|
|
|
Egypt Bans Online Porn, Should we send them a link to Commons? |
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th November 2012, 12:19am) Fun stuff. I wonder if the Wiki people can claim this is evil Western colonialism at work. How will they define "porn?" Will they set up some kind of Miller Test (T-H-L-K-D)? Would sites that discuss sex in any way be porn? So many questions and no clear answers! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) The hard-core Wikipedians will likely add more porn as a big "f--- you" to Egypt's law in the name of "information must be free!" The Arabic Wikipedia may become filled with phalluses and whatnot. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) This post has been edited by The Joy:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 9th November 2012, 5:29am) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 9th November 2012, 12:19am) Fun stuff. I wonder if the Wiki people can claim this is evil Western colonialism at work. How will they define "porn?" Will they set up some kind of Miller Test (T-H-L-K-D)? Would sites that discuss sex in any way be porn? So many questions and no clear answers! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) The hard-core Wikipedians will likely add more porn as a big "f--- you" to Egypt's law in the name of "information must be free!" The Arabic Wikipedia may become filled with phalluses and whatnot. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) I'm pretty sure they consider any pictures with nudity as porn.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sat 10th November 2012, 3:43pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Sat 10th November 2012, 1:06am) We're talking about a religion whose adherents call for cartoonists to be murdered, chop the head off a female relative who refused to become a whore, and shoot 14-yr-old girls in the face because they have the audacity to want to be educated.
So, really, I don't find myself getting all that worked up by "no pussy for you" rules.
Hey, don't stereotype. They're not all shitheads. That's like condemning all drivers because a few drive ruddy dangerously. What is this, the virtually non-existent "moderate Muslim" ?
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 11th November 2012, 7:50am) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sat 10th November 2012, 3:43pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Sat 10th November 2012, 1:06am) We're talking about a religion whose adherents call for cartoonists to be murdered, chop the head off a female relative who refused to become a whore, and shoot 14-yr-old girls in the face because they have the audacity to want to be educated.
So, really, I don't find myself getting all that worked up by "no pussy for you" rules.
Hey, don't stereotype. They're not all shitheads. That's like condemning all drivers because a few drive ruddy dangerously. What is this, the virtually non-existent "moderate Muslim" ? I think it is odd that banning porn is some how extreme. Porn was always fringe, but yet somehow the rhetoric has treated it as if it is mainstream. Odd.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Mon 12th November 2012, 7:13am) QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 11th November 2012, 1:50pm) What is this, the virtually non-existent "moderate Muslim" ?
Yep, that's right shithead. I've known many Moslems, colleagues, friends, even one girlfriend. They're not all bloody Ayatollahs. Didn't say that they were. It would be nice to see these non- bloody Ayatollahs actually stand and speak out against the head-chopping and face-shooting, though. When people do batshit insane things in the name of Christianity (e.g. Randall Terry, David Koresh), the rest of us are pretty quick to condemn it.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 12th November 2012, 10:58am) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Mon 12th November 2012, 7:13am) Yep, that's right shithead. I've known many Moslems, colleagues, friends, even one girlfriend. They're not all bloody Ayatollahs.
"Moslems"? The only people who spell it that way are those who are from the 18th century and still see them as inferior heathen "other-people" from that magical Orient. Sadly, there are all too many people around who were taught "social studies" using 18th century textbooks. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.png) I certainly thought it was spelled (and pronounced) that way until a Muslim classmate corrected me in 3rd grade. QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 11th November 2012, 11:02am) I think it is odd that banning porn is some how extreme. Porn was always fringe, but yet somehow the rhetoric has treated it as if it is mainstream. Odd. It's just a sign of the (d)evolution of things in the age of the web. Just about everyone (present company excluded (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)) has sex, lots of people enjoy watching strangers having sex, so what's the big deal? There's a big difference (IMO, etc.), however, in what I was exposed to as a young lad (sneaking peeks at my friend's father's Hustler collection) and what the kids can click a mouse and bear witness to these days (!!!). I remember when I was a young teen that every girl who wanted to seduce a boy knew how to tie a knot with the stem of a cherry in her mouth (scene from one of the "brat pack" movies, I forget which). I can't even imagine what the girls know how to do now. This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Tue 13th November 2012, 3:48pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th November 2012, 3:34pm) Really? Because I see British people calling each other Brits and referring to themselves as Brits on this forum along with others. You can't just make up things like that.
Yep, a few people find that funny, just like some blacks will call each other "nigger", but if you're white and do it you'll get bloody hell. Not even close. The only people who care about being called "Brits" are those who are snobby English and don't like the idea of a Britain. Stop making things up. It doesn't make you look great, and you already have a reputation as an idiotic troll. Hell, you are making Tarc look like a swell and friendly guy. I found these quite interesting to read for anyone suckered in by his lies: 1, 2, and many others. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 13th November 2012, 8:53pm) I found these quite interesting to read for anyone suckered in by his lies: 1, 2, and many others. Hey, thanks for proving my point for me. What do the links say? QUOTE I dont allow people to call me 'Brit'. It's British. QUOTE i wouldn't use the word myself,because it sounds american,and maybe if an american,in an american accent said 'your a brit' it would be a bit annoying. It's research like this that's earning Ottava his PhD!
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
And here's another one: QUOTE I've been calling, and referring to Britons thinking of it as a friendly nikname. I wasn't intending to be offensive, but was.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Wed 14th November 2012, 4:20am) And here's another one: QUOTE I've been calling, and referring to Britons thinking of it as a friendly nikname. I wasn't intending to be offensive, but was. Doesn't prove anything. Brit is not offensive and never will be, just like Yank is not. Even your own link has: "I take the easy way out.....I would much rather be called a Scot first and foremost. Being called a Brit is ok by me too......it has the same short, sharp no nonsense ring to it like Scot. " The thing is, they have to make up some stupid reason to claim it is offensive. British people and Brits don't find it offensive. Just trolls like you do. Even the British newspapers constantly shorten it to Brit. When you quote, like your link or from mine, you take a minority and try to act like it is the majority. That is in the definition of trolling. So stop the trolling.
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 14th November 2012, 2:45pm) Doesn't prove anything. Brit is not offensive and never will be
Ruddy great troll, aren't you? Ignoring anything that opposes your view as "trolling" is a classic troll technique in itself. Did you know that you won't find "Brit", in that meaning, in the whole of Webster's 3rd New International? Not because it didn't exist then; the new Collegiate dates it to 1901. Because it was too bloody offensive to go in! And note that Tarc deliberately used the term because he knew it was offensive. QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 13th November 2012, 2:27pm) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Tue 13th November 2012, 7:35am) If that were true, fuckwit, you'd know we hate being called "Brits".
I know, that is why I used it on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 15th November 2012, 2:58pm) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 15th November 2012, 7:35am) Because it was too bloody offensive to go in!
No. Websters uses "Brit" as an adjective dating back quite a long time. You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English. "Brit" was their preferred descriptive of a British person because it was short, concise and to the point. We don't approve of "Briton" or "Britisher" here in the States. You have failed in every single argument you have made. That makes you either a troll or extremely incompetent. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your errors were purposeful. If you want, I can just label you as one of the stupidest people ever. Hey, either you're bloody stupider than I believed possible or you're lying through your arse. Aren't you supposed to be at a university? Go to the ruddy library and look up Webster's Third New International. The Google links don't prove your point at all, because they don't show that Webster's Third New International gives that meaning of "Brit"; they can't show what bloody isn't there. QUOTE You chose an incomplete dictionary to make a failed point. That dictionary is a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English.
So the Third New International, a huge comprehensive reference work, doesn't give that meaning of "Brit". "an incomplete dictionary ... a "linguistic aid" for those who don't speak English" does. Or are you saying it's the Third New International that's incomplete? I can rest my case. Nobody but you would remain unconvinced. This post has been edited by Retrospect:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 15th November 2012, 4:24pm) Hey, either you're bloody stupider than I believed possible or you're lying through your arse. Aren't you supposed to be at a university? Go to the ruddy library
I can quote the introduction but it clearly says it is for beginners and not a complete dictionary. It is the equivalent of Simple Wiki. You know it as I even pointed it out. Yet here you are, trolling more. Here is the best troll line QUOTE a huge comprehensive reference work You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Fri 16th November 2012, 7:29am) QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 16th November 2012, 4:21am) You've obviously never seen real dictionaries before if you think that edition of Webster's is huge or comprehensive. Johnson's dictionary was roughly 4 times longer than that one and still wasn't as comprehensive as the Unabridged Websters (note that term "unabridged") or the OED.
And you're a bloody liar. The Webster's Third New International is the Webster's Unabridged. http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htmNo. Read the introduction. It is only an unabridged of terms for foreigners. It is not unabridged for all of their words. It is amazing how small you think their complete dictionary would be. From the Preface: "Merriam Company now offers Webster's Third New International Dictionary to the English speaking world as a prime linguisitic aid to interpreting the culture and civilization of today... The demands for space have made necessary a fresh judgment on the claims of many parts of the old vocabulary. This dictionary is the result of a highly selective process in which discarding material of insubstantial or evanescent quality has gone hand in hand with adding terms that have obtained a place in the language. It confines itself strictly to generic words and their functions, forms, sounds, and meanings as distinguished from proper names that are not generic. Selection is guided by usefulness, and usefulness is determined by the degree to which terms most likely to be looked for are included." It is neither comprehensive nor their complete set of definitions. It is done for an international audience of words that they feel are the top necessary words. That edition is limited. Even Wikipedia mentions that. And here is a key section: "He eliminated the 'nonlexical matter' that more properly belongs to an encyclopedia, including all names of people and places (which had filled two appendices). There were no more mythological, biblical, and fictional names, nor the names of buildings, historical events, or art works. " Their complete, unabridged, American edition ("Collegiate" edition) is online and behind a pay wall along with the actually unabridged "International" edition. It use to be accessible via dictionary.com before they went their own way with pay walls and such. I think it is odd that you are trying to start a fight over dictionary history with me and my proven background in the field.
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
Are you bloody blind? Have you ever seen a copy of a dictionary? The Third New International is in three volumes measuring 13 by 9.5 inches. It has 2662 pages of dictionary, not counting the introduction or appendices. The second sentence in the preface starts "This latest unabridged Merriam-Webster", and towards the end it again says "This new Merriam-Webster unabridged". And here's what Merriam-Webster themselves say: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htmQUOTE Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
The largest, most comprehensive American dictionary available!
* Over 476,000 entries * Special updated Addenda Section of new words and meanings * 3,000 illustrations and 140,000 etymologies describing word origins http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?c11.htm&1QUOTE Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
A new edition of America's best-selling dictionary! Setting the standard with:
* Fully revised print edition featuring more than 225,000 definitions * More than 10,000 new words and meanings
Size: 1,664 pages; 7 1/4" X 9 7/8" So they themselves think the Collegiate Dictionary has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. But of course, how can Merriam-Webster know as much about their dictionaries as you do? Yes, you ruddy have demonstrated how much you know about English!
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 10:40am) Are you bloody blind? Have you ever seen a copy of a dictionary? The Third New International is in three volumes measuring 13 by 9.5 inches. It has 2662 pages of dictionary, not counting the introduction or appendices. The second sentence in the preface starts "This latest unabridged Merriam-Webster", and towards the end it again says "This new Merriam-Webster unabridged". And here's what Merriam-Webster themselves say: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?w3.htmQUOTE Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
The largest, most comprehensive American dictionary available!
* Over 476,000 entries * Special updated Addenda Section of new words and meanings * 3,000 illustrations and 140,000 etymologies describing word origins http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?c11.htm&1QUOTE Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
A new edition of America's best-selling dictionary! Setting the standard with:
* Fully revised print edition featuring more than 225,000 definitions * More than 10,000 new words and meanings
Size: 1,664 pages; 7 1/4" X 9 7/8" So they themselves think the Collegiate Dictionary has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. But of course, how can Merriam-Webster know as much about their dictionaries as you do? Yes, you ruddy have demonstrated how much you know about English! Ooh "bloody" and "ruddy" in one post. Stop being a fucking dickhead and drop this more English than the English act.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 5:40am) Are you bloody blind? Have you ever seen a copy of a dictionary? The Third New International is in three volumes measuring 13 by 9.5 inches.
No. The Third is in one volume with updates that came out in later volumes. You don't even have the basics correct. Pathetic. QUOTE So they themselves think the Collegiate Dictionary has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. But of course, how can Merriam-Webster know as much about their dictionaries as you do? I was referring to their online dictionary. The Collegiate includes terms the International would never - did you not read the quote? It was a big quote, so I assume that your illiteracy kicked in by word 3. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 18th November 2012, 12:50pm) No. The Third is in one volume with updates that came out in later volumes.
I've got a copy in front of me, the Britannica edition, in three volumes. You don't even have the basics correct. Pathetic. QUOTE I was referring to their online dictionary.
The Third New International has over twice as many words as the Collegiate. Do you seriously think the online dictionary has over 250,000 words not in the print version? OK, you know better than the ruddy publishers. End of discussion. QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 18th November 2012, 12:04pm) Ooh "bloody" and "ruddy" in one post. Stop being a fucking dickhead and drop this more English than the English act.
Says a ruddy descendant of immigrants. This post has been edited by Retrospect:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 3:42pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 18th November 2012, 12:50pm) No. The Third is in one volume with updates that came out in later volumes.
I've got a copy in front of me, the Britannica edition, in three volumes. You don't even have the basics correct. Pathetic. Even the Wikipedia page says you are wrong. "a three-volume version was issued for many years as a supplement to the encyclopedia" Not the Third Edition. You even state "Britannica edition." So you contradict yourself. Wow, you don't even know your own statements or you are the worst compulsive liar this board has had in a long time. By the way, Brits don't use the word "ruddy." You aren't actually British. You are just a fake. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
From powercorrupts as he is on post moderation and his post has yet to be released. I apologize for not checking my WR/Evil Site e-mail account until tonight, powercorrupts. QUOTE(powercorrupts) A) Why would Brits hate being called Brits? I've not encountered that dislike myself. Unless you are a really touchy anti-UK nationalist (and the large majority are not nationalists at all), it's a nonsense notion. I must question whether Retrospect is British. Nobody in the UK says 'bloody, ruddy' etc in his particular fashion, as most people have noticed by now.
B) If the majority of Muslim people were really as 'extreme' as some (ironically) extreme people here claim, the world would be the 'terrorist nightmare' we were told it would become when the US/UK crusaders took us to 'War' (an opinion of both supporters and critics of the wars). But it isn't, because the fact is that the majority of Muslims are simply highly peaceful, largely because it is central to their religion. The proof is in the reaction to the wars. You can always pick something extreme from sporadic examples (the UK-based London bombings perhaps, which were roundly unsupported of course), but they prove nothing but the above 'rule'. Egypt itself was always a mixed society. It all depends where in the world the Muslim society resides, and we must remember that it's a split religion too, with moderate and potentially extreme branches. Where the Muslim people are most oppressed, they are the most extreme - it's largely as simple as that. The oppression is always down to the mutual trade deals (and history thereof) between those in power (the corrupt and 'puppet' princes etc) and the West. The people have almost always lost out, and that's were extremism both flourishes and is encouraged too.
|
|
|
|
culeaker |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 26
Joined:
Member No.: 63,651
|
I really hadn't intended to contribute to this thread, because it's been so funny, but I have to close the Webster bit once and for all.
Webster's New International became known as the "Unabridged". So when the revised version, the Third New International, came out, Webster's regarded it as the new Unabridged, and describe it as such in the preface. It omitted a certain amount of stuff better suited to an encyclopedia than a dictionary, and also a number of obsolete words, but overall it was bigger than the New International so it deserved to continue as the Unabridged.
It has been available in two versions. One is as a single huge volume. The other, given away as a supplement to some sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is indeed in three volumes. It is identical to the one volume version, except that it has a multi-language dictionary as asupplement, occupying around half of the third volume. No doubt this is the "Britannica edition", so it is correct to describe it as a three-volume version of the Third New International and I cannot fathom why anyone would doubt that.
Recent re-printings, of both the one volume and three volume versions, have included another supplement, of new words. However, this supplement is not that large, and scarcely amounts to two extra volumes!
The Collegiate is far smaller than the Third New International, so cannot possibly be described as the Unabridged. However, it is more up to date since a new edition comes out every few years.
There are online versions of both dictionaries, both behind pay walls. Both online versions of course incorporate supplements of new words. However, the online Third New International remains more than twice as big as the online Collegiate.
So I hope that's that.
PS: Powercorrupts is definitely British.
This post has been edited by culeaker:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(culeaker @ Mon 19th November 2012, 7:47am)
Webster's New International became known as the "Unabridged".
No. The College Edition was also labelled "Unabridged." You guys really need to look in the beginning of books to read introductions. It isn't actually an unabridged dictionary, just an unabridged shorten version of a dictionary. The real definition of unabridged means to not limit itself. Oxford is unabridged, and the full OED contains many more words. QUOTE It has been available in two versions. One is as a single huge volume. You mean a repacked re-issue to sell more books along side of Britannica. Doesn't mean that the original was different. Anyone having a real copy of it would have known that. QUOTE The Collegiate is far smaller than the Third New International, so cannot possibly be described as the Unabridged. Because you are an fool who didn't bother to look. They have a shortened version of both dictionaries called "desk" editions, which are much, much smaller. But neither edition is truly unabridged, just the term is used to sell books to people like you without a clue. QUOTE So I hope that's that. No, because it was about them not having the word "Brit" in their dictionary. It was "that" when I pointed out that they removed items like jargon, proper nouns, and other items that used to be part of their dictionary to make it more for lower level individuals while the Collegiate edition retained many of them to target a more academic audience. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 19th November 2012, 3:47pm) You mean a repacked re-issue to sell more books along side of Britannica. Doesn't mean that the original was different. Anyone having a real copy of it would have known that.
QUOTE(culeaker @ Mon 19th November 2012, 12:47pm) It has been available in two versions. One is as a single huge volume. The other, given away as a supplement to some sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, is indeed in three volumes. It is identical to the one volume version, except that it has a multi-language dictionary as asupplement, occupying around half of the third volume.
Bit illiterate, aren't we? He's ruddy saying they're identical. How can that mean he's saying they're different? QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 19th November 2012, 3:47pm) I pointed out that they removed items like jargon, proper nouns, and other items that used to be part of their dictionary to make it more for lower level individuals while the Collegiate edition retained many of them to target a more academic audience.
You are abso-bloody-lutely mad! Give me one word - one ruddy word - that was in the old Unabridged that's not in the Third International but is in the main part of the Collegiate. This post has been edited by Retrospect:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Mon 19th November 2012, 2:50pm)
Bit illiterate, aren't we? He's ruddy saying they're identical. How can that mean he's saying they're different?
You keep misusing that word, you know. "Ruddy" isn't used in the way you keep insisting on using it. You have already been proven to not have a clue, and now it is proven that you aren't actually British. We already have lots of proof that you are Vigilant trolling us. The other site might tolerate your antics, but that is because they are trolls. Go back home. QUOTE Give me one word - one ruddy word - that was in the old Unabridged that's not in the Third International Already quoted where words like Knights of the Round Table are in Collegiate and were excised from the Third. You obviously can't read. "Some proper names were returned to the word list, including names of Knights of the Round Table." How can you miss something so obviously stated? Either you are completely stupid, a horrible troll, or both. Either way, you really make yourself look bad. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 19th November 2012, 8:12pm) Yet more shithead raving.
QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 20th November 2012, 12:35am) You sound like an ignorant, pole-smoking retard.
Hey, how do you know what I sound like? And how do you smoke a pole?
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 18th November 2012, 8:42pm) Says a ruddy descendant of immigrants.
Now, now, let's not have any of that sort of thing. QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 19th November 2012, 8:12pm) Yet more shithead raving.
Let's be fair to Ottava. He has a point. The Collegiate does indeed contain a number of very short encyclopaedia-type entries that don't really belong in a dictionary. However, that's a long way from saying that the Collegiate is an unabridged dictionary. Of course it is; it is meant to be a convenient medium-sized dictionary, and indeed has fewer than half as many words as the Third New International. The idea that these very short encyclopaedia-type entries that don't really belong in a dictionary make the Collegiate somehow a more scholarly reference work than the Third New International is of course risible, as is the idea that the Third New International is in any way simplified or just intended for foreigners. What you should have said is that the Collegiate contains no words other than proper nouns that were in the New International yet were omitted from the Third New International. This post has been edited by Detective:
|
|
|
|
Jay |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 13,123
|
Hmmm. Well, as someone who of course isn't a sockpuppet, I agree that Ottava lacks reading comprehension. I haven't bothered to check whether Samuel Johnson has been altered much from his version, but Detective clearly said "so many of his WP articles", not "all his WP articles". A better example would be To Autumn (T-H-L-K-D).
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Jay @ Wed 21st November 2012, 8:01am) Hmmm. Well, as someone who of course isn't a sockpuppet, I agree that Ottava lacks reading comprehension. I haven't bothered to check whether Samuel Johnson has been altered much from his version, but Detective clearly said "so many of his WP articles", not "all his WP articles". A better example would be To Autumn (T-H-L-K-D). To Autumn led to an FAR about the changes because it introduced many problems. It was not "fixed" with the community preferring my version. There is a great comment by Rlevse (ha!) that summarizes the concern of the community regarding the changes: " I've restored the pre-TFA version. A lot of the subsequent edits are really don't do much. For one thing, Amandajm inserted Sparknotes as refs and they're still there. That's utterly astounding. I'm not going to get into the merits of point of view A vs B, but a FA with sparknotes as refs is not a better version." One is not "many" so your point is a failure. There are also none that "had" to be rewritten, so your point fails yet again. But you are a sock puppet, so you started off seeking failure. This post has been edited by Ottava:
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 21st November 2012, 10:03pm) Really? You were outed as socking on this forum a long time ago.
Link? QUOTE It isn't a coincidence that the only people agreeing with you are blatantly lying (like you have done), pretend to be British when they clearly aren't, and are all new members with no linked accounts. Funny how that works out.
Hey, totally wrong again, as always. I can trace my British ancestry back certainly through several generations. Do you have any ancestry that you'd admit to? This post has been edited by Retrospect:
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Retrospect @ Thu 22nd November 2012, 7:45am) QUOTE It isn't a coincidence that the only people agreeing with you are blatantly lying (like you have done), pretend to be British when they clearly aren't, and are all new members with no linked accounts. Funny how that works out.
Hey, totally wrong again, as always. I can trace my British ancestry back certainly through several generations. Do you have any ancestry that you'd admit to? You obviously never paid attention to this forum, because I have both detailed my ancestry plus multiple people here have shown that you are faking your Britness. For your information, I can trace my ancestry back to Ulrich Renz, who served under Maximillion I. The line had quite a bit of Prussian nobility in it before and after, and I can trace it back to Burgundians who served at various points as mercenaries for the Romans and others. Going forward, I am directly connected to Henry Lightner, drummer of Fort McHenry during the battle, and I am cousin to two bishops (Eccleston and Carroll) along with cousins to the Calvert and Charles Carroll line. My family history fills more binders than Mitt Romney's women.
|
|
|
|
Jay |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 13,123
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd November 2012, 5:14pm) You obviously never paid attention to this forum, because I have both detailed my ancestry plus multiple people here have shown that you are faking your Britness. For your information, I can trace my ancestry back to Ulrich Renz, who served under Maximillion I.
Hmm. A search does not reveal that you have ever mentioned this on WR before, unless you did so in some secret forum. However, this ancestry you are now claiming scarcely amounts to being British, so it is scarcely relevant. And of course you cannot accuse me of being a new member, and if i do not link to my (never blocked) username on WP, nor does The Joy. The Joy is of course right to point out that we should now stop this thread, which has generated vastly more heat than light.
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Jay @ Thu 22nd November 2012, 3:48pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 22nd November 2012, 5:14pm) You obviously never paid attention to this forum, because I have both detailed my ancestry plus multiple people here have shown that you are faking your Britness. For your information, I can trace my ancestry back to Ulrich Renz, who served under Maximillion I.
Hmm. A search does not reveal that you have ever mentioned this on WR before, unless you did so in some secret forum. However, this ancestry you are now claiming scarcely amounts to being British, so it is scarcely relevant. And of course you cannot accuse me of being a new member, and if i do not link to my (never blocked) username on WP, nor does The Joy. The Joy is of course right to point out that we should now stop this thread, which has generated vastly more heat than light. I never claimed to be British. I have talked about my Prussian heritage a few times as well as other people I am related to. No matter what name you hop on, you are consistently illiterate. It is your tell. When you make yet another identity, try to pay more attention and maybe you wont be so easily found out.
|
|
|
|
Jay |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 13,123
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 23rd November 2012, 12:01am) I have talked about my Prussian heritage a few times
Where? It doesn't show up in a search. QUOTE No matter what name you hop on, you are consistently illiterate. It is your tell. When you make yet another identity, try to pay more attention and maybe you wont be so easily found out.
It is quite laughable that someone with such total lack of reading comprehension should call someone else illiterate. You keep making wild asertions which you can never justify when asked. You failed to substantiate your claim that Retrospect was outed as socking on this forum a long time ago (not surprising, as he never has been). Now you accuse me of being a sock, which is of course absurd. Now please let's do what The Joy says and just wrap up this nonsense. This post has been edited by Jay:
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 23rd November 2012, 2:32pm) Are you an idiot?
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) QUOTE I have over 2000 posts here. The "search" function doesn't necessarily find everything. Provide a bloody link then. You keep being asked but you never can because the posts don't exist and never did.Fact is, I'm in England as is proved by my IP. You're in la-la-land. Now just listen to nice Mr. The Joy and drop it, or at least revert to the subject of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th November 2012, 12:51am) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Fri 23rd November 2012, 3:11pm)
Provide a bloody link then.
Nope. Sorry. I don't have to. Hey, that's why you'll never get a PhD, because you keep making shithead assertions that you can't back up, whether it's about Keats or yourself or the sensible people here. Now will you withdraw your bloody lie that I've ever been accused here of being a sock?
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 24th November 2012, 3:15pm) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sat 24th November 2012, 12:03pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th November 2012, 3:35pm) You are a sock and everything you've stated in this thread has been wrong. You have lost any respect you could have had by the regulars here and you only have yourself as an echo chamber. When Selina logs in, she will hopefully erase you and your puppets.
Smug in your ruddy little cocoon, aren't you? I'm not a sock and nobody here except you thinks that. If you deny that, ruddy prove it. Well, we thought that on the other site, FWIW. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) His obsession (and lack of knowledge) about my dissertation and his new state of existence was why most people know he is Vigilant. There is other, more technical information that links the two, but it doesn't really matter. Blatant socks are blatant.
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th November 2012, 3:49pm) QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 24th November 2012, 3:15pm) QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sat 24th November 2012, 12:03pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th November 2012, 3:35pm) You are a sock and everything you've stated in this thread has been wrong. You have lost any respect you could have had by the regulars here and you only have yourself as an echo chamber. When Selina logs in, she will hopefully erase you and your puppets.
Smug in your ruddy little cocoon, aren't you? I'm not a sock and nobody here except you thinks that. If you deny that, ruddy prove it. Well, we thought that on the other site, FWIW. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) His obsession (and lack of knowledge) about my dissertation and his new state of existence was why most people know he is Vigilant. There is other, more technical information that links the two, but it doesn't really matter. Blatant socks are blatant. I thought it was our BDSM friend from London? Are we getting our socks mixed-up? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 24th November 2012, 5:09pm) No one here but your socks bothered to support you on any point.
Of course, in Ottava la-la-land, that must be so. Anyone who dares to argue with ruddy high-and-mighty must be a sock, of me or someone else. Don't you know circular logic when you see it, shithead? QUOTE(The Joy @ Sat 24th November 2012, 8:15pm) Well, we thought that on the other site, FWIW. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Which other site?
|
|
|
|
Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE QUOTE(Retrospect @ Sun 25th November 2012, 1:48pm) QUOTE Which other site?
Really? Really? Now you are trying to play dumb after it was already pointed out everything is against you? Bad troll is bad. Since you don't know which other site, how do you expect me to know? You are dense. I know the other site as does The Joy. The Joy is a member there. I am not. No one can post the name here because of Selina's edit filter. Stop trolling.
|
|
|
|
Jay |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 13,123
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 25th November 2012, 6:49pm) You are dense. I know the other site as does The Joy. The Joy is a member there. I am not. No one can post the name here because of Selina's edit filter. Stop trolling.
Come off it, Ottava. Plenty of people here have found ways round the filter. Can we have a sweepstake on how long before Ottava accuses me of being a sock?
|
|
|
|
Text |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined:
Member No.: 15,107
|
|
|
|
|
Jay |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined:
Member No.: 13,123
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Tue 27th November 2012, 4:04pm) QUOTE(Jay @ Tue 27th November 2012, 7:28am) QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th November 2012, 4:09pm) You were already accused of being a sock when you first started, and I accused you multiple times so far.
What you say doesn't count. Who else has ever called me a sock? It is easy to look. You've always been labelled as a Poetlister sock. You are sure starting to act like one. No wonder you can't ever stay on topic. Missed that one. Ottava is totally obsessed with nonsense, which is why nobody on any reputable site ever takes him seriously.
|
|
|
|
Retrospect |
|
Londoner born and bred
Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 71,989
|
Hey, I've just seen a copy of the 10th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. It says "The Collegiate Dictionary draws upon Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, America's most comprehensive dictionary of the English language." Pity Ottava's given up and run away so he can't explain that away! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |