Re: Parr the Hypocrite


"The Historian" <Spamscone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128141743.841629.41430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Niemand wrote:
>> Chess One wrote:
>> > Why am I giving Americans a civics lesson - didn't you guys do this in
>> > school? No ethics? No Billof Rights? Or do neither matter these days?
>>
>> I am reminded of a line from the movie "Quiz Show": "Phil hopes
>> someday to be mistaken for an important person."

There goes an anonymous person offering his comments! The question, ever, is
if it addresses the subject matter, or if its a bit fascist - that is, it
attempts to determine who has the right to speak any views, rather than to
examine what is said?

The following bunch of garbage continues along the same path - what is
omitted from this record is that without any reason being presented, a woman
in another newsgroup has beeen subjected to hundreds of malicious ad hominem
messages by this group of 'experts' because she has a different point of
view.

The 'Watchers' below are not academic students - but another kind! They look
at group-process, and also social distortions based on authoritarianism
alone.

It should be clear that none of the people writing here know the difference
between freedom and licence, and abuse their freedom to write with a
boys-club schadenfreude, which always excites our unfortunate reporter who
amplifies whatever tension he can find around the newsgroups he writes in.

Phil Innes

> He's gone beyond mere hope into something more active: in the past week
> Philth has announced the discovery of a new pronoun in English:
>
> "He first refers to "O.E.", Old English, a general term by which I take
> him
> to mean Anglo Saxon, as if it were a language. It is not, it is instead
> a
> collective pronoun..."
>
> He's claimed a lengthy heritage for a definition that no dictionary is
> aware of:
>
> Dr. Peter Groves:
>> I realise that your knowledge of English is somewhat rudimentary: we mean
>> by
>> "a Latin" someone whose native tongue is derived from Latin.
>
> Philth Innes:
> "Actually 'a Latin' is someone who has the language and is common as
> muck
> parlance for the past 250 years."
>
> These are not the only linguistic triumphs the Brattleboro Bedlam has
> achieved this week; there's also "New English":
>
> Philth Innes
>> This writer doesn't seem to have realised that in New English [sic]
>
> Dr. David Webb:
> "New English"? Is that the language that you imagine is spoken in
> New England?
>
> And the shocking discovery that Old English is still spoken in the 21st
> century:
>
> Philth Innes:
> "I need no belief at all. Old english is spoken in the C21st, indeed
> the
> words Old English are Old English - is it so hard to associate a verb
> with
> this noun and adjective, and so make a sentence? Isn't that speaking
> OE? Do
> you have some other contention? If so, no boubt you will say so - but
> this
> is not a request, it is a rebuke that you have not said so."
>
> Dr. David Webb:
> "Even those with no training whatever in linguistics have some notion
> of what it means to speak a language. Hint: The ability to use the
> word "vodka" does *not* mean that one speaks Russian!"
>
> Neil Brennen:
> "So then I can claim to speak German because I know "Volkswagon" means
> "people's car"?"
>
> Turning to literature, Innes has manufactured yet another piece of
> Orwell, this time a letter asserting that _We_ was banned in the United
> States, despite its publication here in 1924:
>
> Dr. David Webb:
> "If you know of anything "unreliable" that I said, then why don't you
> identify it? Thus far, the only "unreliable" assertions in this whole
> discussion appear to be:
>
> (1) Your demonstrably false assertion that _We_ was never published in
> Russian,
>
> (2) Your equally false assertion that _We_ was not published in English
> in 1924,
>
> (3) Your unsupported (and apparently unsupportable) claim that Orwell
> asserted that the novel had been suppressed by the American and British
> governments and banned by the latter (Orwell says no such thing in his
> _Tribune_ review, and
>
> (4) Your erroneous speculation that Zamyatin was not survived by his
> wife Lyudmila Nikolayevna.
>
> "Incidentally, when I inquired earlier about the source for your
> claim, you rejoined
>
> "We have the same book, isn't this stated in a letter to Rahv or
> Moore in, obviously, 47?"
>
> "I don't know what book, if any, you are reading -- or misreading --
> but
> if you indeed have a book containing a letter from Orwell in which he
> asserts that _We_ was suppressed by the American and British
> governments
> and banned by the latter, then why don't you simply identify the book
> and page number explicitly? Or, why don't you give the letter's exact
> date, and I can look it up in the complete works? You do know what a
> precise reference is, don't you? I am beginning to wonder."
>
> Philth's also claimed to have "degrees" and "sutdents" (sic):
>
> "Additionally, I am able to assess its worth and discus it without even
> mentioning my degrees or bowling scores."
>
> "Will my own sutdents please note this!"
>
> Sadly, despite Philth's best effort (a polite phrase meaning he used a
> lot of profanity and libel of his betters in a large number of
> semi-literate posts), academia was still unconvinced by his arguments:
>
> Dr. David Kathman:
> "I don't really have anything to add to Peter Groves's explanation, so
> I
> didn't feel a need to post on it. I only pop into this newsgroup from
> time to time and rarely have time to post more than something quick and
> off the cuff. In any case, I don't have time to bother with the likes
> of Phil Innes, whose ignorance and misunderstandings are so pervasive
> that correcting them would require a whole course on basic historical
> linguistics."
>
> Dr. Peter Groves:
>> No, Phil, I was being polite. Let me rephrase it, less politely, since
>> subtlety seems to be lost on you: I'm a published scholar, whose opinions
>> carry some weight, and you're the sort of ignorant opinionated tosser who
>> used to bore people in pubs before the Internet gave you a wider forum.
>
> Dr. Peter Groves:
> "Judging from this he's an unpleasant little toad, and a liar to boot.
> I had
> thought he was just a loud-mouthed ignoramus who was pathetically
> unaware of
> the amusement his performances were affording other people."
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Parr the Hypocrite
    ... Philth has announced the discovery of a new pronoun in English: ... Philth Innes: ... Your equally false assertion that _We_ was not published in English ... asserted that the novel had been suppressed by the American and British ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • Re: Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
    ... > Innes is alluding to his exciting discoveries in languages. ... > Philth has announced the discovery of a new pronoun in English: ... as if it were a language. ... > Your equally false assertion that _We_ was not published in English ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)
  • OT - For All Hitchens Haters(long)
    ... Christopher Hitchens is out to save America. ... American media lately, lending his accent and vast self-importance to ... I'm thinking here of the high-priest of British hate, George Orwell. ... For English writers, the situation was far less dire, thanks to the ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Its not about guns, its about human rights! ("Police state" side thread)
    ... The same thing is going on in Europe right now, via different mechanisms, as the English don't have a clue, beign that we're all trained to speak two languages only, English, and Shouting English. ... Obviously, they weren't blow yobs. ... Even Orwell had to start somewhere. ... Yet, if we take away their guns, I'll lose mine as well. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Conjunctive Inversion
    ... Ron Hardin schrieb: ... An assertion wouldn't be followed by a question mark. ... Do you know anything about English? ... la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ...
    (sci.lang)