Re: a question for inger

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.on.com.au)
Date: 11/18/04 

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:45:21 GMT

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > HughJampton_2@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >>
> >>>HughJampton_2@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Tedd Jacobs wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Seppo Renfors" wrote...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Are you for real? Are you really that foolish you don't think
> >>
> >>I
> >>
> >>>>KNOW
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>how this thread of abuse started?? It was Teddy boy's
> >>
> >>proposal to
> >>
> >>>>take
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>a "vote" on if the KRS is genuine or not - totally
> >>
> >>unintelligent!
> >>
> >>>>>>>There was NOTHING scientific at all about the Teddy boy's
> >>
> >>post -
> >>
> >>>>it
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>was solely intended for *** stirring - to get that conga
> >>
> >>line of
> >>
> >>>>>>>suckholes going that you participate in.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>question: where in this thread did i propose taking a "vote"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tedd Jacobs wrote:
> >>>>><cmvce702mi0@enews2.newsguy.com>
> >>>>>inger,
> >>>>> lets do a pop quiz (just for kicks):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>is it possible the KRS is not a genuine norse artifact?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>(this is a 'yes' or 'no' question only, no reasons please.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>[end quote - that was the total message]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It was the VERY FIRST POST in this thread, that was created by
> >>
> >>you.
> >>
> >>>>A question posed to a single person, as the title of the thread
> >>>>indicates, can hardly be called a vote. A vote asks many people to
> >>
> >>make
> >>
> >>>>a choice in order to ascertain a majority preference or opinion.
> >>
> >>This
> >>
> >>>>question was clearly directed to Inger alone.
> >>>
> >>>Well there is no accounting for what some people would call "sense"
> >>>but there is it for whatever it is worth (zero). Only if it was
> >>>personal and intended to merely BE personal, then it wouldn't be on a
> >>>news group - but on e-mail, wouldn't it.
> >>
> >>This is actually quite common nowadays in a range of communication
> >>media, I believe. One person asks another person a question in order to
> >>elicit an opinion for the benefit of many people who may be interested.
> >>This happens not just in one-to-one communication (as in your e-mail
> >>example) but can also take place between two people in front of a large
> >>audience: newspaper interviews, radio interviews, television chat
> >>shows. It's far more common than you think. In no case would a question
> >>asked of one person in these circumstances be called a vote.
> >
> >
> > A "pop quiz", "straw poll" or "vote" are all in the same league -
>
> Seppo,
>
> A 'pop quiz' is a short test on short notice. Your attempt to
> reason from first principles and definitions below is once again
> wasted effort as the term has a meaning, whether you are
> familiar with it or not. (Or do you think that 'pop' in 'pop
> goes the weasel' means, 'popular goes the weasel'?)
>
> Thus, Tedd was proposing a quick, short test to get answer a
> specific question from a specific person.

You have lost the plot in a really big way now.

You are WRONG, simple as that. The language is clear, it cannot be
contorted to your bogus claim, simple as that! The evidence is
overwhelming to say you are wrong, just check google and see how wrong
you are.

> > (as applies here)
> > POP - adjective [attrib.] 1 of or relating to commercial popular
> > music.
> > 2 often derogatory: (especially of a technical, scientific, or
> > academic subject) made accessible to the general public - OED
> >
> > So we see "pop" stand for "popular" as in "general public" in the #2
> > derogatory sense and "made accessible to the general public". So it
> > isn't actually possible for it to be a "personal" communication for
> > the reason of the use of that word alone.
> >
> > (in this case)
> > QUIZ - noun (pl. quizzes) a test of knowledge, especially as a
> > competition between individuals or teams as a form of entertainment. -
> > OED
> >
> > NOTE: The OED insists on plurals even as "individuals" - Tedd is the
> > "organiser" and therefor not a participant - ergo, a public intent is
> > apparent.
> >
> > As it is a PUBLIC forum, it is only reasonable and expected (and
> > certainly had the effect) to assume a public intent for that reason
> > alone (forgetting the actual words that says it is for the moment).
>
> Thanks, Seppo. That was amusing. Not germane, but amusing.

You just don't get it at all, do you. I present multiple layers of
evidence of what I have said to be correct - and THAT is the best you
can do?? Perhaps it is about spreading my text all over the place to
hide the context of it?

> > It is further supported by the word "lets" the abbreviated "let us".
>
> The 'us' referred to is Tedd (who proposed the quiz), and
> Inger, to whom the quiz was addressed. Many of us native
> English speakers got that from the context.

So you are claiming to be a POM all of a sudden...... what, too
embarrassing to remain as a Yank is it? Tell you what, it hasn't
improved your English none - or logic for that matter!!

> > It is proposal to Inger to together organise a "popular quiz"
> > (accessible to the public) - THAT is what the subject line refers to -
>
> The subject line is 'a question for inger'. Nothing to do with
> 'quiz' or 'popular' (which word was never used or intended by Tedd).
>
> > and the "quiz" therefor must be directed at unspecified others (note
> > plural) in the group - and it has been so understood.
>
> By everyone but...well, by no one but you. Even Inger knows
> that the question was directed solely at her.

You are wrong there too - alternately deliberately misrepresenting
her. She corrected implied claims of fact embedded in the text
according to her view. Didn't they teach you English (or whatever is
in place of it) at school?

> That evidence is
> > overwhelming. Turn it which ever way around, you arrive at the same
> > answer - it was NOT a one to one question - it was a proposal to
> > vote...
>
> It is fun watching your mind work.
>
> >
> > One more thing is that it is intended as entertainment for Ted and Co
> > as it was initiated by Ted - the oh so popular "Inger bashing" that is
> > totally OFF TOPIC and an abuse of the group.
>
> Odd.

So you think "Inger bashing" is what this group is all about, do you?

> I'd think that the question of whether a protagonist in
> an on-going discussion about the authenticity of the KRS can
> imagine a situation in which the stone might not be a genuine
> Norse artifact is on-topic.

Why do you NEED to bull*** for? Read the definition for "pop" again!!
"Inger bashing" isn't "on topic" ever! Why do you think it is OK - and
why have you been engaging in it and why are you defending others who
are so engaged too?

> Or at least as on-topic as the
> whole KRS business is as a whole. Or do you think establishing
> possible biases of a poster on an issue in which the poster is
> fully engaged is not relevant? You seem to spend a reasonable
> amount of time on that exercise.

There is nothing left to discuss - it is done, all done - the verdict
has been in for a long time - well, for anyone who relies on evidence
at least, instead of little pixies at the bottom of the garden and
magic that is.

> Note Tedd has never
> > denied this intent of his.
>
> It doesn't appear to have been his intent. Your statement begs
> the question, and is illogical on that basis.

I have said it is his intent, he has replied to me but NOT refuted
that intent - ie an implied ADMISSION of that intent.
>
> > So whilst I agree, it is possible to direct a question to a particular
> > person, this was not the case here.
>
> This could be interesting:
>
> Seppo, how would *you* frame a direct question to Inger to
> elicit an answer to Tedd's question?

Tedd doesn't have a question - an intent to incite is NOT a
"question", you know. 

-- 
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quantcast