OT: Say it with me: New-clear
John the Savage
Seriously, Repos, are you comfortable putting this woman one heartbeat
from the Presidency? Honestly? When the President is 72, 73, 75 years
old? Gulp.
FL Turbo
Well, I can't answer for Repos.
Personally, I feel more comfortable thinking of Palin one heartbeat
away from the Presidency than a windbag Politician like Biden.
YMMV
Porsche_Dan
She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
etc..........
John the Savage
>
> She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
> observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
> etc..........
>
We'll see. Honestly, I think Biden has done better than I expected. I
wasn't a big fan of the choice, but he is doing alright here. I do
think she is doing poorly; she generally just ignores the question.
Although America probably won't notice that.
Clave
news:ddd2d646-a261-4ffd...@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
> observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
> etc..........
CNN's focus group is giving Biden better numbers...
Jim
Dutch
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote
> "Porsche_Dan" <Porsc...@gmail.com> wrote
> <...>
>
>> She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
>> observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
>> etc..........
>
> CNN's focus group is giving Biden better numbers...
I give Palin credit for doing better than a lot of critics thought she
would. I figured she'd do all right.
FL Turbo
Gee, that's amazing.
Who could have imagined that?
-------------- ///SARCASM ALERT -------------
Clave
news:6tfFk.3107$yu1...@newsfe04.iad...
What I've read of her previous debates was spot-on. She's a master of the
non-answer. She can take a specific policy question and spin a folksy yarn
around it full of "gosh", "gee-whiz" and the like, and unless you're looking
for it, you never notice that she never got close to actually answering the
question.
Jim
Clave
news:jb1be4571lp44lbmr...@4ax.com...
It's a bipartisan group.
Not that facts matter to you.
Jim
Dutch
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:jfKdnTWG16XyG3jV...@cablespeedmi.com...
She did do that a lot, almost exclusively actually, because she doesn't have
answers I suppose, but she stayed poised in a pretty tough situation. I
suspect that won her points with a lot of voters.
Clave
Mostly the converted, I expect. Likewise Biden (who, in my objective
opinion, pretty much won walking away). I don't think any minds are going
to be changed based on this.
Jim
Pepe Papon
I'm afraid that she won even though she lost. Clearly, Biden showed
far more knowledge and experience and agave better answers, but Palin
succeeded in not looking stupid, and was ever so folksy and cutesy.
Although the instapolls showed that Biden won by a big margin,
people's opinion of Palin went up, and she is looking a lot less like
a liability than she did before the debate.
Tim Norfolk
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cacFk.6176$eZ6....@newsfe14.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:jfKdnTWG16XyG3jV...@cablespeedmi.com...
> >> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6tfFk.3107$yu1...@newsfe04.iad...
>
> >>>> "Porsche_Dan" <Porsche....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> <...>
>
> >>>>> She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
> >>>>> observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
> >>>>> etc..........
>
> >>>> CNN's focus group is giving Biden better numbers...
>
> >>> I give Palin credit for doing better than a lot of critics thought she
> >>> would. I figured she'd do all right.
>
> >> What I've read of her previous debates was spot-on. She's a master of
> >> the non-answer. She can take a specific policy question and spin a
> >> folksy yarn around it full of "gosh", "gee-whiz" and the like, and unless
> >> you're looking for it, you never notice that she never got close to
> >> actually answering the question.
>
> > She did do that a lot, almost exclusively actually, because she doesn't
> > have answers I suppose, but she stayed poised in a pretty tough situation.
> > I suspect that won her points with a lot of voters.
>
> Mostly the converted, I expect. Likewise Biden (who, in my objective
> opinion, pretty much won walking away). I don't think any minds are going
> to be changed based on this.
>
> Jim
My opinion of Biden went up significantly.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Tim Norfolk" <tims...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c5147879-e03e-4619...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjhbe4pgsen9qefka...@4ax.com...
Christ, pepe. Lie some more, will you?
All objective views were tie/ slight Palin win.
Tim Norfolk
her answers? The "Freedom is not passed in the genes....". It is, I
believe from one of his State of the Union addresses, and appears in
the New Citizen's Handbook.
Joe Long
Yes. If it comes to it, I'd rather have her as our President over Obama
or Biden. Lack of knowledge of specifics can be made up for with good
advisers, your fundamental character and philosophy can't.
If the debate was scored as they do with debate teams, Biden won on
point, narrowly. As to the political impact, Palin won big. Biden
tried and failed to make McCain another Bush, while Palin succeeded in
showing Biden as looking backwards and pessimistic, while she was the
forward-looking optimist.
But as is usual in these things, Democrats will believe or say that
Biden won, and Republicans will believe or say that Palin won.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Joe Long
> What I've read of her previous debates was spot-on. She's a master of the
> non-answer. She can take a specific policy question and spin a folksy yarn
> around it full of "gosh", "gee-whiz" and the like, and unless you're looking
> for it, you never notice that she never got close to actually answering the
> question.
In the best political tradition. It's what gets a lot of people elected.
Did you ever see the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas?" Check
out the Governor's song, "Oooo, I love to do a little sidestep."
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>John the Savage wrote:
>> Too funny. Will she actually answer a question at some point? I wonder.
>> Seriously, Repos, are you comfortable putting this woman one heartbeat
>> from the Presidency? Honestly? When the President is 72, 73, 75 years
>> old? Gulp.
>Yes. If it comes to it, I'd rather have her as our President over Obama
>or Biden. Lack of knowledge of specifics can be made up for with good
>advisers, your fundamental character and philosophy can't.
She lacks knowledge of specifics and has a shitty, vindictive
character, as her activities in Alaska show.
>
>If the debate was scored as they do with debate teams, Biden won on
>point, narrowly. As to the political impact, Palin won big. Biden
>tried and failed to make McCain another Bush, while Palin succeeded in
>showing Biden as looking backwards and pessimistic, while she was the
>forward-looking optimist.
So in other words, as long as you ignore what the people who watched
the debate actually think, she won. And as long as you ignore the
fact that undecided voters broke for Biden at over 2:1, she won. As
long as you don't consider whether she picked up any votes for her
ticket, she won.
Basically, she won, as long as you consider winning some magical pony
airy fairy thing that doesn't actually translate into votes.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2298
-- CBS used uncommitted voters, who gave Biden the edge in early
numbers, 46-21 percent, over Palin.
-- CNN's instant poll of regular voters showed Biden victorious,
51-36.
Susan
Tell me, how do you pronounce the following?
creek
roof
aunt
and my personal favorite
Tijuana
John the Savage
> I guess your subject line means the pronunciation of nuclear?
>
> Tell me, how do you pronounce the following?
>
> creek
>
> roof
>
> aunt
>
These words vary with dialect. That does not mean that the any of the
common pronunciations of them are incorrect. Saying "Nuke-u-lar" is not
correct in any dialect; doing so inserts a vowel sound where none
exists. It is just wrong.
Bob T.
> John the Savage wrote:
> > Too funny. Will she actually answer a question at some point? I wonder.
>
> > Seriously, Repos, are you comfortable putting this woman one heartbeat
> > from the Presidency? Honestly? When the President is 72, 73, 75 years
> > old? Gulp.
>
> Yes. If it comes to it, I'd rather have her as our President over Obama
> or Biden. Lack of knowledge of specifics can be made up for with good
> advisers, your fundamental character and philosophy can't.
>
> If the debate was scored as they do with debate teams, Biden won on
> point, narrowly. As to the political impact, Palin won big. Biden
> tried and failed to make McCain another Bush, while Palin succeeded in
> showing Biden as looking backwards and pessimistic, while she was the
> forward-looking optimist.
I know. Can you imagine, Biden looking deep into the past and talking
about the Bush/Cheney administration! It was almost as if he thought
it was relevant. Palin set him straight on that, and let him know
that she and McCain had nothing to do with the party currently in the
White House.
- Bob T.
brewmaster
John the Savage <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
How do you pronounce "ask", then?
Susan
"John the Savage" <savag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JPGdndCb7qgG1nvV...@giganews.com...
In your pronunciation you are making 3 syllables into 2.
How many syllables in Tijuana? I know you are quickly going to google this,
but step outside and askone how Tijuana is pronouced. I can almost
guarantee that one of out 10 will get it right.
Susan
"brewmaster" <brewm...@brewcam.com> wrote in message
news:brewmaster-55989...@news.motzarella.org...
That one is easy - I live in Tennessee
Axe
teehee
John the Savage
>>>
>> These words vary with dialect. That does not mean that the any of the
>> common pronunciations of them are incorrect. Saying "Nuke-u-lar" is not
>> correct in any dialect; doing so inserts a vowel sound where none
>> exists. It is just wrong.
>
> How do you pronounce "ask", then?
Ya know, it's funny, I did have an Orgo prof last year who would say ask
"ahhhhh-sk", and it just sounded funny as hell. Maybe that's dialect
too although I've never heard anyone else say ask with a softish a
sound. But if you were expecting me to believe "axe" is a correct
pronunciation, I gotta disappoint you. I think teaching that Ebonics is
proper is just stupid. It might work in some liberal classroom, but
good luck getting a job in the real world speaking like that.
brewmaster
"Susan" <sdbr...@netscape.net> wrote:
I always say tea-a-wanna. My next door neighbors are from there, and
that is how they say it.
John the Savage
>
> How many syllables in Tijuana? I know you are quickly going to google this,
> but step outside and askone how Tijuana is pronouced. I can almost
> guarantee that one of out 10 will get it right.
>
I don't have to google it to guess what you are getting at. Anyway,
"Tijuana" is a foreign word, and there are lots of similar discrepancies
when foreign words make their way into English. Often, the
pronunciation gets changed, and then just accepted and becomes correct
in English. Besides, some sounds from foreign languages just don't
appear in English and simply can't be spoken or heard properly by adult
English speakers.
I appreciate your attempts to show linguistic counterexamples, but
Nuke-U-Lar is just wrong, and it will cause me to think you are less
intelligent if you say it, whether you are Jimmy Carter, or Sarah Palin.
I am not the only one. As I noted in my never-to-appear reply to
brewmaster's never-to-appear post (HAHA RECGROUPS LOL), mangling words
in such a way is going to lower your credibility in the eyes of a
significant portion of your audience. You may think those particular
members are English nits, but when you're speaking to the entire nation,
it makes sense to think of everybody. When the error is so easy to
correct, I can only assume she is making it out of ignorance, or some
kind of speech impediment. She got dominated last night from an
intellectual perspective. But I guess a wink and a shucks and a say it
ain't so, Joe mean more to the average American.
funky cold medina
-------------
My litmus test has always been:
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
If they don't know that one, I quickly write them off as simpletons.
Ha.
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
"funky cold medina" <kelly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ab8a81b-9c8e-49db...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
-------------
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
---
Um-diddle-diddle-um-diddleye
Susan
Its Auntie Juan - which is what TIAjuana would be. It's spelled Tijuana - 3
syllables. (loosely Uncle Juan)
Susan
It's your OPINION that she got dominated last night from an intellectual
perspective.
Or do I have to start taking everyword you write as absolute truth.
John the Savage
>
> Or do I have to start taking everyword you write as absolute truth.
>
I would appreciate it, yea. Citing stuff gets tiresome sometimes.
John the Savage
> Biden
> tried and failed to make McCain another Bush, while Palin succeeded in
> showing Biden as looking backwards and pessimistic, while she was the
> forward-looking optimist.
>
Your opinion that Biden failed to make the point is just that. I
thought he did it pretty well.
As far as this, "optimism".. is this the same "optimism" that led us to
declare Mission Accomplished? The same "optimism" that had Bush telling
us over and over again that we were making progress in Iraq? Really, if
you want "optimism", you must have LOVED what the Republicans have given
you for eight years:
5/1/03:
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Major combat in Afghanistan has ended, U.S.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday.
President Bush plans to make a similar announcement about Iraq later
Thursday, the White House has announced.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/05/01/afghan.combat/
5/2/03:
"The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," the president said in his national
address beamed from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2003/05/02/Nation/Bush-Claims.Victory.In.Iraq.But.Much.Left.To.Be.Done-431381.shtml
8/8/03:
President Bush claimed "good progress" in Iraq on Friday, 100 days after
he had declared an end to major combat,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-08-08-bush_x.htm
10/27/03:
"The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis
become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available,
the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers
become," Bush said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101298,00.html
6/28/05:
Surrounded by U.S. troops at a military installation in North Carolina,
President Bush will ask Americans tonight to look beyond the daily
violence in Iraq and focus on the "quiet process" of "political
reconciliation" that will produce a more stable and democratic Middle
East, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this morning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800658.html
12/18/05:
Rather than dismissing critics with a wave of the hand and an acid
retort, as he often has, he asked those who opposed the invasion to help
make the biggest gamble of his presidency work. But he never backed away
from his insistence that, with patience, the United States will claim
victory, as he has defined it.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,391204,00.html
6/15/06:
President Bush said yesterday that the United States is making steady
progress in Iraq toward its goal of standing up a government that can
sustain and protect the country, but he emphasized that the ultimate
success of the U.S.-led venture lies in the hands of Iraqis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400626.html
3/20/08:
President Bush sought yesterday to convince a skeptical public that the
United States is on the cusp of winning the war in Iraq, arguing in a
speech at the Pentagon that the recent buildup of U.S. forces has
stabilized that country and "opened the door to a major strategic
victory in the war on terror."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/19/ST2008031903870.html
Optimism, HELL YEA! Shall I continue? Shall I get into the "optimism"
required to embrace a budget of massive tax cuts and simultaneous,
massive spending increases? What's that, you say, McCain is a MAVERICK?
(whatever happened to maverick, anyway?) He doesn't represent this
silly optimism of the past?
9/15/02:
"Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's
always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi
soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein,
particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam
Hussein from power." - John McCain
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/16/ftn/main522136.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
1/28/03:
"I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks." -John McCain
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/25/mccain-war-over/
6/11/03:
"I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq." -John McCain
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300011
6/11/03:
About a month after President George W. Bush stood on the deck of the
USS Abraham Lincoln before a banner proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished,"
Fox News' Neil Cavuto asserted to Senator John McCain that, "many argue
the conflict isn't over" in Iraq. McCain responded, "Well, then why was
there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300011
3/7/04:
"I'm confident we're on the right course." - John McCain
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704300011
How much of this do you want? You can't find more here:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001046.htm
I'm disappointed in the ability of my countrymen to be so blindly
impressed by "optimism". Optimism with no reason at all. Optimism just
for optimism's sake. Is that what we need? Is that what has worked out
so far? If you ask me, Sarah can shove her "optimism" straight up her ass.
Clave
wrote:
> "Tim Norfolk" <timsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
I'd be disappointed in myself if you didn't think so.
Jim
Susan
> Susan wrote:
>>
>> Or do I have to start taking everyword you write as absolute truth.
>
> I would appreciate it, yea. Citing stuff gets tiresome sometimes.
Then be sure to NEVER EVER disagree with orangie and doggy because they are
my gods already.
Dutch
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%MoFk.367$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
How many times did you post this same inane comment?
FL Turbo
We have us a "Well DUH" Moment here.
It was in fact, a tip of the hat to Ronald Reagan, and the people who
have been paying attention long enough to remember him.
An appeal to the so-called Reagan Democrats.
Pretty sneaky, eh?
BillB
> These words vary with dialect. That does not mean that the any of the
> common pronunciations of them are incorrect. Saying "Nuke-u-lar" is not
> correct in any dialect; doing so inserts a vowel sound where none exists.
> It is just wrong.
Actually, it is you who is wrong. From Merriam-Webster:
usage: Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \\-ky?-l?r\\
have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including
scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members,
and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most
common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from
British and Canadian speakers.
BillB
> Christ, pepe. Lie some more, will you?
>
> All objective views were tie/ slight Palin win.
Now you're going to stoop to Wuzzy's level and accuse people of "lying" for
making accurate statements?
I have seen only two scientific polls on the debate and both showed Biden
winning by a very healthy margin. Perhaps it is you who does not have an
"objective view".
Joe Long
> Joe Long wrote:
>
>> Biden
>> tried and failed to make McCain another Bush, while Palin succeeded in
>> showing Biden as looking backwards and pessimistic, while she was the
>> forward-looking optimist.
>>
>
> Your opinion that Biden failed to make the point is just that. I
> thought he did it pretty well.
It appears that you're starting to get it -- both views are opinions.
And like most opinions about political performances, they are colored by
our support of or opposition to the candidate.
pltrgyst
>> These words vary with dialect. That does not mean that the any of the
>> common pronunciations of them are incorrect. Saying "Nuke-u-lar" is not
>> correct in any dialect; doing so inserts a vowel sound where none exists.
>> It is just wrong.
>
>Actually, it is you who is wrong. From Merriam-Webster:
>
>usage: Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \\-ky?-l?r\\
>have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including
>scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members,
>and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most
>common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from
>British and Canadian speakers.
That says nothing about him being wrong about correctness -- it merely confirms
that there are a lot of stupid English-speakers in the world. You know them --
people who say "chimbley", "excape", "expresso", "nucular", etc. Or athletes who
don't pronounce their own last names as they're spelled, pronouncing, for
example, "Jeffires" as "Jeffries",
-- Larry
BillB
"pltrgyst" <pltr...@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:aerde4p40ebs0rm7h...@4ax.com...
> That says nothing about him being wrong about correctness -- it merely
> confirms
> that there are a lot of stupid English-speakers in the world. You know
> them --
> people who say "chimbley", "excape", "expresso", "nucular", etc. Or
> athletes who
> don't pronounce their own last names as they're spelled, pronouncing, for
> example, "Jeffires" as "Jeffries",
>
> -- Larry
Not too familiar with dictionaries, are we? It is saying it is accepted
usage.
BillB
> I appreciate your attempts to show linguistic counterexamples, but
> Nuke-U-Lar is just wrong, and it will cause me to think you are less
> intelligent if you say it, whether you are Jimmy Carter, or Sarah Palin.
First of all, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that Jimmy Carter is
far, far more intelligent than you. IIRC his IQ is in the neighborhood of
160, which places him somewhere above 99.9% of the population.
Secondly, there is no such thing in the English language as a commonly used
pronunciation being "just wrong". Once again, Merriam-Webster can explain it
much better than I:
Many people object to those pronunciations of February and nuclear on the
basis that they do not conform to the spelling of the word. However, to say
"the word is spelled (x), and therefore should be pronounced (y)" doesn't
make any sense. Spelling is not a legitimate basis for determining
pronunciation, for the following reasons:
1. English spelling is highly irregular. For example, "move", "dove", and
"cove" are spelled similarly but pronounced differently. Likewise, "to,"
"too," and "two" are spelled differently and pronounced the same.
2. English spelling is frequently based on factors besides pronunciation.
For example, the "c" represents three different sounds in "electrical",
"electricity" and "electrician", but is spelled the same in all to show that
the words are related.
3. Most importantly, spoken language is primary, not written language.
Indeed, only spoken language can be truly considered "language." Writing is
a collection of symbols meant to represent spoken language. It is not
language in and of itself. Many written languages (Spanish, Dutch, etc.),
will regularly undergo orthographic reforms to reflect changes in the spoken
language. This has never been done for English (the spelling of which has
never been regularized in the first place), so what we use for written
language is actually largely based on the spoken language of several
centuries ago.
All of the entries in our dictionary (including their pronunciations,
meanings, etc.) are based on usage. We have an extensive collection of files
which date back to the 19th century. Language is changing all of the time in
all respects, and any dictionary which purports to be an accurate
description of the language in question must be constantly updated to
reflect these changes. All words were pronounced differently at some time in
the past. There is simply no scholarly basis for preferring one
pronunciation over another, and the term "correct" pronunciation doesn't
mean anything objectively. To not list all pronunciation variants would be
irresponsible and a failure of our mission to provide a serious, scholarly,
record of the current American English language.
John the Savage
>
> First of all, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that Jimmy Carter is
> far, far more intelligent than you. IIRC his IQ is in the neighborhood of
> 160, which places him somewhere above 99.9% of the population.
>
Why, hello Bill. Do you always start off with an insult to the ol'
intelligence, or did I touch some sort of a nerve? Maybe you should
just killfile me again. If you have a cite for Carter's IQ, I'd like to
see it. Most of what you see online and such referenced as
"Presidential IQs" or IQs of other famous people is just somebody's
guess, and the credibility varies wildly. There may well be more solid
figures available for Carter, that would make sense. I just think they
would be interesting, and couldn't find anything I trusted myself. (in
a few minutes..)
Anyway, 160 is better than just 99.9, and while I do think an RGP-wide
IQ contest would be interesting, I don't feel the need to drop digits to
buy credibility here. If you offered some sort of a wager, I'd listen.
Your interest in the subject is noted.
I did not ever say I was more intelligent than Jimmy Carter, nor does
what I stated depend in anyway on that being true. So I won't waste
time on it.
> Secondly, there is no such thing in the English language as a commonly used
> pronunciation being "just wrong". Once again, Merriam-Webster can explain it
> much better than I:
>
Who gave Mirriam-Webster the keys to the English language? Let's not
quarrel about this, but for someone who is bemoaning the establishment
interpretation of English, you sure are giving a lot of authority to an
online dictionary.
> Many people object to those pronunciations of February and nuclear on the
> basis that they do not conform to the spelling of the word.
"Nuclear" is not "February". The word and concept of "nuclear" is
relatively new. It comes from the word nucleus. How do you say that
one? Nuuk-yoo-lus? I guess if enough people did that, you could get it
in the dictionary. Besides that, the dictionary even goes out of its
way to note that many people object to the new pronunciation.
> However, to say
> "the word is spelled (x), and therefore should be pronounced (y)" doesn't
> make any sense.
The word has an origin, and the new pronunciation has only appeared out
of the old one being mucked by prominent individuals. It really urks
you, though! You must be a nuuk/yoo/lar guy yourself.
>
> All of the entries in our dictionary (including their pronunciations,
> meanings, etc.) are based on usage. We have an extensive collection of files
> which date back to the 19th century. Language is changing all of the time in
> all respects, and any dictionary which purports to be an accurate
> description of the language in question must be constantly updated to
> reflect these changes. All words were pronounced differently at some time in
> the past. There is simply no scholarly basis for preferring one
> pronunciation over another, and the term "correct" pronunciation doesn't
> mean anything objectively. To not list all pronunciation variants would be
> irresponsible and a failure of our mission to provide a serious, scholarly,
> record of the current American English language.
>
I'm glad they document everything in the dictionary, Bill, but I never
said anything about that. There are lots of words in the dictionary
that Sarah Palin and Joe Biden probably shouldn't use when talking to
the American public. Whenever you're thinking about whether being
correct in a particular aspect of your use of language, spoken or
written, you have to bear in mind your audience. You're right: there is
no stone table of unchanging proper English. (not even online!) But
just the same, there is no stone tablet of what your audience will make
of your speech. Nuuk/yoo/lar just sounds dumb to a lot of people. It's
very common to hear someone use good as an adverb, too - I like when
Tiger Woods says he "played good today" - but that doesn't make it
correct, if your audience doesn't think it is.
John the Savage
Thank you for being up front, and admitting your opinion of the debate
is attributable only to your political predisposition. If you had made
any actual point in favor of Palin we would have wasted more time here.
I like the two big gags of "rating" this debate:
1) Lowering the expectations of Palin such that any mediocre performance
can be defined as a "victory"
2) The ability of Americans to decide who won based solely on who they
have already decided to vote for. Similarly, we distrust anyone else's
opinion of the debate as partisan propaganda. Thus, we create a
situation where there is no reliable debate assessment anyway and it
only serves to confirm what we already believe.
It really is strange to me how the same people watch the same debate,
and you can predict what they will think of it solely by whom they are
going to vote for. Are we really this shallow? Is there anyone out
there with any integrity at all? Help.
Pepe Papon
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:qjhbe4pgsen9qefka...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:20:43 -0400, John the Savage
>> <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Porsche_Dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
>>>> observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
>>>> etc..........
>>>>
>>>
>>>We'll see. Honestly, I think Biden has done better than I expected. I
>>>wasn't a big fan of the choice, but he is doing alright here. I do
>>>think she is doing poorly; she generally just ignores the question.
>>>Although America probably won't notice that.
>>
>> I'm afraid that she won even though she lost. Clearly, Biden showed
>> far more knowledge and experience and agave better answers, but Palin
>> succeeded in not looking stupid, and was ever so folksy and cutesy.
>> Although the instapolls showed that Biden won by a big margin,
>> people's opinion of Palin went up, and she is looking a lot less like
>> a liability than she did before the debate.
>
>Christ, pepe. Lie some more, will you?
>
>All objective views were tie/ slight Palin win.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.poll/index.html
Who did you say was lying?
ruylopez
> On Oct 2 2008 6:58 PM, John the Savage wrote:
>
> > Too funny. Will she actually answer a question at some point? I wonder.
> >
> > Seriously, Repos, are you comfortable putting this woman one heartbeat
> > from the Presidency? Honestly? When the President is 72, 73, 75 years
> > old? Gulp.
>
> No, it is NEW-CLE-AR 3 SYLLABLES, NOT 2
>
> and so what? Jimmy Carter said Nucular and he was a nuclear engineer (and
> since my degrees are all in Chemical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering is
> close to my heart, and I don't give a shit, so why should you?)
>
I dunno, it just bothers the hell out of me. She sounded downright hokey
and uneducated when she attempted to say the word, and so did Carter. It
may not matter to you, but there is a portion of the audience who will
lower their opinion of you for failing to pronounce and use the language
properly. I don't know why anyone would deliberately alienate a segment
of the audience when they could just learn to speak it correctly.
About the syllables, while you are technically correct, saying to yourself
NEW-CLEAR will work pretty much every time. The presence or absence of
that syllable on the end is very difficult to detect. It is just a simple
way to learn it that works in a practical sense, and would be a good thing
for Palin, Bush, and Carter to keep in mind.
And damnit, I'm trying to retire this nick! You may not be aware that
this post never showed up in usenet, so to reply to it, I have to log in
to recgroups and do it this way. Soon I will give up on ever doing so.
But for now, it's worth pointing it out, because I think a lot of posters
here still don't realize how incredibly poor recgroups is lately. It's
remarkably slow, and sometimes it decides your post is never going to get
on the real internet anyway. You may as well know that if you're replying
to a non-recgroups user, there's a good chance they won't see it for hours
(especially at night), and a small chance they won't see it ever.
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
>If the debate was scored as they do with debate teams, Biden won on
>point, narrowly.
Narrowly? Palin scores debate points for content-free responses that
don't even address the questions asked? Tell me you're joking.
John_Brian_K
> but step outside and askone how Tijuana is pronouced. I can almost
> guarantee that one of out 10 will get it right.
I will take 4 for 1000 Alex.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ChrisRobin
> "Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:qjhbe4pgsen9qefka...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:20:43 -0400, John the Savage
> > <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Porsche_Dan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> She did a lot better than I thought she would. I think non biased
> >>> observers will call it a tie, no knock-outs, good back and forth,
> >>> etc..........
> >>>
> >>
> >>We'll see. Honestly, I think Biden has done better than I expected. I
> >>wasn't a big fan of the choice, but he is doing alright here. I do
> >>think she is doing poorly; she generally just ignores the question.
> >>Although America probably won't notice that.
> >
> > I'm afraid that she won even though she lost. Clearly, Biden showed
> > far more knowledge and experience and agave better answers, but Palin
> > succeeded in not looking stupid, and was ever so folksy and cutesy.
> > Although the instapolls showed that Biden won by a big margin,
> > people's opinion of Palin went up, and she is looking a lot less like
> > a liability than she did before the debate.
>
> Christ, pepe. Lie some more, will you?
>
> All objective views were tie/ slight Palin win.
Which debate did you watch?
_______________________________________________________________________
BillB
> Why, hello Bill. Do you always start off with an insult to the ol'
> intelligence, or did I touch some sort of a nerve? Maybe you should just
> killfile me again.
When did I killfile you? Are you da pickle? To the best of my recollection,
that is the only person I have ever killfiled in nearly a decade here ...
and even that was only temporary.
And when did I insult your intelligence? If you have interpreted anything I
wrote as an insult to your intelligence, it follows that you are claiming
something near or above a 160 IQ. Are you? IMHO your writing simply does not
reflect that level of intelligence. For example, I found it illogical that
you would think you are in a position to adjudge someone as brilliant as
Carter "less intelligent" because he uses a variant pronunciation of one
word. It is, in fact, an absolutely ludicrous statement.
If you have a cite for Carter's IQ, I'd like to
> see it. Most of what you see online and such referenced as "Presidential
> IQs" or IQs of other famous people is just somebody's guess, and the
> credibility varies wildly. There may well be more solid figures available
> for Carter, that would make sense. I just think they would be
> interesting, and couldn't find anything I trusted myself. (in a few
> minutes..)
> Anyway, 160 is better than just 99.9...
Which is precisely what I wrote. It seems your reading comprehension has a
ways to go to catch up with your authoritative pronunciation skills.
>... and while I do think an RGP-wide IQ contest would be interesting, I
>don't feel the need to drop digits to buy credibility here. If you offered
>some sort of a wager, I'd listen. Your interest in the subject is noted.
Wager about what?
> I did not ever say I was more intelligent than Jimmy Carter, nor does what
> I stated depend in anyway on that being true. So I won't waste time on
> it.
>
>> Secondly, there is no such thing in the English language as a commonly
>> used pronunciation being "just wrong". Once again, Merriam-Webster can
>> explain it much better than I:
>>
>
> Who gave Mirriam-Webster the keys to the English language? Let's not
> quarrel about this, but for someone who is bemoaning the establishment
> interpretation of English, you sure are giving a lot of authority to an
> online dictionary.
Merriam-Webster is not just an "online dictionary". If it makes you feel any
better, the preeminent Oxford English Dictionary also recognizes nuc.u.lar
as a variant pronunciation.
> "Nuclear" is not "February". The word and concept of "nuclear" is
> relatively new. It comes from the word nucleus. How do you say that one?
> Nuuk-yoo-lus? I guess if enough people did that, you could get it in the
> dictionary. Besides that, the dictionary even goes out of its way to note
> that many people object to the new pronunciation.
> The word has an origin, and the new pronunciation has only appeared out of
> the old one being mucked by prominent individuals. It really urks you,
> though! You must be a nuuk/yoo/lar guy yourself.
Ummm...that is fairly typical of how new pronunciations evolve into
widespread usage. But no, it is not the pronunciation I use. Nor do I use
your pronunciation: new-clear; my pronunciation has the standard three
syllables: new.klee.er). Although I must confess I usually treat the "r" as
silent in February. I hope you won't think less of me.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:f52ir5x...@recgroups.com...
watched.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:kByFk.45$2J7...@newsfe02.iad...
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:2YoFk.381$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>> Christ, pepe. Lie some more, will you?
>>
>> All objective views were tie/ slight Palin win.
>
> Now you're going to stoop to Wuzzy's level and accuse people of "lying"
> for making accurate statements?
Nope. Just when he lies.
Don't snip his lie, now. It only makes you look like an accomplice.
>
> I have seen only two scientific polls on the debate and both showed Biden
> winning by a very healthy margin. Perhaps it is you who does not have an
> "objective view".
>
Bill, don't be a shithead.
My statement was about people with a clue. Professionals, not the unwashed
masses.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
I stated OBJECTIVE views.
Professionals, not the idiots who claim their candidate won.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Clave" <Cla...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:9585315e-ff72-46f7...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
***
I'd be happy not to think so.
Learn to actually think and decide.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:fFvFk.28$kn5...@newsfe12.iad...
>
FL Turbo
Here is one thoughtful post from a source that is totally unbiased.
Biden's 14 22 Lies, Gross Factual Errors, and Moronic Misinformation
輸ce
Another one.
When Biden claimed that Pakistan could hit Israel with a missile, I
turned to someone and said, "What?" But you know -- I wasn't sure.
It sounded bunk to me -- that's the range of a full ICBM -- but who
knows.
Maybe Slow Joe had learned something from his thirty six years of
experience that I didn't.
Dave from Garfield Ridge similarly turned to his gf and said, "What?"
Well, there's another one. Not even close.
Israel is over 2000 miles from Pakistan. Pakistan's longest range
missile can make 1000 miles.
Not even close.
But remember, Sarah Palin is the chucklehead here.
I want to stress -- these are not lies. Lies are conscious falsehoods
told to advance one's position.
These are simply the moronic ramblings of a man who is too fucking
stupid to even glean the most elementary information from his day-in,
day-out 36 year long job.
Lies would be evidence of a lack of integrity, which is reason for
worry, but hey, we're used to it.
These are simply the ramblings of a senile old fool who was a bit of
an imbecile even when his mind wasn't deteriorating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Biden, Mr.ForeignPolicyExpert, gets acclaimed by the Press for having
wonderfully detailed explanations of foreign policy.
No need to do any fact checking on him, is there?
Pretty easy to win debate points when he is allowed to pull "facts"
straight out of his ass without anybody checking.
John the Savage
>
>> Why, hello Bill. Do you always start off with an insult to the ol'
>> intelligence, or did I touch some sort of a nerve? Maybe you should just
>> killfile me again.
>
> When did I killfile you? Are you da pickle? To the best of my recollection,
> that is the only person I have ever killfiled in nearly a decade here ...
> and even that was only temporary.
>
Lol you killfiled Pickle? No, that's not me, but I've posted here for
years off and on as ruylopez. The fact that this is the first reaction
I can recall getting out of you makes me suspect I was killfiled before.
> And when did I insult your intelligence? If you have interpreted anything I
> wrote as an insult to your intelligence, it follows that you are claiming
> something near or above a 160 IQ. Are you? IMHO your writing simply does not
> reflect that level of intelligence. For example, I found it illogical that
> you would think you are in a position to adjudge someone as brilliant as
> Carter "less intelligent" because he uses a variant pronunciation of one
> word. It is, in fact, an absolutely ludicrous statement.
>
Well, I don't think Carter's intelligence is infinite. And yes, he can
do this that will lower my opinion of his intelligence regardless of how
smart he is, relative to me or otherwise. I don't see what's ludicrous
about that. You seem to be implying that one cannot evaluate the
intelligence of another who has already proven himself to be, in some
way, really smart.
And yea, I did interpret it as an insult, and as inaccurate. But like I
said, I don't want to get into an IQ showing contest. Your quote was
that a 160 IQ reflects an intelligence "far, far" higher than mine.
What is "far, far" in terms of a number, Bill? I think that's gotta be
at least 35 points. I don't have to get into the details, or really be
anything besides very modest, to claim that I wouldn't score that low
given half the normal time. As for the wager, well, since you are so
confident in your ability to quickly assess how I would score on a
conventional intelligence test, I just thought you might like to back
the notion up with a wager. I didn't really expect you to bite.
Long story short: yea, what you said WAS an insult to my intelligence.
But it's cool, we're on RGP!
>
> Ummm...that is fairly typical of how new pronunciations evolve into
> widespread usage. But no, it is not the pronunciation I use. Nor do I use
> your pronunciation: new-clear; my pronunciation has the standard three
> syllables: new.klee.er). Although I must confess I usually treat the "r" as
> silent in February. I hope you won't think less of me.
>
No, as I've already noted I don't find the comparison to February
particularly compelling. Like I said, it's about what your audience
thinks. We are just going to disagree on this one, I think. For years
and years it was taught everywhere that the Palin pronunciation was just
wrong. You may think everyone's opinion of that changed as soon as the
dictionaries decided to publish it, but it did not. I don't think less
of you; actually I think you've represented this side of the argument
well. Language is complicated and changing, but in my opinion, we
should always strive to use the language in the most objectively
"correct" way possible, especially when speaking to a broad audience.
(of course, it's not the kind of thing that matters to Joe Six-Pack, so
I doubt she really cared)
BillB
This is simply textbook circular reasoning. If I show you a "professional"
who says Biden won, you will claim he is either not objective or clueless.
Lame.
Pepe Papon
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
You idiot. I said that the instapolls indicated that Biden won. You
called that a lie. I proved that it's true. And then you go
blathering about pundits?
What's even worse is that you seem to actually believe that the
professionals are objective.
pltrgyst
>> That says nothing about him being wrong about correctness -- it merely
>> confirms
>> that there are a lot of stupid English-speakers in the world. You know
>> them --
>> people who say "chimbley", "excape", "expresso", "nucular", etc. Or
>> athletes who
>> don't pronounce their own last names as they're spelled, pronouncing, for
>> example, "Jeffires" as "Jeffries",
>
>Not too familiar with dictionaries, are we? It is saying it is accepted
>usage.
I'd say anyone who quotes a generic "Merriam-Webster" without using the word
"unabridged" doesn't know much about dictionaries. As does use of the word
"accepted" without qualification.
Quote the OED second edition, or the AHD 4th (I have both), and you're saying
something.
To say that language is a living, evolving thing, is one thing. To wantonly
discard principles of pronunciation so that the language cannot be parsed from
its spelling is to permanently damage the language.
-- Larry
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
And Fox News showed she won.
They're meaningless and biased, and using them to support an argument is
lying, period.
>
> What's even worse is that you seem to actually believe that the
> professionals are objective.
Professional news reporters, not politically biased pundants.
Beldin the Sorcerer
The pundits all called it for their candidate of choice.
The news people called it a draw/ slight Palin advantage. ABC radio's rep,
NBC radio's rep, AND CBS radio's rep
>
Dutch
> rep, NBC radio's rep, AND CBS radio's rep
According to your unsubstantiatied word.
Clave
news:8cKFk.596$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Beldin gets to redefine words like "objective" when he doesn't like the
prevailing facts.
No true Scotsman and all that.
Jim
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:ctCdnTxQqa2So3XV...@cablespeedmi.com...
I get to define them correctly.
Objective means not initially biased.
You've been biased this whole time.
>
> No true Scotsman and all that.
>
Actually I'm a Scot, and Irish.
And yet I don't drink.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
Clave
And you haven't. Sure, Beldin. Whatever you say.
>> No true Scotsman and all that.
>>
> Actually I'm a Scot, and Irish.
> And yet I don't drink.
You have no idea what I was referring to.
Jim
Dutch
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CbXFk.747$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
According to you.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:rAXFk.99$Oc...@newsfe05.iad...
Shit, how retarded are you?
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
In favor of the Obama camp, if you look at which of the two idiots my
expressed preference is.
And yet I'm pointing out things that don't favor him.
This would be a clear example of non-biased behavior.
How about YOU list 4 points where you think Obama or Biden are morons?
>
>
>>> No true Scotsman and all that.
>>>
>> Actually I'm a Scot, and Irish.
>> And yet I don't drink.
>
> You have no idea what I was referring to.
Probably some Mike Myers reference.
Clave
>
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:0rmdnVNvb-Rl3HXV...@cablespeedmi.com...
<...everyone's biased but Beldin...>
>> And you haven't. Sure, Beldin. Whatever you say.
>
> Shit for brains, where's my bias?
Right there for everyone (except you, apparently) to see in pretty much
everything you've been posting.
> In favor of the Obama camp, if you look at which of the two idiots my
> expressed preference is.
>
> And yet I'm pointing out things that don't favor him.
> This would be a clear example of non-biased behavior.
>
> How about YOU list 4 points where you think Obama or Biden are morons?
Why? That's how *you* view the world.
I could point out where I differ with them on policy, but clearly neither of
them are morons.
>>>> No true Scotsman and all that.
>>>>
>>> Actually I'm a Scot, and Irish.
>>> And yet I don't drink.
>>
>> You have no idea what I was referring to.
>
> Probably some Mike Myers reference.
That pretty much confirms everything I'd been thinking about your
intellectual honesty and curiosity.
Jim
Dutch
Listen..
according the WBZ... according to you.
Are you getting it yet?
Beldin the Sorcerer
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:mHXFk.758$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:0rmdnVNvb-Rl3HXV...@cablespeedmi.com...
>
> <...everyone's biased but Beldin...>
>
>>> And you haven't. Sure, Beldin. Whatever you say.
>>
>> Shit for brains, where's my bias?
>
> Right there for everyone (except you, apparently) to see in pretty much
> everything you've been posting.
See what a retard you are? My bias in favor of the Democratic ticket has me
pointing out their errors?
That makes some degree of sense to you?
>
>
>> In favor of the Obama camp, if you look at which of the two idiots my
>> expressed preference is.
>>
>> And yet I'm pointing out things that don't favor him.
>> This would be a clear example of non-biased behavior.
>>
>> How about YOU list 4 points where you think Obama or Biden are morons?
>
> Why? That's how *you* view the world.
Yes. That no 'perfect candidate exists'.
That most people have some idiotic positions.
You have a TON of them, largely from ignorance.
>
> I could point out where I differ with them on policy, but clearly neither
> of them are morons.
Obama picked Biden.
He's a moron.
Palin doesn't believe in evolution.
SHE's a moron.
It isn't hard.
>
>
>>>>> No true Scotsman and all that.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually I'm a Scot, and Irish.
>>>> And yet I don't drink.
>>>
>>> You have no idea what I was referring to.
>>
>> Probably some Mike Myers reference.
>
> That pretty much confirms everything I'd been thinking about your
> intellectual honesty and curiosity.
Yep, you're a shithead.
It confirms I have no curiosity about some obscure term you used, and I know
MM is the most likely source of a Scot reference in popular culture.
Clave
>
> "Clave" <Cla...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:9585315e-ff72-46f7...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 6:06 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
<...>
>> Jimbo, you show yourself a partisan asshole.
>
> I'd be disappointed in myself if you didn't think so.
>
> ***
> I'd be happy not to think so.
I know. Every herd member feels a *bit* more secure when another thrall
joins.
Jim
Clave
>
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:3I6dncOEGr_U1HXV...@cablespeedmi.com...
>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:mHXFk.758$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0rmdnVNvb-Rl3HXV...@cablespeedmi.com...
>>
>> <...everyone's biased but Beldin...>
>>
>>>> And you haven't. Sure, Beldin. Whatever you say.
>>>
>>> Shit for brains, where's my bias?
>>
>> Right there for everyone (except you, apparently) to see in pretty much
>> everything you've been posting.
>
> See what a retard you are?
I see that while you hang on every word I write, you give me no reason at
all to read your drivel past the first bit of frothing nonsense.
Jim
Pepe Papon
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
No, I showed that the *scientifically conducted" instapolls showed he
won.
>And Fox News showed she won.
Did Fox News conduct a scientific poll? If so, I'd like to see it.
Link?
>They're meaningless and biased, and using them to support an argument is
>lying, period.
If they're biased, then all the other widely cited polls are biased.
So, by your reasoning, it's lying to cite any poll to support an
argument.
>>
>> What's even worse is that you seem to actually believe that the
>> professionals are objective.
>Professional news reporters, not politically biased pundants.
Like who, exactly?
Pepe Papon
And education.
Beldin the Sorcerer
I've never fallen victim to allying myself with factions.
Clave
You sure assume a lot of stupid shit.
I've never been a member of any political party.
Jim
Beldin the Sorcerer
It's a fact. It's probably a documented fact on their website.
It's surely one that any of the millions of Mass residents who listen every
day could choose to refute, if it wasn't true.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> I've never been a member of any political party.
>
Doesn't matter what party you may vote for.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
Clave
Wow.
You don't know what "socialist" means.
Jim
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ogYFk.17084$aM2....@newsfe10.iad...
>>
>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:BDXFk.755$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rAXFk.99$Oc...@newsfe05.iad...
>>>>
>>>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:CbXFk.747$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:tUWFk.21647$%t.1...@newsfe01.iad...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>>>> The news people called it a draw/ slight Palin advantage. ABC
>>>>>>> radio's rep, NBC radio's rep, AND CBS radio's rep
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to your unsubstantiatied word.
>>>>> No, according to WBZ radio
>>>>
>>>> According to you.
>>> No, shithead, according the WBZ.
>>
>> Listen..
>>
>> according the WBZ... according to you.
>>
>> Are you getting it yet?
> Shithead, they played it.
So you say.
> It's a fact. It's probably a documented fact on their website.
From www.wbz.com
"Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin on Friday played up her debate
performance as polls showed voters judging her Democratic rival, Joe Biden,
to be the winner of the only vice presidential face-off of the campaign."
> It's surely one that any of the millions of Mass residents who listen
> every day could choose to refute, if it wasn't true.
Unbiased viewers of that debate saw Palin stammer, dodge questions, ramble
off on non sequiturs while Biden stayed focused and on point. Did you even
watch the thing?
Beldin the Sorcerer
You're supporting a candidate that's near-socialist.
Dutch
So?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:gca0je$v6o$1...@aioe.org...
Shithead, did you LOOK at the website you picked?
It's not the correct one, you fucking moron.
>
>> It's surely one that any of the millions of Mass residents who listen
>> every day could choose to refute, if it wasn't true.
>
> Unbiased viewers of that debate saw Palin stammer, dodge questions, ramble
> off on non sequiturs while Biden stayed focused and on point. Did you even
> watch the thing?
Shithead, I cited the radio report.
It's not my opinion AT ALL, you fucking imbecile.
My opinion has NO BEARING on this at all, you partisan shithead.
>
John_Brian_K
> non-answer. She can take a specific policy question and spin a folksy yarn
> around it full of "gosh", "gee-whiz" and the like, and unless you're looking
> for it, you never notice that she never got close to actually answering the
> question.
>
> Jim
WOW! That sounds EXACTLY like every other politician in the history of
politics. Shame on her.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Dutch
Why would I want to do that?
Dutch
The "correct one"? It's the website of WBZ radio. How about substantiating
your own claims instead of flailing around?
>
>>
>>> It's surely one that any of the millions of Mass residents who listen
>>> every day could choose to refute, if it wasn't true.
>>
>> Unbiased viewers of that debate saw Palin stammer, dodge questions,
>> ramble off on non sequiturs while Biden stayed focused and on point. Did
>> you even watch the thing?
> Shithead, I cited the radio report.
What makes you think it's compelling when *you claim* that some unnamed
radio reporters think she won the debate?
> It's not my opinion AT ALL, you fucking imbecile.
>
> My opinion has NO BEARING on this at all, you partisan shithead.
You're fucking pathetic, as always.
brewmaster
Just so long as you don't pronounce the "t" in "often". That drives me batty.
brewmaster
> (of course, it's not the kind of thing that matters to Joe Six-Pack, so
> I doubt she really cared)
There is also the possibility that the McCain campaign wanted a slight
connection to G. Bush without actually stating so, and coached her to
use this particular pronunciation as he does.
brewmaster
She may have dodged questions, and she may have rattled off things she
was coached to say, but she never once stammered. In fact, she was
quite self-assured throughout and was in Biden's face quite a bit of
the time. Watch it again.
Clave
Heh. You don't have to keep proving my point for me, but thanks, I guess.
Jim
Pepe Papon
I'm sure you do, as I never studied socioeconomic theory. And yet,
you don't understand the "No true Scotsman" reference.
Go ahead, Google it. It shouldn't be hard to find.
Beldin the Sorcerer
No, fuckhead, it isn't.
http://wbz1030.com/
That's the address for the radio station.
WBZ is also a TV station.
>>
>>>
>>>> It's surely one that any of the millions of Mass residents who listen
>>>> every day could choose to refute, if it wasn't true.
>>>
>>> Unbiased viewers of that debate saw Palin stammer, dodge questions,
>>> ramble off on non sequiturs while Biden stayed focused and on point. Did
>>> you even watch the thing?
>> Shithead, I cited the radio report.
>
> What makes you think it's compelling when *you claim* that some unnamed
> radio reporters think she won the debate?
Shithead, how fucking ignorant are you?
How does "push / slight edge" equate with "Won"?
Are you REALLY this stupid?
>
>
>> It's not my opinion AT ALL, you fucking imbecile.
>>
>> My opinion has NO BEARING on this at all, you partisan shithead.
>
> You're fucking pathetic, as always.
Dutch, you were born brainless.
You'll die brainless.
You'll be brainless the whole time in between.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message