Re: deepfriedmars.com
From: Joseph W. Murphy (jwmurphy700_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 11/26/04
- Next message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Another Daniels screwup"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Another Daniels screwup [was: Re: Claims [was: Re: Drifting phonemes [was: Re: The AmE 'o' sound]]]"
- In reply to: alexV: "Re: deepfriedmars.com"
- Next in thread: Radovan Garabik: "Re: deepfriedmars.com"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:58:50 GMT
"alexV" <alexV7623@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YcSdncsk-e6tRDvcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>
> Well, it is a nice reading but what is your point? Or maybe I am too tired
> now to get down to the bottom of it? Will try again tomorrow. I cannot see
> where your sarcasm is leading you to.
>
I'll try to enlighten you.
My intent was to parody earlier posts made by you and Miguel Cruz concerning
the relative superiority of English to (in chronological order Russian,
Thai, Chinese, Korean, Malay, Latin) as practical communicative devices.
There would have been no purpose to my parody if you and he had simply
stated that English is the most useful language for international science
and commerce because it is a lingua franca and left matters there. However,
both he, and particularly you, went even further, stating, either explicitly
or by implication, that all of these languages were structurally, or from a
more everyday utilitarian standpoint, inferior to English.
BTW, my problems with some of the things you have stated do not end there.
Specifically, in a couple of your posts you infer that the linguistic
inadequacies you complain of are not merely structural. Rather you seem to
see them as being "biological" in nature. Indeed, you state in one of your
earlier posts that Russian's supposed
inadequacies stem not so much from the Russian language as from Russians.
I'm referring now to the following not-so-cryptic little
morsel that you posted:
> "But the trouble is that the communities themselves conspicuously are not
created equal or if they are then some of them are more equal than >others
so to speak. The question is why? Does the language have anything to do
with it? Not causatively of course but as a reflection? >Come to think of
it."
And then there's this other gem from another thread that you initiated.
When John Atkinson chided you for reciting verbatim the off-topic Wall
Street Journal article about difficulties the Dutch have been having
recently with militant Islamists, you stated that the problems with the
militants were not religious, but rather, "biological": To quote from your
post:
"Not quite religion though. Biology. Quite a few Muslims actually stay out
of trouble for the most part. They are even trying to build democratic
institutions. At the same time those who are do not give much credence to
their religion but it is again can be explained (sic) by their biology
only."
What the hell are you talking about with these "biology" references you keep
making?
Lastly, why don't you give a clear answer to Rolleston and tell us here and
now whether you and "frankvivacious" are one and the same.
person.
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
The above "biological" references dovetail into Rolleston's posts concerning
your identity. Are you, in fact, Alex Blaivas? Have you also posted, in
the past, under the name "frankvivacious" and "alexB"? You never responded
to his earlier inquiries about this made to you in August and you made no
comment when Rolleston stated his suspicions again a day or so ago.
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
- Next message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Another Daniels screwup"
- Previous message: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Another Daniels screwup [was: Re: Claims [was: Re: Drifting phonemes [was: Re: The AmE 'o' sound]]]"
- In reply to: alexV: "Re: deepfriedmars.com"
- Next in thread: Radovan Garabik: "Re: deepfriedmars.com"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
