Communication problems
Steve Hayes
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f9eos2dsnv17qjnq1...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:55:55 +0200, "Skokkie" <gle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b9ns210f08ahb7r4...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:49:38 +0200, "Skokkie" <gle...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >For want of a better word - I was trying to be polite.
>> >> >> >Clinical analysis as opposed to ad hominem ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this
>> >> >> analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features can be defined
>in
>> >> >> such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions
>into
>> >> >> these various categories. I suggested that these results would
>follow
>> >> >> from the assumption that the descriptive power of the base
>> >> >> component is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command
>> >> >> discussed in connection with (34). Nevertheless, a subset of English
>> >> >> sentences interesting on quite independent grounds delimits the
>> >> >> strong generative capacity of the theory. However, this assumption
>> >> >> is not correct, since a case of semigrammaticalness of a different
>> >> >> sort is rather different from the system of base rules exclusive of
>the
>> >> >> lexicon. Thus the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively
>> >> >> inaccessible to ordinary extraction may remedy and, at the same
>> >> >> time, eliminate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity
>> >> >> has been defined by the paired utterance test.
>> >> >
>> >> >Gee that is smart. Smarter than me and all of the others
>> >> >I am intimidated and impressed. You have worked hard at it.
>> >>
>> >> Not really. It came from a web site that generates meaningless academic
>> >> gobbledegook. You just push a key and it spits it out.
>> >
>> >Oh a sort of plagiaristic thing, designed to frustrate the discussion and
>> >introduce an ad hominem method of refusing to answer the question.
>>
>> What question?
>
>The ones that you cannot answer
Now that is precisely the kind of response that provokes me to post
gobbledegook.
Can you see it?
It is an answer, but it is not an answer, because I still have no idea what
questions you mean.
It may be that you enjoy these Sphinx-type riddling games, and perhaps if one
is in a dark cave with nothing better to do than exchange riddles with Gollum,
it can serve to while the time away. But in other circumstances it becomes
tiresome.
If you are doing this because I have offended you, then please forgive me. I
do not want to offend you, but I also get a bit impatient when you respond in
riddles, and obscure references that may mean something to you, but the
meaning is not necessarily apparent to others.
If my responding in like manner hurt you or annoyed you, I'm sorry. It was
intended to be didactic -- to show that an obscure response does not aid
discussion.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Skokkie
I think that most of the people in this newsgroup will be able to ascertain
exactly who is prone to sphinx like obscure responses.
I requested that you desist.
Bye