On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:17:35 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong.
Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in
name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least
do so correctly.

There's a fundamental problem with that kind of approach, John.

Anyone who knows me at all knows I consider proper usage to be very
important--in both written and spoken communication. I'm constantly trying to
get the words right and generally self-edit pretty carefully.

But the kind of informal communication that we use in daily speech and on Usenet
is typically evaluated by different criteria--and rightly so, I think. If every
person contemplating a contribution to a newsgroup thought s/he might be subject
to someone's criticism based on *form*, few would venture to post.

But there's a tactical reason for not sinking to spelling and grammar flames.

Yesterday, you wrote, in response to a post made by "basskisser:"

Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand
what it is you are trying to say.

Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that
might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be
reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as
a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax,
rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to
parse/decode some moderately convoluted text.

Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades
from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a
once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup.

Joe Parsons

The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an
innoculation against speling flaims.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:49:06 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:17:35 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong.
Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in
name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least
do so correctly.

There's a fundamental problem with that kind of approach, John.

Anyone who knows me at all knows I consider proper usage to be very
important--in both written and spoken communication. I'm constantly trying to
get the words right and generally self-edit pretty carefully.

But the kind of informal communication that we use in daily speech and on Usenet
is typically evaluated by different criteria--and rightly so, I think. If every
person contemplating a contribution to a newsgroup thought s/he might be subject
to someone's criticism based on *form*, few would venture to post.

But there's a tactical reason for not sinking to spelling and grammar flames.

Yesterday, you wrote, in response to a post made by "basskisser:"

Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand
what it is you are trying to say.

Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that
might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be
reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as
a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax,
rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to
parse/decode some moderately convoluted text.

Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades
from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a
once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup.

Joe Parsons

The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an
innoculation against speling flaims.

See, assumptions can lead one astray. You give me far too much credit. I, in
fact, could not, other than in a most general sense, understand what he was
trying to say. Therefore, I fully deserve to be placed in your 'unfavorable
light'. I think you and I simply disagree on what is 'pure gibberish'.

Addressing an argument requires an understanding of the argument. The language
used in the argument should, therefore, have some precision. We all make
mistakes. But, we don't all call others 'stupid' as we are doing so.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:04:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand
what it is you are trying to say.

Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that
might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be
reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as
a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax,
rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to
parse/decode some moderately convoluted text.

Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades
from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a
once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup.

Joe Parsons

The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an
innoculation against speling flaims.

See, assumptions can lead one astray. You give me far too much credit. I, in
fact, could not, other than in a most general sense, understand what he was
trying to say. Therefore, I fully deserve to be placed in your 'unfavorable
light'. I think you and I simply disagree on what is 'pure gibberish'.

Could we agree that his rather convoluted writing in that post would require
more effort to decipher than you were willing to expend at that time? Because
it *is* possible to decipher it.

Addressing an argument requires an understanding of the argument. The language
used in the argument should, therefore, have some precision. We all make
mistakes. But, we don't all call others 'stupid' as we are doing so.

Ah! And therein lies the problem with personal insults and invective! It's not
too far removed from the person who whines and complains incessantly about
off-topic posting--while contributing to the same off-topicness he decries.

I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Joe Parsons

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:25:47 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:04:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand
what it is you are trying to say.

Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that
might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be
reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as
a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax,
rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to
parse/decode some moderately convoluted text.

Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades
from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a
once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup.

Joe Parsons

The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an
innoculation against speling flaims.

See, assumptions can lead one astray. You give me far too much credit. I, in
fact, could not, other than in a most general sense, understand what he was
trying to say. Therefore, I fully deserve to be placed in your 'unfavorable
light'. I think you and I simply disagree on what is 'pure gibberish'.

Could we agree that his rather convoluted writing in that post would require
more effort to decipher than you were willing to expend at that time? Because
it *is* possible to decipher it.

No. And, furthermore, I absolutely refuse to search for the post which prompted
my response. My response addressed his name-calling in conjunction with his
egregious (most charitably) use of language.

Addressing an argument requires an understanding of the argument. The language
used in the argument should, therefore, have some precision. We all make
mistakes. But, we don't all call others 'stupid' as we are doing so.

Ah! And therein lies the problem with personal insults and invective! It's not
too far removed from the person who whines and complains incessantly about
off-topic posting--while contributing to the same off-topicness he decries.

I am having trouble connecting the two previous paragraphs. If you mean the
hurling of invectives while engaging in a gross use of the English language is
problematic, then I wholeheartedly agree.


I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Joe Parsons

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Okay. Maybe I just have gone about it differently.

Joe Parsons

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:27:49 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Okay. Maybe I just have gone about it differently.

Oops. That should have been, "Maybe I just would have gone about it
differently."



Joe Parsons

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:27:49 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation
technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling
meaningless insults, which draw more of the same.

Yes, some of the Democratic debates highlight the '****ing off' technique with
regards to Mr Dean. If you are referring to my post regarding grammar, etc. as a
'meaningless insult', then we disagree. The 'meaning' behind the post reflected
the 'stones and glass house' idiom. I would characterize that post as a
'meaningful rebuke', not as a 'meaningless insult'.

Okay. Maybe I just have gone about it differently.

Joe Parsons

Probably, but would you have been as effective? His writing has improved
tremendously in the last few days!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD