Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:18 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:19 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
You put out an unequivocal statement that this usage occurs in
Shakespeare.
And showed it to you, so whence the use now of "unequivocal statements"
as though it were still in doubt?
It is now incumbent on you to either retract it or research the
different versions yourself and set the record staright.
Let's get this straight once and for all about burdens of proof and
incumbency. This isn't a court of law where there's an official standard
of "burden of proof" that the parties to a trial or lawsuit are required
to go by in presenting evidence to a court. This is simply an argument.
If you say something and someone else doesn't believe you, either you
don't *care* that he doesn't believe you, and then you *drop* the
matter, or else the burden is on you to provide a convincing proof,
because the other person is under no obligation to believe you just
because you say so.

I don't give a flying you know what whether anybody in this ng.
believes me

The amount of time you spend posturing and bellowing and insulting people about topics you brought up in the first place, and the fact that you continue to bring up new topics for discussion by the same people whose opinion you now say you don't care about, says otherwise.
.