Re: Interesting Unicef report


Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Chimp <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
: > Chimp <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:>:> Well to be proper, UNICEF should be all caps. [. . .]

:> : No John, this is an issue of style not grammar, thus my usage is
:> : not incorrect. There is a long tradition of turning acronyms into
:> : words as we get familiar with them (e.g. laser, scuba, radar).
:> : The New York Times style guide, for example, prefers Unicef
:> : to UNICEF.
:>
:> Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the New York Times. Are you a New Yorker?
:> Have they repaved the Sawmill Parkway yet (it was a mess)?

: So are you going to admit that you were wrong to call
: my usage wrong? No, I guess not. You never admit to
: your numerous mistakes.

You sure do like avoiding the subject at hand, mainly the UNICEF
report in the subject line [. . .]

I find this utterly amazing. John was the one who raised the issue
of how to type "Unicef", and he has apparently been in e-mail
communication with the NY Times about it (!), and then he accuses
ME of avoiding the issue at hand??

[. . .] Two of those times you used "UNICEF" and one
time you used "Unicef".

So?, neither is incorrect. Are you now going to admit that your
claim "Well to be proper, UNICEF should be all caps" was
false?

So, per a senior editor of the New York Times, consistency is "the whole point
of the style guide". Yet you flip-flopped between "Unicef" and "UNICEF" in your
post and still you claim your following the style guide.

Err, John, I DID NOT claim to be following the NY Times style guide!!
All I said on that subject was "The New York Times style guide,
for example, prefers Unicef to UNICEF." If there any statement
there that I am following the NYTimes style guide? No.

Consistency aside, lets check some newspapers to see how they treat UNICEF...

Let's not, I really don't care. Neither of my usages was incorrect.
We have already established that. Why on Earth are you so
interested in this that you've spent the week e-mailing the NYTimes?

On the surface it would appear this "long tradition" you refer to is one in
which, within the print media at least, the New York Times stands alone...

Wrong, utterly wrong, dumbo. The "long tradition" I referred to
was not about Unicef in particular but abbreviations in general.
I said "There is a long tradition of turning acronyms into words
as we get familiar with them (e.g. laser, scuba, radar)", and that
is indeed not confined to the NY Times.

After gathering examples, I again I turned to Mr. Brock to find out a bit more
about the NYT style choice;

Why are you so interested in finer points of style when you
can't even do basic things like type "you're" correctly?

So lets review; If you were following NYT "style", [large snip]

I wasn't.

You hung your hat on the NYT style, [. . .]

No I didn't dumbo. Can't you comprehend simple English?

[. . .] yet you don't seem to be following it in other areas [. . .]

You're right, I'm not!

So, if you want to claim your following the style guide, [. . .]

I don't!! And it is "you're" not "your", ignorant cretin.

You can't use one word from the style guide and ignore it for
the same word in different places and claim to be following the guide.

I have never claimed to be following the guide dumbo!

Sheesh, why is it that the Christians on r.s.i. all turn out to be
so dim that they can't follow simple posts? [Hugh is an
honorable exception to the rule.]

If this was rec.english.grammar, perhaps the grammar would be different in
here, but grammar and style isn't the topic at hand...

Aren't they? So why did you raise the issue of UNICEF v Unicef
and then e-mail the NYTimes about it and then post numerous
paragraphs on it?

Now, you say "I am perturbed that the U.S. does so badly in relative rankings."
yet rather than debate the topic you claim to be upset about, you complain
about punctuation, grammar and style. Where is your priority?

I could ask the same about you. And my point in raising grammar
was that you would criticize standards in public schools while
posting "sentences" as bad as "Hmmm... your a thesbian and a
english professor? [sic]".

Now, do you think that standards in English are important?
You do realize that, for all its informality, your usenet posts
will be read by hundreds of times more people than a typical
kid's school work. Do you think a kid should bother with
grammar, punctuation and accuracy? And do you think that
adults in BSA should role-model high standards?

You have set the standard for the group by either ignoring errors, making
light of them, or refusing to say you were wrong in english...

Where have I refused to say I was wrong on some point
of English on which I was wrong?

that seems to be the policy you wish to follow... while your snipping
without indicating is a tad annoying...

I snip extraneous bits; that is correct netiquette. You haven't
shown that I have snipped in a misleading way, so what is
your problem?

It's sorta funny because your minions will be shouting
at someone like Stan to answer the question, when you
folks ignore questions just as often.

That's rich coming from you, whose main method
of posting is to answer a question with a question.

Now, you may claim I didn't post data disproving your statement, but anyone
who follows the above link will clearly see the data is in the post showing
you were wrong [. . .]

No, those data did not show that, for reasons discussed
ad nauseum at the time. Specifically, there are no good data
on abortion that properly address the issue.

Yet it was you who said;
"That paragraph is a joke I hope? You don't seriously
think that an assertion can be considered right until
someone disproves it, and the onus is on the disprover?"

Yet with regard to NFS, you didn't post data and demanded to be proven wrong.

Wrong twice: I did not assert that the claim stood until
proven wrong; and I did post data, on murder.

All that time, you never presented evidence to support all three prongs of
your statement.

You're right. I first posted stuff on murder. We got so
bogged down in your ludicrous and copious
misunderstandings that it took us ages to get on to
the other things.

Do you remember all of that? The way you didn't
even know that one should compare per-capita rates?
The way you wimpered and whined because I used
a ranking method of analysing statistics? The time you
showed that you had no clue about error bars on sample
data?

: You quite literally did not what you were talking about,
: as shown by your "sentences" such as "I guess your
: correlation would be western states changing to red
: saved lives?" and "I guess your correlation would be
: no change in midwestern states that change".

Since your on a english kick, did you read your first sentence in the
above paragraph? It's ok, i get the jist of your claim, but neither of
us is perfect, are we?

Are you trying to insinuate that there is a flaw in the
English in the paragraph quoted just above? If so,
what do you think it is? And do bear in mind that the
last two times you claimed to have spotted errors in
my English you turned out to be wrong.

No, once again, the issue is the UNICEF report. Have you forgotten the
subject line?

Can you stay on a topic?

Excuse me, who was the one who started the diversion
into "UNICEF" v "Unicef"?

The issue is why the perceived gap in child happiness in the UNICEF report
your posting. Apparently you don't like the way the discussion turned
regarding education and so now you are fishing for a issue.

In what way is that apparent? Sorry, I am quite happy with
the discussion on education. You are the one who diverted
into typography.

Should someone with such lackluster beliefs in their
ideals that they are afraid to use their name [. . .]

Do you know what "lackluster" means? And what has
using a pseudonym got to do with the issue of beliefs?

demand perfect (or nearly so) English in casual usenet postings,

I think that everyone should demand and expect better
English than "Hmmm... your a thesbian and a english professor?".

Do you think that standards of English matter and do you
think that BSA adults should role-model high standards?

Doesn't that imply a claim that you feel the statement wasn't
addressed to me?

Of course it was addressed to me, it was addressed to every person here.

If you wish to believe that you are having private conversations on usenet,
feel free, but keep in mind that in reality, your posts are addressed to
everyone.

This flip-flopping hypocrisy is utterly amazing! See how, above,
John makes quite clear that he regards all posts as "addressed
to everyone". And yet, what led to the above? John had posted

"should I assume, since you are uneasy about "happiness" here,
that you favor vouchers for religious education?"

Now, that was actually in reponse to Lee, but actually the
"happiness" had been raised by me, not Lee, and, as John
rightly said "posts are addressed to everyone". So I replied:

"Anyhow, since you ask, I personally support a voucher system.
I think that non-government schools would likely (as in so
much else) do better than the state-run version."

And what did John say? He said "Interesting statement...
I had to go back and google but it does not appear I asked
the anonymus chimp anything...".

What an utter and total flip-flop!!

Everything is addressed to all of us.

So why did you write "it does not appear I asked
the anonymus chimp anything..."? Are you, perhaps,
just a bit dim, and can't keep track?

At the start of this tread you said;
"I am perturbed that the U.S. does so badly in relative rankings. "

Yet, by your actions you seek no change to the existing
school structure [. . .]

Ahh, so you are a bit dim. Did you have trouble with my
answer "Anyhow, since you ask, I personally support a
voucher system. I think that non-government schools
would likely (as in so much else) do better than the
state-run version"? That is not "seeking no change" is it?

So by your own choice, you make it so that fewer families can afford to send
their children to good schools with quality after school programs.

No I don't.

You have no ground to complain since it's at your will they are suffering.

No it isn't. Did you try reading my actual answer
the first time round?

:> Is there an entry in the Constitution that provides for funding
:> of schools?

: Not that I know of.

So then spending tax $'s on private education, regardless who is
running the schools is not against the Constitution at all.

Who said it was? Private education on taxpayers money is
fine, constitutionally. Promoting religion with taxpayers' money
would, though, violate the constitution.

Chimp

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How long doe it take to learn to read?
    ... John Holmes wrote: ... >>> In another ng a poster, in making an argument, made the rather ... >>> question is about learning to read not to read and write. ... medieval English speakers when it really ought to take five minutes to ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • FS: Dr Who Key To Time R1 Boxset, Half Light (Demi Moore), Fat Actress S1 ++
    ... Special Features ... English ... Director Darrol Blake and Mary Tamm ... Tom Baker and John Leeson ...
    (uk.media.dvd)
  • Re: French pronunciation
    ... John> Yep, Cantonese has distinct central vowels, and I presume that ... English teachers (ranging from ones with bad ... British), mass media where the speakers speak (or ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: So-called rules
    ... but it is essentially no more than common sense. ... John Lawler is ... Real English has plenty of rules, but it's pretty much of a waste of time ... The reason why your "Jim is equally as strong as John" jars is not because ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: New York State MX track faces obstacles!
    ... Who let that nut in here ... the family tree apparently they gots the right stuff & john ... make money the old fashion way ... Pasadena city schools are about as bad as it's possible to get in every ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)
Loading