What Americans really think.

[YukonJack]

"And then you have the nerve to ridicule my spelling error of 'sparse/parse'.

You were the first to challenge my English. I responded in kind."

Anyone who speaks English would question of equating the words 'order' and 'challenge'. These two words are NOT synonyms. That is not a matter of opinion, as you claim, but it is a matter of being in print as a linguistic consensus of word usage accepted by all who use a dictionary. Strange only to you.

SirJosephPorter, I think - and correct me if I am wrong - English is the ONLY language you speak. Or am I wrong? If I am, what is your second language?

If, and when you speak, write and comprehend a second language as well or better than I do English, will you have the moral a right to criticize me. Until then, use your crutch of spell check and be as pompous as you care to be. Cheap transparency is always easier than substance.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If, and when you speak, write and comprehend a second language as well or better than I do English, will you have the moral a right to criticize me.

Sorry, Yukon Jack, but when you criticize my English, expect me to criticize your English. The fact that English is your second language does not give you a free pass when you criticize somebody else’s English.

So again, you criticized my English, I responded in kind.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"That is easy, JLM. Liberal Party is NDP with brains. Or, NDP is Liberal Party without brains."

So said SirJosephPorter.

Winston Churchill said it even better: "Those under 30 years of age who are not liberals have no heart. Those over 30 years of age who are liberals haven't got a brain".

Churchill was a great war time PM, but a lousy peace time PM. The British were right to get rid of him, when the war was over.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyone who speaks English would question of equating the words 'order' and 'challenge'.

So would I, Yukon Jack, so would I.

These two words are NOT synonyms.

Indeed not.

That is not a matter of opinion, as you claim, but it is a matter of being in print

Now, here I disagree with you. A right wing columnist has written an article where he soundly trashed liberals, insulted liberals to his heart’s content.

Then he ‘tells’ them to listen to his hero, Limbaugh. You interpret that ‘telling’ as a challenge, I interpret it as an order or a command. It is very much a matter of interpretation.

 

[YukonJack]

Re #222.

SirJosephPorter, you were critical, condescending and sarcastic about a spelling error, which - had I been a liguistic coward and use a Spell Checker - I would not have made.

I criticized and questioned your defiance of the accepted dictionary definitions of the two words in question which you used in order to support your weak argument. Hardly the same thing, is it?

Re # 223.

"Churchill was a great war time PM, but a lousy peace time PM. The British were right to get rid of him, when the war was over."

And pray, tell, what in the heck war or peace has to do with the quote, Jesse?

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, your entire post #224 is Jesse Ventura moment. ("That's what I said: CHICO")

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I criticized and questioned your defiance of the accepted dictionary definitions of the two words in question which you used in order to support your weak argument. Hardly the same thing, is it?

Sure it was the same thing, Yukon Jack. Whether the right wing writer was issuing a challenge or issuing an order (or a command) is very much a matter of opinion, and your opinion is no more valid than mine.

But when you questioned my opinion, claimed that my English is faulty (because I did not agree with your interpretation that it was a challenge), I reciprocated by reminding you of your spelling mistake.

Incidentally, spell check may not necessarily have fixed the ‘sparse/parse’ problem. Both are correct word, correct spellings. So if you wrote ‘sparse’ instead of ‘parse’, the spell checker may not necessarily challenge it (as it would if you write ‘parsd’ instead of ‘parse’, for instance)

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, when you place your definition of any given word above the definition of the universally accepted definition of a word in a published and universally accepted printed version of a dictionary, you put yourself on a ground that can only be described as pretentious, ostentatious, phoney and ridiculous.

It is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of right or wrong.

All that aside. Have you EVER listened to Rush Limbaugh? If you are so bloody secure in your beliefs, why is it so scary to give the other side a listen?

Easy! You know fully well that you are wrong!

 

[petros]

SirJosephPorter, when you place your definition of any given word above the definition of the universally accepted definition of a word in a published and universally accepted printed version of a dictionary, you put yourself on a ground that can only be described as pretentious, ostentatious, phoney and ridiculous.

Your Govt does it to you all the time and have for years and years.

Limbaugh isn't that bad but that Michael Savage guy....his name suits him well.

 

[petros]

By the way. There is only one dictionary that is of any worth when it comes to deciphering the english language and that is the Oxford. The rest are just trendy definitions on cheap pulp.

 

[JLM]

By the way. There is only one dictionary that is of any worth when it comes to deciphering the english language and that is the Oxford. The rest are just trendy definitions on cheap pulp.

That's what my Mother always told me, but I find Funk & Wagnalls and Websters are very good.

 

[darkbeaver]

I have a tattared (beat up) Websters pocket model, it's atrocious interpretation of the english language is indicitive of the appaling failure of western civilization.

 

[JLM]

I have a tattared (beat up) Websters pocket model, it's atrocious interpretation of the english language is indicitive of the appaling failure of western civilization.

Having a bad day d.b.?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

All that aside. Have you EVER listened to Rush Limbaugh? If you are so bloody secure in your beliefs, why is it so scary to give the other side a listen?

Yes I have, Yukon Jack. I still remember his proudest moment, which occurred in his TV show (he had a short lived TV show which was cancelled, it got very poor ratings).

It was just after Clintons moved into the White House. Limbaugh solemnly declared, “Guess what folks. Now there is a dog in the White House.”

Then he displayed the photograph of little Chelsea, Clinton’s daughter.

Incidentally, Limbaugh has turned much moor partisan, more bitter, more hate filled, more strident in recent years. I remember when Clinton gave his first State of the Union address, CNN held a sort of Town Hall meeting, and they had invited Limbaugh as their guest, to represent opposing view point.

After giving his position (opposing Clinton), Limbaugh nevertheless expressed the hope that Clinton succeeds. He said that though he disagreed with Clinton, he is our president, and I hope he succeeds.

Contrast this with his rant when Obama got elected. “I hope he fails.”

 

[Cannuck]

However, no dictionary of either older or more recent vintage would define 'order' and 'challenge' synonyms, as you do.

That is a matter of opinion, Yukon Jack. What you may consider ‘challenge’, I may consider ‘order’. It is your opinion against mine, there no way to settle this argument.

Of course there is. It's called a dictionary. I can post definitions of both words that show they are not synonymous and you can not post definitions of both words showing they are synonymous. OK, I'll start...

From dictionary.com

Challenge - 1. a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc.

Order - 1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.

Your turn..

 

[JLM]

Of course there is. It's called a dictionary. I can post definitions of both words that show they are not synonymous and you can not post definitions of both words showing they are synonymous. OK, I'll start...

From dictionary.com

Challenge - 1. a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc.

Order - 1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.

Your turn..

You are absolutely correct there. There is NO similarity in meaning between "challenge" and "order". What's there to debate about?

 

[petros]

That's what my Mother always told me, but I find Funk & Wagnalls and Websters are very good.

They are good but the Oxford has the edge by including word origins which can make a world of difference when a document is written ambiguously.

One of the most deceivingly used words by govt is "security".

It can mean protection or money.

On that line of thinking, try switching meanings next time you hear a speech from the govt about national security and protecting interests (another switchable word referring to financial).

By interweaving definitions you can get two completely different speeches that both make sense using either definition.

Take the Security Prosperity Partnership (NAU) for example:

Can you prosper without securing (protecting) you financial securities (money)?

Partnership when defined can be a corporate merger uniting (union) two (or three in this case) nations which are in reality corporations that become one.

If we weren't in the NAU would our head office be in Ottawa instead of Washington DC?

 

[YukonJack]

Re #234.

I can say with full confidence: YOU NEVER LISTENED TO LIMBAUGH!! You just repeat the tired old nonsense you hear and then you claim that it is your own, independent opinion. Yeah, right!

If you ever had, you would prove it by giving the call letters of the radio station that you tuned in to listen to Limbaugh. Stomped? No surprise!

You also NEVER saw Limbaugh on TV. If you did, tell the world the TV channel that you saw him on. WHAT?? Stomped again?? No surprise, again.

Nothing is easier than catching a liar in his own web.

When Limbaugh said he hoped for failure of Obama, he made it abundantly clear that he hoped for the failure of Obama's policies, which would turn the U.S. into another Cuba. What is wrong with that? Clinton may have been an incurable sex addict, but he was not a socialist. Obama IS.

And by the way, tell me just one occasion after November 2000 when the Left did not wish not just for the failure, but the utter destruction of George W. Bush. Show me just one example where the right of present is or ever was as vicious towards Obama as the Left was and still is towards Bush.

Incidentally, Limbaugh cancelled his TV show himself.

When Limbaugh turned "moor partisan" did he become Othello?

Please, if you want credibility, rely less on your spell-checker.

 

[ironsides]

All that aside. Have you EVER listened to Rush Limbaugh? If you are so bloody secure in your beliefs, why is it so scary to give the other side a listen?

Yes I have, Yukon Jack. I still remember his proudest moment, which occurred in his TV show (he had a short lived TV show which was cancelled, it got very poor ratings).

It was just after Clintons moved into the White House. Limbaugh solemnly declared, “Guess what folks. Now there is a dog in the White House.”

Then he displayed the photograph of little Chelsea, Clinton’s daughter.

Incidentally, Limbaugh has turned much moor partisan, more bitter, more hate filled, more strident in recent years. I remember when Clinton gave his first State of the Union address, CNN held a sort of Town Hall meeting, and they had invited Limbaugh as their guest, to represent opposing view point.

After giving his position (opposing Clinton), Limbaugh nevertheless expressed the hope that Clinton succeeds. He said that though he disagreed with Clinton, he is our president, and I hope he succeeds.

Contrast this with his rant when Obama got elected. “I hope he fails.”

Lets not forget that the Left started wishing Bush would fail after the 2004 election. See the hope he fails comment is not origional. Limbaugh is only one man. Why does he hold so much power according to you, he is not, will not be the new leader of the Republican party. (unless they want another fiasco to happen)


I would worry more about Michael Savage. :smile:

 

[ironsides]

Just looked up Limbaugh's show for those interested it seems to be still on:
RushLimbaugh.com Home