Calumet files Chapter 7

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Not acknowledging something is a passive, not
active, response.

Sandman:
I am not talking about "responses", I am talking
about the act of ignoring something.

Tony Cooper:
Where else, but in a response, does one ignore something in a
newsgroup posting?

Sandman:
Non sequitur.

Couldn't answer the question?

The question was not related to anything I had written.

Sandman:
There is no such thing as a "passive action". It's an
oxymoron. They are both nouns that contradict each other.

Tony Cooper:
The problem you have is that you just don't have a feel for
English.

Sandman:
The problem you have is that you think there is some magical
"feel" required to understand English. Learn to use the language
correctly instead.

Oh, no, I know you "understand" English. And, in general, you use
it correctly. Ninety-some percent of what you write could be taken
for a native speaker's writing.

Some words, though, are like a Swiss Army knife. You tend to treat
those words like there is only one blade that can be properly used
when, in fact, there are other blades that allow other uses.

Says the guy that stubbornly will only allow some words to be defined as
his clown dictionary says they are defined. Ironic.

Other words have definitions that *seem* to fit what you want to
say, but are not used idiomatically that way by those of us who do
have that "magical" feel for the language.

Now Tony think he has some "magical" feel for English. Remember, this is
the guy that once claimed that words need to be "accepted", regardless of
their presence in those "dictionary" thingies.

Instead of noting corrections and adjusting your use, you dig in and
try - unsuccessfully - to prove that you are right.

Now Tony is trying to convince himself that he has ever provided a
correction to a definition of a word I have provided, when in fact all he
has ever done is try to claim he has a "magical" "feel" for the words and
that words need to be "accepted" and that native speakers somehow can use
words totally unrelated to how they are defined in a dictionary. No, not
"bending", totally different meanings.

Sandman:
Ironic - your mind ceases to function without ever looking in a
dictionary in the first place.

Yes, and I can ride a bicycle without looking at the directions on
how to do so. The necessary information has been filed away years
ago.

But you're not riding a bicycle here - you're standing on the side of the
road claiming you have a magical "feeling" of a bicycle.

Sandman:
Then how would you know he ignored it?

It's just a claim from you, based on apparently nothing.

Uhhh, yes. If there was something, rather than nothing, there would
be no claim that it was ignored.

You made a claim about nospam's actions, you have yet to provide any
substantiation for such an action to ever take place. Yes, action. You
claimed he deliberately ignored something. Not that he did not acknowledge
it, or that he hasn't commented on it - but that he ignored it. A claim you
can't back up if your life depended on it.

In short - you lose. Again.


--
Sandman[.net]

Hey, you guys hear that Calumet closed?

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Other words have definitions that *seem* to fit what you want to
say, but are not used idiomatically that way by those of us who
do have that "magical" feel for the language.

Sandman:
Now Tony think he has some "magical" feel for English. Remember,
this is the guy that once claimed that words need to be
"accepted", regardless of their presence in those "dictionary"
thingies.

Stretch yourself and try for some accuracy. We use words that are
accepted *with a particular meaning*. A word might accepted as a
word applicable for some meaning, but not accepted in some other
sentence.

It's hilarious to see you keep up this "accepted" routine, yet you've never
ever been able to actually point to a reference where one might determine
just what the "accepted" meaning of a word is! You're just spouting
"magical feel" and "only native speaker could possible understand" even
though YOU'RE a native speaker and you don't even know what "ignore" means

For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught" of
substantiation about something or other. I accept "onslaught" as a
word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with the meaning you
seemed to have in mind.

Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".

onslaught
noun
- a fierce or destructive attack: a series of onslaughts on the citadel.
- a large quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope with

Note, particularly, example number 2.

Sandman:
Now Tony is trying to convince himself that he has ever provided a
correction to a definition of a word I have provided, when in fact
all he has ever done is try to claim he has a "magical" "feel" for
the words and that words need to be "accepted" and that native
speakers somehow can use words totally unrelated to how they are
defined in a dictionary.

Well, yes we can. The new meaning eventually makes it into the
dictionaries, but usage occurs before the inclusion.

BUt, contrary to your desperate need, they don't take precedent.

Again, though, you miss in accuracy. I don't try to correct your
definitions. What I do is point out that your definitions are
either too limited or that you've chosen the wrong word for what
you're trying to impart.

You have yet to do that one single time.

And I see you've left the subject completely by snipping out the last
remains of your claim about nospam ignoring something. I take it that means
you retract your original claim since you can not provide support for it.
Good for you.


--
Sandman[.net]

"PeterN" wrote in message
On 3/27/2014 12:56 PM, PAS wrote:
Yup! Except that there is clear Constitutional authority. Indeed the prime
reason for a government is to provide for the welfare of the people. Where
you and I differ is that you are relying on your church to provide for
well being. Not very long ago each ethnic group took care of its own.
e.g. If you were Jewish and needed a job, there were some Jewish owned
companies that would hire you. If you were not Jewish, that company would
only hire you if they really needed your services, and no Jewish person
could be found to fill that position. Similarly, most ethnic group took
care of its own. Once we rightly determined that refusal to hire because
of race or religion, etc., it became the duty of the government to provide
for the general welfare.
I commend Article I Section 8 to your reading.
I also recognize that you do not agree with my interpretation of the
Welfare Clause, and call it a redistribution of wealth. To paraphrase
Madison, the Constitution must be interpreted using common sense.

I will be happy to discuss the further offline.
BTW are you going to the PFLI Spring Spectacular?

http://www.pflionline.com/Spring_Spectacular_2014.html

Wow, I need to get out more. I wasn't even aware of this event. BTW, I
keep having to trim just about any response I post here "too many quoted
lines" is the message I receive when the message won't "send".

On 2014-03-28 16:08:51 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On 28 Mar 2014 06:23:43 GMT, Sandman wrote:

For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught" of
substantiation about something or other. I accept "onslaught" as a
word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with the meaning you
seemed to have in mind.

Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".

onslaught
noun
- a fierce or destructive attack: a series of onslaughts on the citadel.
- a large quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope with

Note, particularly, example number 2.

If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is the
right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed
"substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first
thought.

Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a
metaphoric onslaught.
....maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up
described so?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-03-28 17:58:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:36:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-03-28 16:08:51 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On 28 Mar 2014 06:23:43 GMT, Sandman wrote:

For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught" of
substantiation about something or other. I accept "onslaught" as a
word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with the meaning you
seemed to have in mind.

Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".

onslaught
noun
- a fierce or destructive attack: a series of onslaughts on the citadel.
- a large quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope with

Note, particularly, example number 2.

If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is the
right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed
"substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first
thought.

Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a
metaphoric onslaught.
...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up
described so?

It was hardly an inundation. I don't recall the specifics, but it was
a link or two or three. Weak substantiation, at that. He has a
different idea of what "substantiation" means than I do.

Perhaps I should have stated that my tongue was wedged firmly in my
cheek when I typed my remark.

An individual can unleash an onslaught of posts, but that implies a
very large quantity of posts. And, that's what we call "spamming".

"Onslaught" is usually reserved for what other people do, and masses
of other people rather than one person. It's also usually chosen to
mean something negative. For example, there was an onslaught of
objections to Miley Cyrus's "twerking" performance. When it's a
description of a large number of positive responses, we're more likely
to say something like "a flood of supporting tweets".

Words can be like spices in cooking. A good cook knows which spices
to use and how much spice to add to a particular dish.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught"
of substantiation about something or other. I accept
"onslaught" as a word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with
the meaning you seemed to have in mind.

Sandman:
Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".

onslaught noun - a fierce or destructive attack: a series of
onslaughts on the citadel. - a large quantity of people or things
that is difficult to cope with

Note, particularly, example number 2.

If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is the
right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed
"substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first
thought.

1. I've never used it in relation to a "few" substantiations.
2. You have never been able to cope with any substantiation.

You're welcome.

And to get back to the topic you're frantically trying to igno

When are we going to see substantiation from you with regards to this claim
from you:

Tony Cooper
03/25/2014

"What he ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is
no sales help available."

Certainly no onslaught there! More like a complete drought in terms of
substantiations!

Now snip it away and run away again, little Tony.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2014032809363199915-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-03-28 16:08:51 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:

Tony Cooper:
For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught"
of substantiation about something or other. I accept
"onslaught" as a word, and it's in the dictionary, but not
with the meaning you seemed to have in mind.

Sandman:
Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".

onslaught noun - a fierce or destructive attack: a series of
onslaughts on the citadel. - a large quantity of people or
things that is difficult to cope with

Note, particularly, example number 2.

Tony Cooper:
If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is
the right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed
"substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first
thought.

Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a
metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of
substantiations might end up described so?

Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has had a hard
time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened everytime I've used the
word.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply
a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of
substantiations might end up described so?

It was hardly an inundation. I don't recall the specifics, but it
was a link or two or three. Weak substantiation, at that. He has a
different idea of what "substantiation" means than I do.

So - you don't recall the specifics, but are still going to claim that it
was "a link or two or three"? Hilarious how thin the ice you're standing on
is.

The first time I used the word was he

Sandman
Buying Adobe Elements?
05/27/2013

"Again, no I am not. You claiming that I am doesn't make me
do it. You may think or wish that this is the case, but
without explaining why this is the case, all the above is
simple guessing on your part. You want there to be "one
form" of sponsorship that I am in reference too, in spite of
the onslaught of references that I and others have provided
that agree with 100% of what I've said, and the exact amount
of *nothing* you have provided in terms of substantiation."

That was in reference, in part, to this post:

Sandman
Buying Adobe Elements?
05/27/2013

[...]

This is obviously not the case, given the fact that I have
used photographs, wikipedia links, dictionary links and even
accounting term glossary resources consistently throughout
this entire "back and forth" thing to substantiate my
claims. Let me show you my substantiations thus far, just to
illustrate the sheer amount of it:

On the terms of my understanding the english translation of
swedish accounting terms:
http://www.nysscpa.org/glossary

On the definition of "sponsorship"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship

On the usage of sponsorship on american tv-shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibber_...Molly#Sponsors

On my definition of an owner's manual:
http://sandman.net/files/manuals.jpg

And an example of an owner's manual that clearly has not
gone through the marketing department where they have
added/edited the content of it for marketing purposes:
http://tinyurl.com/og32pdd

Do you feel there is any claim I have made where I have not
substantiated that claim (even if you would *disagree* with
the substantiation)?

I am more than willing to remedy that, of course. I take
great care in making sure I have some form of substantiation
when I make a claim - at least the first time I make it! :-D"

Clearly an "onslaught" given the fact that it 1. was an overwhleming large
number of substantiations (considering you had provided exactly zero
substantiations) and 2. it was hard for you to cope with the amount of
substantiations.

An individual can unleash an onslaught of posts, but that implies a
very large quantity of posts. And, that's what we call "spamming".

Of course not. Onslaught is not a synonym for "large quantity", it needs
the "overwhelming" parameter to be present - like when I substantiate my
claims over and over and again and all you can do in response is ignore it
and snip it away. That's an onslaught, when the number of X is too much for
you to handle.

"Onslaught" is usually reserved for what other people do, and masses
of other people rather than one person.

Ah, this is the supposed "accepted" definition, then? Haha. You have to
tell the Oxford dictionary, who use this examples:

"in some parks the onslaught of cars and people far exceeds capacity."

As you may (not) realize, that could mean that 25 cars showed up for an
even where the parking capacity was 5.

It's also usually chosen to mean something negative.

Indeed - the onslaught of substantiation you have been unable to handle
have really wrecked your credibility.

For example, there was an onslaught of objections to Miley Cyrus's
"twerking" performance. When it's a description of a large number of
positive responses, we're more likely to say something like "a flood of
supporting tweets".

A flood is equally usually meant to describe something negative. Maybe you
mean words like "abundance", "plethora", "excess" or "surplus" just to
mention a few words that are synonyms but with a more positive or at least
neutral connotation.

Words can be like spices in cooking. A good cook knows which spices to
use and how much spice to add to a particular dish.

I would hate to eat at your place, then. You seem to have no idea what
spices to use, and will argue indefinately that pepper isn't "accepted" or
that chilli is the correct spice for pancakes.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper
03/25/2014

"What he ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is
no sales help available."

Seems like a self-substantiating statement to me.

It isn't.

He didn't mention no sales help is available with online purchases, and
this is ignoring that aspect of online purchases.

Of course it isn't. If there is no car outside your window right now does
not mean no cars exists. Lack of X does not lead to existence of Y.

"Ignore" is a verb, a deliberate act. You claim he has performed this act
by NOT performing another act, which is false logic and a very loose grasp
on Englisg to boot.

If nospam didn't mention no sales help, it could be due to any of these
reasons, as I've mentioned before (and you had to cowardly snip):

1. He didn't think about it
2. He missed any supposed reference to it
3. He doesn't care about it
4. He has never considered that part of the argument
5. He has no experience with online shopping
6. He is stupid
7. He ignores it

Some of these can be ruled out from the beginning, of course, but they are
equally viable if no other parameters are know - and as we know, YOU have
introduced exactly NO other parameters. I have asked you repeatedly to
substantiate your absolute claim about nospam's actions, and you could have
responded with:

1. Link to post where online sales help was mentioned
2. nospam's reply to above post where he snipped or didn't reply to that
part

Mind you - that wouldn't have been *proof* of option 7 above, it could be
any other option as well, but at least you would have, you know, answered
my question and provided substantiation, even weak such.

He certainly knows this to be true.

Supposed knowledge about X and then not mentioning X does not constitute
the act of ignoring it. Ignoring something is a refusal to acknowledge it,
refusal to acknowledge something means it need to have some form of
presence for it to be ignored.

To "substantiate" something, means "to offer proof". The absence of
mention is sufficient proof.

You just made a 100% incorrect statement.

That's the thing with you, Tony, you pretty much never substantiate
anything. You just make wild absolute claims and then put your fingers in
your ears and go "LALALALA" when they are questioned.

When making a claim and being asked for substantiation, you have two
options:

1. Provide substantiation
2. Retract claim

There is no in-between, no middle ground. If you make a claim you know - or
strongly believe - is true but you are *unable* to substantiate, then you
have no other option than to retract or rephrase the claim. This entire
charade would have been a lot more gentle on your credibility if you had
just answered:

"Ok, so I don't know whether he ignored it, but he didn't mentioned it, so
it seems that way to me"

See? Then it becomes a personal *opinion* on your part, and not an absolute
claim. You have "think" and "seem" all you like, but when you make absolute
claims, especially about others and their motivations - be prepared to
substantiate it or retract it.


--
Sandman[.net]