Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:48:12 +0100, "Donal" said:

I ask you to reconsider your false assertion that I claimed to have read
your links. If you are able to produce any evidence that I read your
links,
then I will apologise for suggesting that you are a liar.

The following from your Message ID
:

I read them. They were wrong.

The full text of the message should still be on the servers for anybody to
read.

Now about that apology.....

Dammit!!! I was bluffing. (sorry).


Now that you've had my apology, let's get back to your inability to
distinguish between adverbs and adjetives.

You wrote the following:-
"How shameful that
the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply." and you
suggested that "cheaply" should have been "cheap".

I've demonstrated, publicly, that I am man enough to admit my mistakes.

Dave, ... are you man enough to admit when you're wrong?



Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:50:41 +0100, "Donal" said:

Dave, ... are you man enough to admit when you're wrong?

If I were wrong in this case, I'd certainly admit it. Now since I've
already
given you the references to demonstrate the correctness of my position,
I'm
sure you will be forthcoming with something beyond your own moral
certitude
to support your view.

LOL!
"moral certitude" doesn't make sense in this context.
Did you mean to write "moralistic certitude"?




Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

He meant morally certifiable.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:50:41 +0100, "Donal" said:

Dave, ... are you man enough to admit when you're wrong?

If I were wrong in this case, I'd certainly admit it. Now since I've
already
given you the references to demonstrate the correctness of my position,
I'm
sure you will be forthcoming with something beyond your own moral
certitude
to support your view.

LOL!
"moral certitude" doesn't make sense in this context.
Did you mean to write "moralistic certitude"?




Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
| No, I meant precisely what I said.
|
| See http://www.history-of-philosophy.com/certitude.htm
|
| Neither "physical certitude" nor "metaphysical certitude" would have been
| quite right, as both are independent of the person holding a view.

Good Lord Dave ...show some mercy man!!

Donal is wobbling under the weight of evidence.....

CM

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:42:32 +0100, "Donal" said:

LOL!
"moral certitude" doesn't make sense in this context.
Did you mean to write "moralistic certitude"?

No, I meant precisely what I said.

So, you are saying that I was correct all along???

Let's look at *your* evidence.


See http://www.history-of-philosophy.com/certitude.htm

"It is moral certitude which we generally attain
in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others,
the fidelity
of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the
occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation
or the
French Revolution. "


Yep, you still seem to be suggesting that I was right all along.




Neither "physical certitude" nor "metaphysical certitude" would have been
quite right, as both are independent of the person holding a view.

Why have you brought "physical" and "metaphysical" into the discussion?

We were discussung your inability to distinguish the subtle, but very
important, differences between "moral" and "moralistic".

Don't you agree that they have completely differemt meanings?



Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:57:45 +0100, "Donal" said:

See http://www.history-of-philosophy.com/certitude.htm

"It is moral certitude which we generally attain
in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of
others,
the fidelity
of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or
the
occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant
Reformation
or the
French Revolution. "


Yep, you still seem to be suggesting that I was right all along.

Nope. I suggested only that you _think_ you were right all along.

Then you should have said "moralistic". "Moral" implies that I was correct
(in your opinion).
"Moralistic" would have implied that you felt that I was wrong.


You think
it so strongly that you're morally certain of it. But it ain't necessarily
so.

Of course, it is possible that I was wrong. However, you used the phrase
"moral certitude". That means that you think that my opinion was correct.
If you had said "moralistic certitude", then I would have assumed that you
were hinting at a certain pomposity on my part.





The fact that you're morally certain that someone is your friend doesn't
make it so. The fact that you're morally certain that your wife is
faithful
doesn't make it so. Etc., etc. Moral certainty is subjective.

Goodness!
If you feel morally correct about something, and I disagree with you, then I
would classify your correctness as "moralistic". In other words, I would be
saying that you were wrong. If I agreed with you, then I would classify
your corectness as "moral".

Can you see the difference between the two words?


"Moralistic" has a
vaguely pejorative connotation, and I didn't want to characterize either
you
or your certitude as "moralistic."



Hmmmmm.... you are beginning to sound like Jax.

Are you trying to say that you can claim that somebody is wrong without
insulting them?

Puleeeease! If you now recognise that "moralistic" has a pejorative tone,
then why don't you admit that you used the wrong word in the first place?


Really, Dave! Your grammar "flame" has backfired. You are not the great
*expert* on the English language that your education led you to believe.




Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Flying Tadpole wrote:



Jeeze, I guess I should have put 2+2 together. My defense is that it was
0300 hours. :-)

Thanks,
LP


Your defence rests, does it?

Where's defense, I though it was free access?

Cheers