Re: Who likes Bush ?

"Mark Ferguson" <wa****ngton_resident@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:isjlq19rpqgikld4ncvrga2s9rqe42jbp4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:36:00 -0600, "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark Ferguson" <wa****ngton_resident@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:41gjq1h1rthfjpegqb3fsnbs317m5j9evs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:28:36 -0600, "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As you have said before, profanity gives those with a larger
>>>>> vocabulary a reason to discount the substance of what people with no
>>>>> vocabulary say.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now there's a logical mistake
>>>>Use of profanity in no way indicates the size of the vocabulary of the
>>>>user...
>>>
>>> With the exception that profanity is often used because the user is
>>> unable to think of another word.
>>>
>>
>>Another stupid assumption
>
> It is not an assumption.  This is your inability to read and
> comprehend what I wrote.  You attributed and absolute to what I said
> when I used the term "often".
>
> Because you cannot read does not make what I said and assumption.
>

I attributed NOTHING
    You on the other hand have presumed and assumed a lot.

But do look up those words in a dictionary BEFORE you try again.



>>>>> That actually makes sense if you think about it.  But in this case
you
>>>>> would be mistaken.  There are two trains of thought.  The first of
>>>>> which would be it is not about what you say but how you say it.  And
>>>>> then you have it is not how you say but what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's a lot of words to basically say very little.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know.  That kind of was the point.
>>>
>>>>> It is actually a combination of both because there is misuse of
>>>>> vocabulary to impart meanings that are not accurate so much so that
>>>>> the meanings of words is so bastardized that what you say has little
>>>>> or no meaning in that the meaning is never clear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>More words to say little.
>>>
>>> You might reread that one.
>>>
>>
>>Nah
>>It was just as vacuous the second time around.
>
> It usually is when you are unable to read as you have done all along
> my friend :-)
>

Again a STUPID assumption on your part
    And you're NOT my "friend"
And I doubt if you're smart enough to have any hope of that.



> The simple truth is the American language has lost it value in that
> words are given meanings they at one time did not have; words are used
> to convey meanings other than their actual meanings.
>

That's called EVOLUTION through usage and time.



> Village pacification
> Hacker
>
> and so many more.
>

So ?
    Meanings change

> Pacifying a village intones a polite and almost courteous way of
> quieting opposition when in fact it meant killing every man woman and
> child in the village.
>

Don't confuse artificially created double-speak from other language 
evolutions

> Hacker means writer for the most part hence the term hack.  Now it is
> used instead of the appropriate term cracker.  This term is used to
> specify a type of activity such as cracking into a computer or a safe
> cracker.  To crack a lock.
>

And (long) before that a hack was a horse-drawn cab.
    Look up evolution