Re: The language of the KRS


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qn1vr1d6ohon9hahviddapp5pv4lpuf18j@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:37:44 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:l7ptr19sgh015avf9d3bjdk1v61gpdblpl@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:00:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:3llrr1hhq41fa53uc3nogd5tgrjb3muki6@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>I have been sent a video of an address given by Scott Wolter and ***
>>>>> Nielsen at a book-signing on Dec 10-05.
>>>>>
>>>>> *** Nielsen made an interesting comment. I didn't note the exact
>>>>> words but I can loosley paraphrase him as saying that according to
>>>>> Henrik Williams 'it is now more difficult to categorise the language
>>>>> of the KRS as being from the 19th century than it is to categorise it
>>>>> as being from the 14th century'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you watch the video again (and again and again, if that's what
>>>>it
>>>>takes) and reproduce the exact words, rather than loosely paraphrasing
>>>>the
>>>>source.
>>>
>>> What is the point of exactly quoting someone else's paraphrase?
>>
>>Better question: What is the point of asking you a simply question.
>
> With you Steve, there are no simple questions.
>
>>Try to follow along, Eric:
>>
>>1. You report that you were sent a video of a book signing address at
>>which
>>Nielsen made a comment.
>>
>>2. You further report that you didn't note Nielsen's "exact words", but
>>that you can "loosely paraphrase what Nielsen said.
>>
>>3. I asked you why you don't watch the video sufficiently to note
>>Nielsen's
>>exact words, and reproduce *those words* here, rather than loosely
>>paraphrasing the source (which in this case would be Nielsen).
>>
>>Is there some part of my question that you now do not understand (not that
>>it could by any stretch of anyone's imagination that I ever requested you
>>to
>>quote someone else's paraphrase)?

Note is taken of your refusal to answer. The logical assumption is that
refusal is based upon your inability to give a cogent reply. Your habit of
reading things and then claiming that you've read them in insufficient depth
to discuss them *after you post and start a discussion about them*, seems to
now be augmented by your having listened to a video without later being able
to precisely state what you heard. Again, that didn't keep you from posting
to start a discussion about what you think might be the sense of what you've
heard.

You are one *fine* scientist, Eric.

>>
>>>>
>>>>Even better, perhaps you can report the "why" behind Nielsen's
>>>>statement.
>>>
>>> It wasn't stated, although it might be possible for you to deduce it
>>> after you have read the book.
>>
>>Were *you* able to deduce it after *you* read the book?
>
> Possibly.

Then why not give us year guess, Eric? You've had no problem reporting your
guesses so far; the problems seem to occur when people choose to discuss
those guesses with you.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.