incorrect spelling in both
English and the bastardised tongue you have cluelessly adopted.
You made a similar claim with regard to 'utilise'.
You got spanked on both occasions - very hard indeed, and now you are
most concerned that you look rather idiotic.
<snipped drivel>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:9p2glustp3tqa55qa...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:20 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jake Snorfion" <jake.s...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:j9mclu06vmh6tkulb...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:11:29 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipped almost obsecene squirming and bullsitting>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >And please, neither Microsoft Word, nor Word Perfect 9.0 accept
> >> >'bastardised.'
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >>
> >> That's because you installed them with the US English spellchecker!
> >>
> >No shit, Sherlock!! My point is the word 'bastardised' (sic), does
> >not exist in U.S. English.
>
> No it wasn't. You claimed that it was an incorrect spelling in both
> English and the bastardised tongue you have cluelessly adopted.
>
It is certainly incorrect in the U.S. Spelling, Louise Whether it
is 'incorrect' in English English, is simply a matter of looking to see if
it exists in the OED. And it does not. As the 'supreme arbiter,'
(in the words of FDP desi), if it does not exist there, it does not
exist in English English. You will not find it by doing a search on
the word, nor will you find it in some sense of 'also..ised.'
> You made a similar claim with regard to 'utilise'.
I was wrong.. live with it, Louise. It exists as an 'also...ise,' rather
than the preferred spelling, which results in a successful search
for the word 'utilize,' while a search for the word 'utilise,'
results in a "There are no results."
>
> You got spanked on both occasions - very hard indeed, and now you are
> most concerned that you look rather idiotic.
>
When John Rennie announces that the word 'bastardised' exists
in the OED, as a spelling in current usage, you might have a case.
The only place I can find it with an 's' is in 'bastardise,' and 'bastardism.'
Since you are too cheap to purchase one of your own, you are simply
spitting in the ocean, Louise.
In any case they are ALL 'bastarized' in U.S. English, Louise.
You're just pissed that our penis is bigger (of course, relating
a bit to your sad personal experience). I find an overwhelming
sense of a social phobia... a panic about becoming smaller in
importance on the world scene... that seems to come from you
and some others here. Translating into the extreme effort
expended by some British here, to have their opinions
weighed as more valuable than they really are, in the smaller
context of the subject of this group. I find you to be one of the
most afflicted by this social phobia... practically screaming --
'Listen to me!!! Listen to me!!! Listen to me!!!' Certainly in
respect to your hilarious claim that U.S. English is a
'bastarized' version of 'YOUR' English. No country or heritage
OWNS the English language. And even in greater respect to
your rather weird views on the English 'legal system' (sic) having
some sway or something to do with the U.S. DP, and the
laws in the U.S.
You're one sad, pitiful, sick little cunt, Louise. You may now
commence demonstrating how pissed off you are, with that
temple throbbing, eyelid twitching, chin trembling, clenched
fist pounding on the desk, while raving, 'That fuckiin' red-neck PV,
did it to me again.'
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:UcS59.2519$Cy3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
was speaking of 'stocks, bonds, land, or loans.' Following
the thread, Peter was speaking of a 'certain chemistry of the
spirit' of a human. Which can be related to a 'soul,' since he
was certainly not speaking of any 'temporal redeemable'
quality 'Redeemable' was first mentioned by Richard. It
stays with the sense of the thread, and expresses a feeling for
the 'character' of the murderer. And Peter twisted that into a
presumption that those who are against murder are no more
redeemable than that of the murderer. The sense applies in
sense 3, if it applies to a human 'quality' rather than a secular
'quantity.' --
3. Beyond redemption; irreclaimable; thoroughly depraved.
_1834 Coleridge Notes Lear in Lit. Rem. (1836) II. 196
The Steward_the only character of utter irredeemable
baseness in Shakspeare. 1892 Columbus (O.) Disp.
1 Sept., They are irredeemable in their thriftlessness.
We all know what thoroughly 'depraved' is. And I defy
you to look up THAT word and claim it doesn't imply
a 'corroded soul,' if one holds a meaning to that phrase.
And 'beyond redemption,' means 'beyond' deliverance from
sin and its consequences. It's rather paradoxical
that Peter would claim the murderer is 'redeemable' (having
the capacity to be delivered from sin and its consequences...),
presuming there is no depravity in murder, while claiming
those who support the execution of those murderers, are
'thoroughly depraved, and not 'redeemable.' Apparently
murderers do not have 'corroded souls.' Only retentionists
have them in Peter's words.
And I wonder whether you would have concerned yourself with
this if I had said 'How redeemable are the people that support
keeping all murderers alive? If 'redeemable' holds no meaning
for you, you can hardly say that it cannot hold a meaning for
anyone else.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:RdS59.2522$Cy3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
moral compass is so out of whack, that I can't see how anyone
could hold anything but pity for him.
IMHO, we should never equate murderers, and the question of their
being 'redeemable,' with that of accusing someone who expects
a certain penalty for some of those murders to be 'irredeemable.'
I believe Peter engaged in an attempt to redirect the focus of
'redeemable' from the murderer to those who expect murderers to
be justly dealt with. And to make it appear that those who support
such a penalty for murderers, are surely WORSE, and LESS
'redeemable' than the murderers themselves. Which is something
I see quite a bit with some abolitionists. Certainly Peter being
among the most flagrant in that respect.
There is an ocean of morality lying between those who murder, and
those who believe the DP can be a just penalty for murder. I believe
it is reasonable to question if a murderer is 'redeemable,' while
it is biased hyperbole to even think that someone who feels a certain
penalty for such a murderer is both immoral and unjust for feeling
that way. This is why I felt Peter referred to all of retentionists, in
the SENSE of them presumably having a 'corroded soul,' without using
that exact phrase.
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<of Beardy Pete>
>It's a sanctimonious pile of pious horse manure.
>Similar to believing one may arrogantly judge 'morality,' and
>find others who disagree with his opinions to be 'spiritually'
>flawed.
>
Fuck me! I've heard of the pot caling the kettle black, but this begs
belief.
Are you, perchance, taking the piss?
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<_utter drivel_ snipped>
>You're one sad, pitiful, sick little cunt, Louise. You may now
>commence demonstrating how pissed off you are, with that
>temple throbbing, eyelid twitching, chin trembling, clenched
>fist pounding on the desk, while raving, 'That fuckiin' red-neck PV,
>did it to me again.'
>
LOL!
After a 100 odd line rant in which you desperately try to show that
you 'weren't really wrong', you proceed to utilise (ho ho ho) the word
'cunt' for the first time (certainly, the first time I've ever seen
you use it).
You then proceed to explain how wound up _I_ am on account of a few
laconic sub-1K posts.
Like I said, LOL!
w00f
John Rennie
I think that was from the fake PV.
dirtdog
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.95.250.39
X-Complaints-To: ab...@rr.com
X-Trace: twister.tampabay.rr.com 1029199356 24.95.250.39 (Mon, 12 Aug
2002 20:42:36 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:42:36 EDT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
Xref: sn-us alt.activism.death-penalty:263732
Nope, the 'real' one
Nonetheless, I am sure that Sando finds it as chucklesome as PV finds
it infuruating that people are now genuinely starting to confuse the
two.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> You will note that it says nothing about using single quotes
> >> for emphasis, nor for approximate quotes of the general
> >> sense of what was said. Using them for such is YOUR
> >> invention and totally non-standard.
>
> > VERY TRUE. It is NON-STANDARD and MY INVENTION.
> > Thus, YOU cannot read anything into it,
>
>
pot...kettle...black... but I know that ONE of the terrorists on
EACH of the planes that attacked the WTC and the Pentagon
knew they were on a suicide mission. Which makes you a
little LESS literate, and a lot more moron than me.
> { snip remainder of LDB's finger-pointing, desk-thumping, spittle-
> spraying rage }
I see you've been drinking again, FDP. Please don't beat your
wife again. You know what an angry drunk you are. Have you
read and understood the advice I provided for you, in respect
to your problem? Be sure and read ---
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:p88jluonjalheoinn...@4ax.com...
Certainly your ignorance is only laughable. You would HOPE
that I become angry. But a confused young boy with a retracted
penis is merely an object we should pity.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:30hilu0mu60lqkt53...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:42:20 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <of Beardy Pete>
>
> >It's a sanctimonious pile of pious horse manure.
> >Similar to believing one may arrogantly judge 'morality,' and
> >find others who disagree with his opinions to be 'spiritually'
> >flawed.
> >
>
> belief.
>
> Are you, perchance, taking the piss?
>
understand 'morality.' You will not be able to find anywhere
on the net, where I have claimed that I can DEFINE morality
in an objective sense. I only note that others often believe
they can. Peter is one very great example of a Brit who would
try to define 'morality' for the rest of the world. Probably
something to do with the same thing I've seem from 4 other
Brits here (you being one of them). A painfully obvious
attempt to cover up their own inadequacy. You even
subconsciously recognized it in yourself when you remarked
that your 'education' required a (sic) when speaking of it.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:25 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I never said it was anything but my invention, you moron.
> > I simply said that standing alone as 'single-quotation
> > marks' it has NO grammatical significance, while everyone
> > is presuming it MUST have a 'quotation' significance. Thus,
> > my use, although not grammatically correct DOES NOT
> > imply a 'direct quotation.'
>
> marks denote a quotation inside a quotation.
>
Wrong... pathetically wrong. Simply demonstrating the very
narrow grasp you hold of English grammar which has its own
rules in U.S. English, which is recognized as English in the
OED (not that I really give a fuck... but just to piss you off).
Perhaps you'd like to explain where Poland is, in respect to
your 'opinion' and the 'opinion' of the OED, if it, and you,
exude such perfection? Seems as if both you and the OED
agree that it is IN Europe... but then again it IS NOT in Europe.
> Live with it.
>
Obviously your 'superiority complex' is again rearing its head.
It is YOU who must 'live with it,' sport. I do believe that
more people speak U.S. English than speak English English.
If not, they soon will be... as soon as we 'rule the World.'
You moron.
> > Which is the entire point here,
> > with Peter. You may call it anything you wish, in terms of
> > 'bad grammar.' But you CANNOT call it a reference to a
> > DIRECT QUOTE.
>
> I certainly wouldn't call anything 'a direct quote [sic]', as 'quote'
> is not a noun.
Huh??? From the OED -- QUOTE n. 2.a. A quotation.
1885 Pall Mall G. 23 Jan. 6/1 The 'interviewer' (..has not the time
come for leaving out the quote marks?) 1888 Ibid. 12 Dec. 11/2
Stodgy 'quotes' from the ancients? 1922 T. S. ELIOT Let. ?
Jan. in E. Pound Lett. (1951) 236 Do you mean not use the
Conrad quote or simply not put Conrad's name to it? 1950 G. B.
STERN Ten Days of Christmas i. 27 The title must be a quote.
1959 Times Lit. Suppl. 23 Jan. 45/4 The blurb..and 'quotes'
selected from the American Press inaccurately suggest brashness.
1968 Listener 25 July 108/2 Don't ask me questions, since I have no
wish to figure as the father of all the quotes in your stories. 1978
Guardian Weekly 15 Oct. 7/3 A quote from Dayan is painted on
one of the twisted gun doors: 'The Bar-Lev line looks like a piece
of cheese with a hole in it.'
> Then again, we've all seen the difficulties that you
> have with nouns and verbs ... 'pedantic' used as a noun ... 'advise'
> used as a noun ...
>
ROTFLMAO... 'quote' not a noun... Jesus.... you don't even
believe the OED.
> > Because in U.S. English, DIRECT
> > QUOTES are FIRST enclosed in 'double-quotation marks.'
>
> Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>
Then why are you so interested in the OED? And I'm still
looking for 'bastardised' (sic) in the OED. Your obsessive
nationalism is peeking through again.
> > Jesus... you both really missed out by sleeping through
> > Logic 101. It is exactly how you use the underline
> > before and after words. That's NOT correct punctuation,
> > as well,
>
> 'That's not correct punctuation as well [sic]' ? ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
What the fuck are you on about??? OED -- AS, adv. (conj., and
rel. pron.)
5. In qualifications of degree (cf. 3) the relative clause may be
elliptically absent, especially where it expresses: a. 'as that or
those just mentioned.' Here, as in the principal sentence may
be rendered by equally.
c1386 CHAUCER Knt.'s T. 339 And he loved him as tendurly
agayn. c1400 Destr. Troy IX. 4125 Kyng Sapmon..With
als~mony abill shippes auntrid hym seluyn. 1509 BARCLAY
Shyp of Folys (1874) II. 81 Thoughe he be good, yet other ar
als bad. 1551 TURNER Herbal (1568) 119 Galene sayeth that
clinopodium is hote and dry in the thyrde degre, but our
clinopodium is not al so hote. 1711 STEELE Spect. No.
113 4 Chance has..thrown me very often in her way, and she
as often has directed a Discourse to me. Mod. 'Come forward.'
'Thank you! I hear quite as well where I am.'
b. 'as not,' 'as the opposite course,' 'as anything else'; e.g.
in as lief, as soon (as not). as good, as well: See C. phrases.
1775 SHERIDAN Rivals V. iii, I'd as lieve let it alone.
c. 'as can be imagined,' 'as may be,' 'as possible,' cf. L. quam
in quam maximum, etc.
You have to be the biggest moron in the world.
> More stupendous illiteracy from LDB ... not to mention proof (if
> proof were needed) that he is sorely lacking in education.
Ummm.... 'logic' -- 'arithmetic' -- 'ethics' -- 'common sense.' --
all attributes that you never learned in your 'education' (sic).
> Other-
> wise the use of the underscore to denote underlining, would be
> perfectly clear to him, as it is to those of us fortunate enough to
> have attended a European education.
>
Perhaps you can refer me to a grammar source that states
underline of a word is indicated by placing an underscore before and
after the word or phrase which is supposedly underlined.
Nor do I care if you do. Since we are referring to the use
of single-quotation marks, not enclosed in double-quotation
marks.
> { snip yet another spanking delivered to LDB ... those poor
> holidaymakers stranded in Florida are going to resent me ... }
>
FDP (Flopping Drunken Puppet) is obviously living up to his
handle. Put down the wine bottle, FDP... get a life... enjoy the
sun... find an OED... go fuck yourself. oops .. you've just done
that. And isn't it interesting how you are in all your pedantic
glory yet again, but cannot figure out how the terrorists flew
planes into the WTC when NONE OF THEM knew they were
on a suicide mission. Now THAT'S ROTFLMAO. And shows
the absence of 'logic' and 'common sense,' I speak of.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:3fhilug20nv6c8ufg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:42:36 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <_utter drivel_ snipped>
>
> >You're one sad, pitiful, sick little cunt, Louise. You may now
> >commence demonstrating how pissed off you are, with that
> >temple throbbing, eyelid twitching, chin trembling, clenched
> >fist pounding on the desk, while raving, 'That fuckiin' red-neck PV,
> >did it to me again.'
> >
>
> LOL!
>
> After a 100 odd line rant in which you desperately try to show that
> you 'weren't really wrong', you proceed to utilise (ho ho ho) the word
> 'cunt' for the first time (certainly, the first time I've ever seen
> you use it).
>
in the use of the word 'cunt'??? Louise, you're really not that clever
to have ever come up with ANYTHING original. Now if you want
something 'original,' which you've also tried to 'copy,' try...
SPANK... SPANK.... SPANK.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:14:57 +0000
>
>Le Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:07:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> > I never said it was anything but my invention, you moron.
>>> > I simply said that standing alone as 'single-quotation
>>> > marks' it has NO grammatical significance, while everyone
>>> > is presuming it MUST have a 'quotation' significance. Thus,
>>> > my use, although not grammatically correct DOES NOT
>>> > imply a 'direct quotation.'
>
>>> Single quotation marks denote a direct quotation. Double quotation
>>> marks denote a quotation inside a quotation.
>
>> Wrong... pathetically wrong. Simply demonstrating the very
>> narrow grasp you hold of English grammar which has its own
>> rules in U.S. English, which is recognized as English in the
>> OED (not that I really give a fuck... but just to piss you off).
>
>ROTFLMAO ... sure you don't ... and hands up all those who believe
>him ... hello ..? Helloooo ? Can we have at least _one_ person
>who believes him ?
>
>{ snip LDB thumping the desk, spraying spittle over his screen,
> pointing his finger at the monitor, and screaming, 'He got me
> again!!!' }
>
>>> 'That's not correct punctuation as well [sic]' ? ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
>> What the fuck are you on about??? OED -- AS, adv. (conj., and
>> rel. pron.)
>
>Now calm down, LDB ... just because I've slapped you down again,
>is no reason to get your blood pressure up ... you know that the
>doctor said no sex, no stress, no screaming at the computer.
>
>> 5. In qualifications of degree (cf. 3) the relative clause may be
>> elliptically absent, especially where it expresses: a. 'as that or
>> those just mentioned.' Here, as in the principal sentence may
>> be rendered by equally.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!! No one on this newsgroup could do a better job
>of showing up LDB's ignorance, and LDB himself ...
>
>For your education (well, we can live in hope), LDB ... I wasn't
>calling into question the conjunction 'as well', but the dense,
>moronic, semi-literate way you used it. Of course, the correct
>way to say it would have been ...
>
>'That's not correct punctuation, either ...'
>
>{ snip remainder of LDB copying and pasting from _The OED_, and
> _still_ getting an arse-skelping ... topped off with this
> delicious bit of irony ... }
>
>> You have to be the biggest moron in the world.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Other-
>>> wise the use of the underscore to denote underlining, would be
>>> perfectly clear to him, as it is to those of us fortunate enough to
>>> have attended a European education.
>
>> Perhaps you can refer me to a grammar source that states
>> underline of a word is indicated by placing an underscore before and
>> after the word or phrase which is supposedly underlined.
>> Nor do I care if you do. Since we are referring to the use
>> of single-quotation marks, not enclosed in double-quotation
>> marks.
>
>LOL ... it gets better !!!
>
><fx: autospank ... autospank ... autospank ...>
>
>{ remainder snippoed [quick, a typo !! Jump on it !! ROTFLMAO !!!!]
> out of pity ... }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:14:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 83
>Message-ID: <slrnalllj1.euf.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><xZS39.220938$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aip6dp$nna$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><SlW39.221031$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipf0a$m5p$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><EQ049.222382$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air49f$8jv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><VSn49.226575$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0q7v$mc4$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><xKY49.136156$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj1rpd$aov$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><bM%49.234183$XH.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj3q18$2v4$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><gLi59.238012$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj6h3q$gpi$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><slrnaldkaf.27i.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><RNG59.159519$s8.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnalinne.92k.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><rsm69.280599$XH.65...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029363354 44306491 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:55:39 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:36:46 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> You then proceed to explain how wound up _I_ am on account of a few
>>> laconic sub-1K posts.
>>>
>>> Like I said, LOL!
>
>> I think that was from the fake PV.
>
>What's the difference (other than that the fake one has a sense of
>humour) ?
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!news-han1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-ber
lin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:55:39 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID: <slrnalip1q.95a.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <aj0v3j$68q$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><slrnal805q.3s3.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><b9Z49.136237$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnal9mlf.9j0.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><lcg59.144294$s8.27...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><j9mclu06vmh6tkulb...@4ax.com>
><MNG59.159508$s8.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><9p2glustp3tqa55qa...@4ax.com>
><0CY59.166692$s8.31...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><3fhilug20nv6c8ufg...@4ax.com>
><Ldd69.1700$bg.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029268599 44544045 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:45:11 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:29 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> You will note that it says nothing about using single quotes
>>> for emphasis, nor for approximate quotes of the general
>>> sense of what was said. Using them for such is YOUR
>>> invention and totally non-standard.
>
>> VERY TRUE. It is NON-STANDARD and MY INVENTION.
>> Thus, YOU cannot read anything into it,
>
>... other than that you're a semi-literate moron.
>
>{ snip remainder of LDB's finger-pointing, desk-thumping, spittle-
> spraying rage }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de
!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:45:11 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <slrnalioe6.95a.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><xZS39.220938$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aip6dp$nna$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><SlW39.221031$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipf0a$m5p$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><EQ049.222382$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air49f$8jv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><VSn49.226575$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0q7v$mc4$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><xKY49.136156$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj1rpd$aov$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><bM%49.234183$XH.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj3q18$2v4$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><gLi59.238012$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj6h3q$gpi$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><VNG59.159527$s8.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029268195 43779644 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:33:03 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 12 Aug 2002 04:26:25 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I never said it was anything but my invention, you moron.
>> I simply said that standing alone as 'single-quotation
>> marks' it has NO grammatical significance, while everyone
>> is presuming it MUST have a 'quotation' significance. Thus,
>> my use, although not grammatically correct DOES NOT
>> imply a 'direct quotation.'
>
>Single quotation marks denote a direct quotation. Double quotation
>marks denote a quotation inside a quotation.
>
>Live with it.
>
>> Which is the entire point here,
>> with Peter. You may call it anything you wish, in terms of
>> 'bad grammar.' But you CANNOT call it a reference to a
>> DIRECT QUOTE.
>
>I certainly wouldn't call anything 'a direct quote [sic]', as 'quote'
>is not a noun. Then again, we've all seen the difficulties that you
>have with nouns and verbs ... 'pedantic' used as a noun ... 'advise'
>used as a noun ...
>
>> Because in U.S. English, DIRECT
>> QUOTES are FIRST enclosed in 'double-quotation marks.'
>
>Irrelevant bastardised versions are not what interest us at this time.
>
>> Jesus... you both really missed out by sleeping through
>> Logic 101. It is exactly how you use the underline
>> before and after words. That's NOT correct punctuation,
>> as well,
>
>'That's not correct punctuation as well [sic]' ? ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
>More stupendous illiteracy from LDB ... not to mention proof (if
>proof were needed) that he is sorely lacking in education. Other-
>wise the use of the underscore to denote underlining, would be
>perfectly clear to him, as it is to those of us fortunate enough to
>have attended a European education.
>
>{ snip yet another spanking delivered to LDB ... those poor
> holidaymakers stranded in Florida are going to resent me ... }
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsxfer.visi.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.ma
xwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-f
or-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Texas August Execution #1
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:33:03 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 52
>Message-ID: <slrnalinne.92k.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3D4F1478...@hotmail.com>
><aingkr$me1$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><xZS39.220938$XH.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aip6dp$nna$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><SlW39.221031$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aipf0a$m5p$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><EQ049.222382$XH.52...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><air49f$8jv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><VSn49.226575$XH.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj0q7v$mc4$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><xKY49.136156$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj1rpd$aov$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><bM%49.234183$XH.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj3q18$2v4$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><gLi59.238012$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><aj6h3q$gpi$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><slrnaldkaf.27i.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><RNG59.159519$s8.30...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029267332 44437454 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:07:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > I never said it was anything but my invention, you moron.
> >> > I simply said that standing alone as 'single-quotation
> >> > marks' it has NO grammatical significance, while everyone
> >> > is presuming it MUST have a 'quotation' significance. Thus,
> >> > my use, although not grammatically correct DOES NOT
> >> > imply a 'direct quotation.'
>
> >> Single quotation marks denote a direct quotation. Double quotation
> >> marks denote a quotation inside a quotation.
>
> > Wrong... pathetically wrong. Simply demonstrating the very
> > narrow grasp you hold of English grammar which has its own
> > rules in U.S. English, which is recognized as English in the
> > OED (not that I really give a fuck... but just to piss you off).
>
> him ... hello ..? Helloooo ? Can we have at least _one_ person
> who believes him ?
>
That would be every American, FDP. While yours is a fragile hold
on a belief that you can dictate the language for everyone.
> { snip LDB thumping the desk, spraying spittle over his screen,
> pointing his finger at the monitor, and screaming, 'He got me
> again!!!' }
>
ROTFLMAO... I believe FDP has 'stolen' that particular phrase.
It's pathetic how feeble FDP's arguments have become without
having 'source documents' to fall back on. Such as saying
'quote' is not a noun. I'm sure you'll be happy to return to the
'security blanket' you find at home, FDP.
> >> 'That's not correct punctuation as well [sic]' ? ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
> > What the fuck are you on about??? OED -- AS, adv. (conj., and
> > rel. pron.)
>
> Now calm down, LDB ... just because I've slapped you down again,
> is no reason to get your blood pressure up ... you know that the
> doctor said no sex, no stress, no screaming at the computer.
>
You see any capitalized words there, sport. You're laughable
is what is suggested with my remark. No shit, FDP... you
REALLY need to cut back on your alcohol consumption. It
seems to be rotting your neuron-synapse connections.
> > 5. In qualifications of degree (cf. 3) the relative clause may be
> > elliptically absent, especially where it expresses: a. 'as that or
> > those just mentioned.' Here, as in the principal sentence may
> > be rendered by equally.
>
> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!! No one on this newsgroup could do a better job
> of showing up LDB's ignorance, and LDB himself ...
>
Huh??? Read that back again. Apparently you are intent on
doing a better job by yourself of displaying your own ignorance,
then I can do.
> For your education (well, we can live in hope), LDB ... I wasn't
> calling into question the conjunction 'as well', but the dense,
> moronic, semi-literate way you used it. Of course, the correct
> way to say it would have been ...
>
> 'That's not correct punctuation, either ...'
>
ROTFLMAO... What a moron. It is expressing a comparison
with a hypothetical fact or statement -- One of the sources in
the OED states "Will serve as well as I were present there."
Which can also be said as "Will serve as I were present there,
as well."
> { snip remainder of LDB copying and pasting from _The OED_, and
> _still_ getting an arse-skelping ... topped off with this
> delicious bit of irony ... }
>
We know what that 'translates' into. 'I'm beat, PV. And need
now to hide that fact.'
> > You have to be the biggest moron in the world.
>
> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
That eisoptrophobia is kicking in on you again, FDP. Okay, maybe
not 'the biggest.' But certainly in the 'top 10.'
> { snip }
>
> >> Other-
> >> wise the use of the underscore to denote underlining, would be
> >> perfectly clear to him, as it is to those of us fortunate enough to
> >> have attended a European education.
>
> > Perhaps you can refer me to a grammar source that states
> > underline of a word is indicated by placing an underscore before and
> > after the word or phrase which is supposedly underlined.
> > Nor do I care if you do. Since we are referring to the use
> > of single-quotation marks, not enclosed in double-quotation
> > marks.
>
> LOL ... it gets better !!!
>
Translation -- 'I can't... but I'll pretend I can, and use SG Seminal
axiom 6) again.'
> <fx: autospank ... autospank ... autospank ...>
>
Oops... there it is. And not even 'original,' but a knock-off
of one of mine.
> { remainder snippoed [quick, a typo !! Jump on it !! ROTFLMAO !!!!]
> out of pity ... }
>
And there it is again. Two claims in one post. FDP trying for
the record.
<belly laugh off>