Re: Are "semi-creoles" widespread?

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:52:13 -0700, Darkstar
<darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1188496333.445548.24050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

On Aug 30, 8:12 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:02:48 -0700, Darkstar
<darkstar...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1188457368.390504.5300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

[...]

You seem to be very interested in arguing about minutiae
and looking for other people's faults.

There's nothing to argue about: I'm simply pointing out your
errors.

No you're not. To point out an error is to correct it and offer a
certain (often very complex) argumentation to support your view.

No argumentation is needed when your errors are elementary
errors of fact, as is often the case.

It take CONSTRUCTIVE position from both sides.

No, it doesn't. Moreover, there's nothing constructive
about your habit of making authoritative-sounding claims
that are easily disproved by anyone who actually knows
something about the subject. If you want constructive
interaction, learn enough about the subject to be taken
seriously.

While you're just stupidly repeating
wrong-wrong-wrong-error-error-error.

Apparently it has escaped your notice that in addition to
pointing them out, I have frequently *corrected* your
errors. And I'm certainly not the only one.

[...]
.