Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Looks like Jonathan isn't the only one who has a bit of a problem with the
nuances of the understood "to be," the adjective "cheap" and the adverb
"cheaply." In an otherwise fine front page editorial, today's Post,
referring to the young Americans under arms in Iraq, said "How shameful
that
the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply."


The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?


Grammatical flames are almost as much fun as spelling flames!!!!


Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

hey dickhead, nobody gives a ****.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:07 +0100, "Donal" said:

The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight
change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?

Thank God we had Jefferson rather than Donal writing the Declaration of
Independence. Otherwise it would have come out reading "We hold these
truths
to be self-evidently."

The correct word in the Declaration is, as Jefferson wrote,
"self-evident."
And the correct word in the Post would have been "cheap." Why? Because of
the words "to be." "Be" in its variations (is, are, etc.) is a reflexive
verb. It's followed by either a noun (or pronoun) or an adjective
referring
in either case back to the subject of the sentence or clause. E.g. "I am
cold." In the case of the Post's line, the words "to be" are there, but
silently--they're understood. Thus ""How shameful that the commission's
attack dogs hold their sacrifices" [to be] "so" _cheap_. "Cheap" refers
back
via the reflexive "hold [to be]" to the noun "sacrifices," not to the verb
"hold."

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

He does, and he's a dickhead.

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
hey dickhead, nobody gives a ****.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:07 +0100, "Donal" said:

The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight
change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?

Thank God we had Jefferson rather than Donal writing the Declaration of
Independence. Otherwise it would have come out reading "We hold these
truths
to be self-evidently."

The correct word in the Declaration is, as Jefferson wrote,
"self-evident."
And the correct word in the Post would have been "cheap." Why? Because
of
the words "to be." "Be" in its variations (is, are, etc.) is a reflexive
verb. It's followed by either a noun (or pronoun) or an adjective
referring
in either case back to the subject of the sentence or clause. E.g. "I am
cold." In the case of the Post's line, the words "to be" are there, but
silently--they're understood. Thus ""How shameful that the commission's
attack dogs hold their sacrifices" [to be] "so" _cheap_. "Cheap" refers
back
via the reflexive "hold [to be]" to the noun "sacrifices," not to the
verb
"hold."

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:07 +0100, "Donal" said:

The word "cheaply" is qualifying the word "hold". "Hold" is a verb.
Therefore "cheaply" is an adverb.

Now, Dave. The word "so" before the word "cheaply" makes a slight
change
to its gramatical status. Are you capable of explaining it to us?

Thank God we had Jefferson rather than Donal writing the Declaration of
Independence. Otherwise it would have come out reading "We hold these
truths
to be self-evidently."

Dear me!
I notice that you have snipped your own example.
"How shameful that
the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply."





The correct word in the Declaration is, as Jefferson wrote,
"self-evident."
And the correct word in the Post would have been "cheap." Why? Because of
the words "to be."

The words "to be" do **NOT** appear in your quotation.


"Be" in its variations (is, are, etc.) is a reflexive
verb.

Perhaps! However, the word "Be" didn't appear in your quatation either.


It's followed by either a noun (or pronoun)

It wasn't followed by anything at all. "Be" DIDN'T APPEAR in your
quotation.


or an adjective referring
in either case back to the subject of the sentence or clause. E.g. "I am
cold."

The verb "To be" did *NOT* appear in your original post.

In the case of the Post's line, the words "to be" are there, but
silently--they're understood.

Bwahahahaha! You mean that they were NOT there, but you *thought* that
they were?

Thus ""How shameful that the commission's
attack dogs hold their sacrifices" [to be] "so" _cheap_. "Cheap" refers
back
via the reflexive "hold [to be]" to the noun "sacrifices," not to the verb
"hold."

You are a complete idiot! The words "to be" weren't there. You know as
little about language as you do about sailing.



Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

So, which words don't you understand:

a) Dave
b) is
c) stooopid

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:36:53 +0100, "Donal" said:

Bwahahahaha! You mean that they were NOT there, but you *thought* that
they were?

No, I mean that when one's understanding of the English language reaches
beyond the sixth grade he comes to realize there are something called
"understood" words--words that do not appear in the literal text but that
must be regarded as present for a correct analysis of the sentence's
grammatical structure and meaning. For another example of understood
words,
see the second bullet point of

http://www.grammardoctor.com/archive6.htm

For a somewhat pedantic discourse on the topic, see

http://www.geocities.com/eowilliams11/guide.html

And for a truly dense paper on the topic, full of jargon, see

http://home.hum.uva.nl/fg/working_papers/wpfg76.html#06


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:36:53 +0100, "Donal" said:

Bwahahahaha! You mean that they were NOT there, but you *thought* that
they were?

No, I mean that when one's understanding of the English language reaches
beyond the sixth grade he comes to realize there are something called
"understood" words-

OK! Now I understand.

If anybody proves that you are wrong, you will (retrospectivley) add words
to justify your position!!!!

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such, it it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.




Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Betterly....

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:18:18 +0100, "Donal" said:

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such, it
it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in
other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.

Sorry, Donal. You're just wrong on this one, and Jefferson was right. Try
the exactly parallel construction: "We hold these truths self-evidently"?
I
don't think so. "We hold these truths self-evident." Better? I think so.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:18:18 +0100, "Donal" said:

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such, it
it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in
other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.

Sorry, Donal. You're just wrong on this one, and Jefferson was right. Try
the exactly parallel construction: "We hold these truths self-evidently"?
I
don't think so. "We hold these truths self-evident." Better? I think so.

Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be able
to see that you are wrong.


Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

It's more a limitation of his general level of intelligence.

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

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:18:18 +0100, "Donal" said:

If you are correct, then why do you need to keep snipping your own
quotation? Huh?
Here it is again.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices
so
cheaply."

"Cheaply", in your quotation, is qualifying the verb "hold". As such,
it
it
obviously an adverb.

If you wish to disagree with me, then you should confine your comments
to
the actual quotation that we are discussing. Your attempts to bring in
other
examples are, patently pathetic, efforts to divert attention from your
initial error.

Sorry, Donal. You're just wrong on this one, and Jefferson was right.
Try
the exactly parallel construction: "We hold these truths
self-evidently"?
I
don't think so. "We hold these truths self-evident." Better? I think so.

Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be
able
to see that you are wrong.


Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Sounds like "to be" or "not to be" to me.

Cheers

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be

able

to see that you are wrong.


On the contrary. By my argument Example B is correct as written. Why?
Because there is no understood "to be" verb in Example B. Let me
illustrate:

Example A as Jefferson wrote it: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
Example A as Donal wrote if: "We hold these truths self-evident." --Both
entirely correct, since the "to be," though not stated in Example A as Donal
wrote it, is understood. "Self-evident" is an adjective referring to truths,
not an adverb describing how the truths are held. The understood reflexive
"to be" tells us that.

Example B as Jefferson wouldn't have written it: "We hold these truths to be
passionately."--incorrect, since he intends to describe how the truths are
held rather than to describe the truths themselves.
Example B as Donal wrote it: "We hold these truths passionately" --entirely
correct, since there is no understood "to be." "Passionately" is not an
adjective. It's an adverb telling how the truths are held.

Once you get beyond the sixth grade level, Donal, the grammar requires a bit
of subtlety and an ear for the language, not the application of simple
formulaic rules, as you would perhaps have seen had you read the references
I gave you earlier.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original
quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these
truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be
able
to see that you are wrong.

On the contrary. By my argument Example B is correct as written. Why?
Because there is no understood "to be" verb in Example B. Let me
illustrate:

Example A as Jefferson wrote it: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident."
Example A as Donal wrote if: "We hold these truths self-evident." --Both
entirely correct, since the "to be," though not stated in Example A as
Donal
wrote it, is understood. "Self-evident" is an adjective referring to
truths,
not an adverb describing how the truths are held. The understood reflexive
"to be" tells us that.

Example B as Jefferson wouldn't have written it: "We hold these truths to
be
passionately."--incorrect, since he intends to describe how the truths are
held rather than to describe the truths themselves.
Example B as Donal wrote it: "We hold these truths
passionately" --entirely
correct, since there is no understood "to be." "Passionately" is not an
adjective. It's an adverb telling how the truths are held.

Once you get beyond the sixth grade level, Donal, the grammar requires a
bit
of subtlety and an ear for the language, not the application of simple
formulaic rules, as you would perhaps have seen had you read the
references
I gave you earlier.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

So, what you're saying is that you're too stupid to read date stamps
and have so much juice from all the insults that you'll snap at anything.
Looks like the trolls are getting to you.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

Ya gotta learn to read the funny little marks at the beginning of each
line.

In this case, your article quoting Donal showed up on my server before
Donal's article, which only came in this morning. The funny little marks
would tell you you're being quoted quoting someone else.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:13:36 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Nonsense! You don't seem to be able to work with the original
quotation.
That's OK. I'll try to move down to your level.

Example A: "We hold these truths self-evident."
Example B: "We hold these truths passionately."

By your arguments, Example B should be written as "We hold these
truths
passionate".


Even someone with your limited understanding of basic grammar should be
able
to see that you are wrong.

On the contrary. By my argument Example B is correct as written. Why?
Because there is no understood "to be" verb in Example B. Let me
illustrate:

Example A as Jefferson wrote it: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident."
Example A as Donal wrote if: "We hold these truths self-evident."

Please do NOT misrepresent me.

I *very* deliberately enclosed "We hold these truths to be self-evident." in
quotation marks because they were *your* words.

Let me make it absolutely clear - you (Dave) wrote those words. That is
why I enclosed them in QUOTATION MARKS. Geddit??


That phrase demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are totally
ignorant of basic grammatical constructs.

--Both
entirely correct, since the "to be," though not stated in Example A as
Donal
wrote it, is understood.

Correction!!!! I *Quoted* it. *YOU* wrote it.

"Self-evident" is an adjective referring to truths,
not an adverb describing how the truths are held. The understood reflexive
"to be" tells us that.

Well done. You are beginning to show a glimmer of understanding.
Perhaps you are now capable of understanding *your* original example.
"How shameful that the commission's attack dogs hold their sacrifices so
cheaply.""

You consistently seek to avoid your own original quotation.



Example B as Jefferson wouldn't have written it: "We hold these truths to
be
passionately."--incorrect, since he intends to describe how the truths are
held rather than to describe the truths themselves.
Example B as Donal wrote it: "We hold these truths
passionately" --entirely
correct, since there is no understood "to be." "Passionately" is not an
adjective. It's an adverb telling how the truths are held.

Em ...... so was "cheaply" in ***your*** original quotation.


Once you get beyond the sixth grade level, Donal, the grammar requires a
bit
of subtlety and an ear for the language, not the application of simple
formulaic rules, as you would perhaps have seen had you read the
references
I gave you earlier.

I read them. They were wrong.

If I were you, I would sue the university. They were guilty of a very
serious fraud when they gave you a degree in English.


Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Then learn to post properly dip****.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:49:59 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So, what you're saying is that you're too stupid to read date stamps

Jonathan, I'm not really interested in getting into one of your childish
food fights.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

Ya gotta learn to read the funny little marks at the beginning of each
line.

In this case, your article quoting Donal showed up on my server before
Donal's article, which only came in this morning. The funny little marks
would tell you you're being quoted quoting someone else.

You might want to draw, and then color a picture for our ASA Jonathan... :-)


Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I'm not sure what the punch line is, but I was supscious of Jamie as soon as
she didn't want to interview Freeh and Reno. Then the next couple of days
the "memo" came out... I think she should excuse herself, claiming
"conflict of interest". But I only wished to be an attorney 20 years ago,
but I'm sure I would have made a good one if I had went that way early in
life.

Listening to you and Donal is just like being in court! :-D

LP

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.

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

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:qSphc.11109$c%3.244@okepread02...

"Dave" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hey Dip****.. I mean Dave. I never said this.

Ya gotta learn to read the funny little marks at the beginning of each
line.

In this case, your article quoting Donal showed up on my server before
Donal's article, which only came in this morning. The funny little
marks
would tell you you're being quoted quoting someone else.

You might want to draw, and then color a picture for our ASA Jonathan...
:-)


Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I'm not sure what the punch line is, but I was supscious of Jamie as soon
as
she didn't want to interview Freeh and Reno. Then the next couple of days
the "memo" came out... I think she should excuse herself, claiming
"conflict of interest". But I only wished to be an attorney 20 years ago,
but I'm sure I would have made a good one if I had went that way early in
life.

Listening to you and Donal is just like being in court! :-D

LP

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

| I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.



Eventually you'll learn to stay within the lines Jon......

Then you can be really good with those crayons!

CM

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Yeah... not good with crayons.. I guess I have to chalk that up
to lack of recent experience.

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

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

| I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.



Eventually you'll learn to stay within the lines Jon......

Then you can be really good with those crayons!

CM

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:34:58 +0100, "Donal" said:

I read them. They were wrong.


LOL. That pretty much says it all. The whole world's wrong except for you,
right? (Well, you and illiterates at the NY Post)

Perhaps you would be able to quote something from any of your links that
proves that I am wrong??????

I bet that you cannot. Furthermore, I will admit that I didn't bother to
read your links, because I am so confident about my position.




BTW in a decent education system one learns this sort of linguistic
mechanics no later than about the 7th or 8th grade, not at the university
level. The papers I pointed you to were dealing with the theory rather
than
the practice. The authors assumed a basic knowledge of the grammar on the
reader's part.

So what? Are you able to post a couple of lines that prove me wrong?


Ler's face it, Dave. You are a pompous ass, who believes that his
education gives him an innate superiority in matters of language.

I disagree. Furthermore, I am willing, and able to discuss the matter with
you.

Your degree is beginning to look pretty useless - don't you think?




Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

I would certainly rather sound like John Kerry then that thief
in the White House. Perhaps you think it's ok to make a deal
of oil for a Presidential election. Gee, reminds with of arms
for hostages, except this time the hostages are in this country.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:10:20 +0100, "Donal" said:

I read them. They were wrong.


LOL. That pretty much says it all. The whole world's wrong except for
you,
right? (Well, you and illiterates at the NY Post)

Perhaps you would be able to quote something from any of your links that
proves that I am wrong??????

I bet that you cannot. Furthermore, I will admit that I didn't bother
to
read your links, because I am so confident about my position.

You're starting to sound like John Kerry, Donal. First "I read them," and
now "I didn't bother to read" them. I know how you vote for something and
then vote against it. But how do you unread something? Is it like starting
a
flood? (I trust you've heard the joke about "How do you start a flood?")

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

So, you have a lot of experience having a big, ugly mouth?
Got it. Thanks.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:07:07 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would certainly rather sound like John Kerry then that thief
in the White House.

Cast, strike, reel 'em in. I knew right where to drop the plug so that
large-mouth bass would rise to it.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:10:20 +0100, "Donal" said:

I read them. They were wrong.


LOL. That pretty much says it all. The whole world's wrong except for
you,
right? (Well, you and illiterates at the NY Post)

Perhaps you would be able to quote something from any of your links that
proves that I am wrong??????

I bet that you cannot. Furthermore, I will admit that I didn't bother
to
read your links, because I am so confident about my position.

You're starting to sound like John Kerry, Donal. First "I read them," and
now "I didn't bother to read" them.

You are beginning to sound like GW Bush. Ie .. you are lying.

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.



I know how you vote for something and
then vote against it. But how do you unread something? Is it like starting
a
flood? (I trust you've heard the joke about "How do you start a flood?")


No, Dave, I haven't heard that particular joke.

Have you heard the joke about the guy who suggested that Donal was lying?


Regards


Donal
--

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Donal" wrote in message

| Have you heard the joke about the guy who suggested that Donal was lying?

I heard that one........ but I don't think it was a "suggestion"
Donal....... it sounded like he might be implying you're senile?!! ;-D

CM

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Dave" wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:00:18 -0500, "Lady Pilot" said:

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I'm not sure what the punch line is, but I was supscious of Jamie as soon
as
she didn't want to interview Freeh and Reno. Then the next couple of
days
the "memo" came out.

Don't know that there is a punch line. The point of the tag line is that
the
same people who scream bloody murder about Justice Scalia's having gone on
the same hunting trip as V.P. Cheney have no problem at all with
Gorelick's
sitting in judgment on herself as a major contributing architect of the
country's intelligence problems.

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

Thanks,
LP

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Lady Pilot wrote:

"Dave" wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:00:18 -0500, "Lady Pilot" said:

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I'm not sure what the punch line is, but I was supscious of Jamie as soon
as
she didn't want to interview Freeh and Reno. Then the next couple of
days
the "memo" came out.

Don't know that there is a punch line. The point of the tag line is that
the
same people who scream bloody murder about Justice Scalia's having gone on
the same hunting trip as V.P. Cheney have no problem at all with
Gorelick's
sitting in judgment on herself as a major contributing architect of the
country's intelligence problems.

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?
--
Tim & Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
The Light Schooner Website
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/index.htm
SquareBoats! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sbhome.htm
Bolger Boats netted! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sites2.htm

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?

My defense rests. Just because Australia, Canada and England spell it
"defence" doesn't make it correct. :-P

LP (enjoy the typos tonight, I'm just filling in for Katy while she's gone)

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Lady Pilot wrote:
| My defense is that it was
| 0300 hours. :-)

| Your defence rests, does it?


Wouldn't that depend on the company she's keeping???.... ;-D

CM

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote:

"Flying Tadpole" wrote:
| Your defence rests, does it?


Wouldn't that depend on the company she's keeping???.... ;-D

Of course!

LP

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

Jon's a liberal, he's been boycotting Crayola over the 'flesh tone' crayon.

Scotty

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

| I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.



Eventually you'll learn to stay within the lines Jon......

Then you can be really good with those crayons!

CM

Jonathan, you're in good company
 

A compassionate liberal.

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Jon's a liberal, he's been boycotting Crayola over the 'flesh tone'
crayon.

Scotty

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

| I'm no good at coloring, except when criticized.



Eventually you'll learn to stay within the lines Jon......

Then you can be really good with those crayons!

CM

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