Re: Who likes Bush ?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:04:50 -0600, "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
>"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.

I used the term "Often" you assumed I meant always by this or
something along those lines.  Just how "often" does somebody have to
have their vocabulary fail and them use prfanity does it become
"often"?

>>>>>> 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"

My feelings are hurt.

>And I doubt if you're smart enough to have any hope of that.

Try reading what I said and what you implied it to mean.

>> 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.

Actually it has been termed as bastardizing the English language.

>> Village pacification
>> Hacker
>>
>> and so many more.
>>
>
>So ?
>    Meanings change

The meaning does not change only the continued misuse of vocabulary
and it being excused by the weak minded sheople.

>> 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

That is the same thing.  It was never corrected by the press that
parroted the terminology right back to the American public and
expected us to eat it up.

>> 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 

Hence the term is used for a cabby now.  Hack does not mean somebody
trying to "crack" into a computer, safe or anything else.

The term has been corrupted by the press because of misuse to the
point the term has lost all meaning.

Hack has no clear meaning and in fact has contradictory meanings in a
hacker or code writer and a hacker as somebody that hacks machines.



-- 
Mark Ferguson
What you might want to know about NANAE
http://www.whew.com/nanae.php