Calumet files Chapter 7

On 3/28/2014 8:54 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message

snip

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".
then you don't know about this one either:

http://www.neccc.org/New_Outline_13.htm

I already made my hotel reservations. My wife usually comes too. She
just likes driving around the area. We have gone about five times in the
last seven years.
..





--
PeterN

On 3/28/2014 1:58 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

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.

As in speecy, spicy meatballs

--
PeterN

On 3/28/2014 2:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.


Tony's sarcasm meter needs a glut of repairs.



--
PeterN

On 2014-03-28 20:16:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On 28 Mar 2014 19:14:47 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.


Except that "flood" *isn't* "equally usually" meant to describe
something negative. A flood itself is a natural disaster and a
negative thing. However, we use "flood" in a positive way most of the
time when we use it as a descriptive term.

We see "a flood of responses to an ad", "a flood of expressions of
goodwill", and "a flood of support".

It does seem at cross-purposes to use a word that has one meaning as
disaster to be also used to mean an outpouring of a good thing, but
that's the way the language works.

Calling other words "synonyms" is tricky. Some of your examples are
synonymous only in certain circumstances. Substituting "abundance"
for "flood" in the sentence "There was a flood of orders for the new
product" does work. You would not use "excess" or "surplus" as a
replacement, though, unless the circumstances were such that the
supplier was having trouble satisfying the demand.

"Plethora" is even trickier. While it means a large amount, it's just
not idiomatic to use it as a synonym for "flood". You could use it,
and defend the use based on the definition, but it would be considered
as not-quite-right. It's usually used for more abstract things than
"orders". We can see a plethora of ideas, or a plethora of
suggestions, but not a plethora of orders. However, we can be flooded
with a plethora of suggestions. It's redundant, but it's seen.

When you see a dictionary entry for synonyms of a word, the list
should only be a starting point. The list is not intended to mean
that you can plug in all of the words in that list for the word you
looked up. You have to determine if each word conveys the meaning for
the circumstances.

Context and idiom are needed to deal with conversational English, and
there are times even that doesn't help much.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/28/2014 2:53 PM, Sandman wrote:
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.


Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

--
PeterN

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?

The word 'onslaught' is just one of a myriad number that have a dictionary
definition but is more often used in many other ways. I have 2
dictionaries and both have the same definition ( one was bought for me in
1944 (Nuttalls) and the other is a Readers Digest concise from about 1998.

Just because a word has a regular dictionary definition does not mean that
any other meaning is wrong, thus the way onslaught is often (even usually)
used is to mean the start or beginning of something.

Language matures and onslaught has been like this for as long as I can
remember.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

On 3/29/2014 9:54 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 06:52:03 -0500, Neil Ellwood
wrote:

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?

The word 'onslaught' is just one of a myriad number that have a dictionary
definition but is more often used in many other ways. I have 2
dictionaries and both have the same definition ( one was bought for me in
1944 (Nuttalls) and the other is a Readers Digest concise from about 1998.

Just because a word has a regular dictionary definition does not mean that
any other meaning is wrong, thus the way onslaught is often (even usually)
used is to mean the start or beginning of something.

I have never seen or heard "onslaught" used to describe the start or
beginning of something. The word for that would be "onset". It's
possible that people hearing "onset" used think they are hearing
"onslaught" and use "onslaught" in the future with this meaning.

It's almost an eggcorn. An eggcorn is a word or phrase that results
from mishearing the original word and creating a new word or phrase
containing something of the original. Geoffrey Pullum, the linguist
who coined the term, used "eggcorn" because in his initial study he
found "acorn" misheard as "eggcorn".

It's not a true eggcorn because, in this case, it's just a switch of
words.


Language matures and onslaught has been like this for as long as I can
remember.

This being Saturday, I actually raised the energy to find out the
difference between "Chapter 7" and Chapter 11".

««««««««
www.uscourts.gov › … › Bankruptcy › Bankruptcy Basics

A chapter 7 bankruptcy case does not involve the filing of a plan of
repayment as in chapter 13. Instead, the bankruptcy trustee gathers and
sells the debtor's assets.
»»»»»»»


--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
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".

Sandman:
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.

Amazing, Tony snipped and ran like the little troll coward he is yet again!



Unsubstantied claims from Tony:

Tony Cooper
03/28/2014 06:58:42 PM

"it was a link or two or three. Weak substantiation, at that."

Tony makes a claim about former substantiations made by me.
I posted a reply quoting the onslaught of substantiations
for my claim at the time. Tony's response: Silence.




Tony Cooper
03/25/2014 03:25:09 PM

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

Absolute claim from Tony that points to a deliberate action
from nospam, he has yet to provide any support for nospam
ignoring this instead of any other reason for not mentioning
it.






--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN 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?

Sandman:
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.

Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to
be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my
inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 3/28/2014 4:16 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014 19:14:47 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.


Except that "flood" *isn't* "equally usually" meant to describe
something negative. A flood itself is a natural disaster and a
negative thing. However, we use "flood" in a positive way most of the
time when we use it as a descriptive term.

We see "a flood of responses to an ad", "a flood of expressions of
goodwill", and "a flood of support".

It does seem at cross-purposes to use a word that has one meaning as
disaster to be also used to mean an outpouring of a good thing, but
that's the way the language works.

Calling other words "synonyms" is tricky. Some of your examples are
synonymous only in certain circumstances. Substituting "abundance"
for "flood" in the sentence "There was a flood of orders for the new
product" does work. You would not use "excess" or "surplus" as a
replacement, though, unless the circumstances were such that the
supplier was having trouble satisfying the demand.

"Plethora" is even trickier. While it means a large amount, it's just
not idiomatic to use it as a synonym for "flood". You could use it,
and defend the use based on the definition, but it would be considered
as not-quite-right. It's usually used for more abstract things than
"orders". We can see a plethora of ideas, or a plethora of
suggestions, but not a plethora of orders. However, we can be flooded
with a plethora of suggestions. It's redundant, but it's seen.

When you see a dictionary entry for synonyms of a word, the list
should only be a starting point. The list is not intended to mean
that you can plug in all of the words in that list for the word you
looked up. You have to determine if each word conveys the meaning for
the circumstances.

You are not charging him for lessons in English Usage. I doubt that not
even Fowler would be successful.


--
PeterN