:DUMP:

[Anon.]

A way not to antagonise people when discussing/debating something is... don't be rude. Show why what they're saying is idiotic, but don't call them idiots. Then they just feel silly instead of angry. You can wrap yourself in a cloak of righteousness as much as you want, but if lots of people don't like you that might be because you're not very likeable, not because they disagree with you.

[RedCelt69]

A way not to antagonise people when discussing/debating something is... don't be rude. Show why what they're saying is idiotic, but don't call them idiots. Then they just feel silly instead of angry. You can wrap yourself in a cloak of righteousness as much as you want, but if lots of people don't like you that might be because you're not very likeable, not because they disagree with you.

I'm rude to those who are rude. Actually, that's not true. I'm antagonistic to those deserving of antagonism. Rudeness is something else. I never say something to someone online that I wouldn't also say to their face. Hennessey calling me a cunt, for instance. I'm intrigued to see how self-destructive his stupidity is - and whether he would actually call me a cunt mano et mano. Stupidity and bravery are thinly-parted attributes.

Ultimately, I don't care if people do or don't like me. Those who don't like me are, uncoincidentally, people I don't like. Karma remains very firmly in balance.

It is really disappointing how unevolved some primates are. Me and an individual have a disagreement and, sure as chimpanzees fling their jism through a cage, others come along to join in - barking out their disagreements, too.

[macgamer]

You can measure a man by the nature of his detractors. Thankya, Macgamer. Thankya

Strange, the Pope said something along those lines when he was Prefect of the CDF.

[Guest]

It is really disappointing how unevolved some primates are. Me and an individual have a disagreement and, sure as chimpanzees fling their jism through a cage, others come along to join in - barking out their disagreements, too.

I do try to just observe these cringe worthy interactions, but I feel that I must interject on this occasion. All primates (indeed all organisms) are evolved to the same extent. They are all evolved to the niche they fill. No one organism is more evolved than another. The human brain may have evolved in a very different way to those species most closely related to us, but has not evolved more.

Also, surely a genius such as you would know it is "An individual and I have a disagreement...". Also chimpanzees throw faeces and even flick urine, but I know of no cases of jism flinging, maybe you could enlighten us of the exact case to which you refer, with suitable written references, of course.

[munchingfoo]

I've seen the latter at Edinburgh Zoo with monkies. Can't provide a reference for it, obviously, but I remember the exact monkey of you'd like to go see for yourself.

Funniest thing I'd seen in ages. Monkey gave itself a blowjob. Female monkey walks into room and shakes her head then walks out. When male monkey ejaculates into his mouth he spits it into his hand and throws it at the spectator window.

[RedCelt69]

I do try to just observe these cringe worthy interactions, but I feel that I must interject on this occasion.

I found your interjection cringeworthy. Yes, "cringeworthy" not "cringe worthy". Normally, I keep my spelling and grammar nazi at bay as, on internet forums, there is much less of a need to be so judicious... but you really need to be hoist by your own petard.

All primates (indeed all organisms) are evolved to the same extent. They are all evolved to the niche they fill. No one organism is more evolved than another. The human brain may have evolved in a very different way to those species most closely related to us, but has not evolved more.

That is partly true; and partly false. Are we more evolved (or evolved to the same extent) as those creatures we evolved from? The social mores of our ancestors can (to a great extent) be surmised by looking at our cousins. Observe (for instance) chimpanzees and how they interact with each other. Many of their social interactions exist in humans - only they are less (socially) evolved. There are many examples. Be a better people watcher.

Also, surely a genius such as you would know it is "An individual and I have a disagreement...". Also chimpanzees throw faeces and even flick urine, but I know of no cases of jism flinging, maybe you could enlighten us of the exact case to which you refer, with suitable written references, of course.

Go get some "suitable written references" regarding the usage of "an individual and I" versus "me and an individual". When you're doing that (if you look hard enough for recent linguistic opinions) you will find that there are many who reject this old distinction.

Either way, see above about internet forums needing less judicious treatment of spelling and grammar.

And be more dilligent with your perusal of simian houses in zoos.

[Guest]

Are we more evolved (or evolved to the same extent) as those creatures we evolved from?

Okay, you do need to read something about evolutionary biology. Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees, chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

[Anon.]

Go get some "suitable written references" regarding the usage of "an individual and I" versus "me and an individual". When you're doing that (if you look hard enough for recent linguistic opinions) you will find that there are many who reject this old distinction.

When I was learning this back at school I always used to go by whether it still made sense if you took out the other person. "I have a disagreement" is correct, therefore "An individual and I have a disagreement" is correct. "Me has a disagreement" is wrong, therefore "Me and an individual have a disagreement" is wrong.

I haven't bothered to look any up, but I assume the recent linguistic opinions you mention adhere to the (understandable) view that rules of grammar should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If enough people get it wrong, then it becomes right. But if you support this standpoint, doesn't it mean you have to accept that though some people may (through what previously would have been called ignorance) use words in a different way to you, this is part of the ongoing evolution of language and doesn't make them incorrect? And if this is the case how can you quibble over people saying "norm" when they meant "normal"? Or should grammatical rules be allowed greater margin for error/change than definitions?

Lots of words have gradually taken on new definitions through extended (mis)use. Where I live I hear uneducated people say "I was mortified" when they mean simply "I was shocked", not "I was humiliated" - I've thought about correcting them, but then "to mortify" originally meant "to physically damage" (literally "to make dead"), so really I haven't a leg to stand on if I try to tell them that the generally accepted dictionary sense of "to shame" is more valid that the one they're using.

[RedCelt69]

Are we more evolved (or evolved to the same extent) as those creatures we evolved from?

Okay, you do need to read something about evolutionary biology. Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees, chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

OK. Great.

Now show me how you came to the conclusion that I thought otherwise.

[RedCelt69]

I haven't bothered to look any up, but I assume the recent linguistic opinions you mention adhere to the (understandable) view that rules of grammar should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If enough people get it wrong, then it becomes right. But if you support this standpoint, doesn't it mean you have to accept that though some people may (through what previously would have been called ignorance) use words in a different way to you, this is part of the ongoing evolution of language and doesn't make them incorrect? And if this is the case how can you quibble over people saying "norm" when they meant "normal"? Or should grammatical rules be allowed greater margin for error/change than definitions?

I'm not entirely sure of the point you are making.

Does language evolve? Certainly. Calling one use of language "wrong" and another "right" rather misses the point, however. The usage changes, making neither version more right than the other.

The whole point of language is communication. If the giver and receiver both understand what has been said, then the communication (and the language) have succeeded. It can be called "right". The example you highlighted was a distinction between old-fashioned grammatical usage and modern usage. Many linguists will argue that, linguistically, neither is wrong.

A bugbear of mine is double negatives... which really can cause miscommunication.

Regardless. This is an internet forum. Spelling and grammar are not the gods of you or I. Or me and you.

[Guest]

Not quite, you're still here. Shuffle off and pester someone else, beating you has made me tired

The defendant's call for an appeal on his guilty verdict has been repealed. Guilty as charged, m'lud.

An appeal is filed or lodged, not called, and is therefore withdrawn, not repealed. Acts are repealed. And in the case of an appeal the defendant would probably be have been adjudged guilty already, so there would be no need for him to go before a judge to say it again.

[RedCelt69]

An appeal is filed or lodged, not called, and is therefore withdrawn, not repealed. Acts are repealed. And in the case of an appeal the defendant would probably be have been adjudged guilty already, so there would be no need for him to go before a judge to say it again.

It is also absolutely ridiculous to claim that Norway has any parrots, blue or otherwise. A psittaciformes can, therefore, never be seen as pining for the fjordic coastline of that country.

I'm glad to see that all of the above has been neatly settled.