From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:09:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.161732.2605@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>>>A pity, isn't it.  
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I believe the writer was referring to your penchant for becoming rude
>>and abusive when others disagree with you.  
>
>You know, I'd like to see a posting of mine in which I become rude
>because people disagree with me.  

Please refer to almost any posting in this thread.  People who have
opinions different from yours invariably get flamed by you.  Ted Hayes
needs to see the optometrist.  I need to be hit with a two-by-four,
and of course, I spatter my prejudice everywhere I go, as if you know
everywhere I go.

>Yes, occasionally I say rude things around here.  But they're 
>generally reactions to things *I* perceive as being far more rude:
>calling people who use this or that idiom "ignorant" or "illiterate"
>or "wrong" without any reason.  Talking about the terrible decline in
>standards

There are many who believe that there *has* been a decline in
standards, and they are certainly entitled to that opinion.  They do
not have to cite chapter and verse from some "authority" to have that
opinion, nor should their not doing so entitle them to a flame from
you.

As I see it, the way one evaluates what is considered "good" english
and what is not is to observe what careful speakers and writers
*today* are doing.  In that vain, "most unique" would probably still
lose out, as would "axe" and "less items" and a whole lot of others
that you have at one time or another have claimed to be acceptable.

>>This was the reason I
>>dropped the recent thread on "pro-active" and "impact"; I didn't 
>>feel like responding to personal abuse and snide remarks.
>
>Well, if I offended you I'm truly sorry.  But I'd like to
>see those remarks again.  As I recall, the arguments against those
>words involved things like "copywriters/politicians/marketing people
>use these words so they must be bad."  

Such an argument, though I don't agree with it, could be developed
into something like "Politicians use the words so much that they lose
their force and thus should be avoided."  Perfectly reasonable argument,
though not one to which I would subscribe.

>I guess I *do* respond badly to such combinations of counterfactuality,
>illogic, and sneering; why not consider what the words mean, how they
>are and aren't used, and why they might have arisen in the first place?
>Time and again, someone will post a peeve about this or that word, and
>not even bother to ask or speculate on how the word might have arisen,
>or why it's used.  I think we shouldn't skip that step.

That step isn't nearly as important as that of evaluating what careful
users of the language do today.

>>If you'll excuse me, I'm going shopping for some asbestos Fruit of
>>the Looms.  With Roger around, it's best to be prepared for those
>>below-the-belt flames, too.
>
>No flames intended here or elsewhere.  If you have a specific posting
>of mine you'd like to discuss, let me see it.  If I was rude, you'll
>get an apology immediately.

No flames intended, eh?  What a kind soul you must be.  Perhaps one day
you'll learn that you can manage to *disagree* with someone's argument,
or with someone's *reasoning* (or even the lack thereof, if that's how
you choose to perceive it) without resulting to uncalled-for vulgarity
and insolence.


--

Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877