What’s your point? No one has addressed him even remotely that way. Are we going to see a cult of lissener now in which you follow him around and back him up on every absurd statement and attempt at seeming a martyr? Why would you do that? Whose behavior in this thread are you addressing, and why don’t you do it honestly?
You might feel better if you were a bit more open. These back-handed insults aren’t terribly becoming, and in this case - when we all know Colibri, and that he has never pitted another user, and that he doesn’t even spend much time in the pit, they simply make you look foolish. An insult only works if it has some grain of truth to hang on; in this case, you might as well have called him a doodyhead - both do an equally good job of making you look like a childish man who is trying and failing to defend himself in the eyes of onlookers.
Cally, you need to work on making your comebacks a bit snappier. Got to think of your readers. If they have to go back to the start of your sentences to check what you’re talking about, then you can take it that there’s a bit of a problem. Rapier, mate. Slim, sharp and spare.
You’ve got potential, though. That’s why I stick with you.
There we are, Cally - proof. Two of the board’s most respected posters both say you have a bit of a problem with your rhetoric. Independently, we’ve diagnosed a severe case of verbal diarrhoea. Overwhelming proof. Be humble; drink deeply of the wisdom offered free of charge by people with your best interests at heart.
Askeptic, correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t like me much either, do you?
There you are, Cally. Proof that this is no pile-on, but a genuine reaching out to try and help a young poster.
Excalibre: List me as another poster who doesn’t really like you but admires your clear concise writing and knowledge. You are an excellent poster. Roger, I never know for sure if you are joking or serious, your sense of humor is a little twisted out the norm. Lissener: Did you read **Polycarp’s ** post where he apologized to Roger rather than let things simmer for no good reason. Please, read it and learn from it.
Dude, what in the hell are you talking about? Which two posters are you speaking of, and who are the rest of the respected posters? Who’s the young poster?
And you held a grudge over a message board for eighteen months just to bring it into this thread?
Once again, roger thornhill has demonstrated a serious problem with reading comprehension.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix
I will, if I see you posting more bullshit in GQ. Given that my OP was extremely polite by Pit standards, the rest of your post makes no sense whatever. Whatever the basis of your dispute with Polycarp, your hijack of this thread to take a potshot at him was the mark of a true asshole.
roger can’t tell sarcasm from serious speech! See, remember all those spots where people had mounds and mounds of cites disproving his silly little claim that “negro” was no longer in common usage by 1960s? The reason he appeared to be ignoring everyone who proved him wrong was that he assumed they were being sarcastic!
That’s my theory, anyway. It’s much more interesting than the old one, which was “roger thornhill is amazingly ignorant about this subject and has no interest in remedying that ignorance - instead he’d rather run on and look like a complete fool.”
Dude, I’m always sarcastic. Nothing special there. For instance, I’ve implied that I liked you or respected you or your learning in the past. You seemed to take it seriously, but I figured you were just carrying on with the joke. Now that I see you have this difficulty distinguishing between sarcastic and serious, I wonder if you actually believed me . . . :eek:
Not at all. I’m all flattered and stuff, but I’ve never considered you a lightweight, dear. (This, roger, is not sarcasm.)
Um, as far as I read that, it agrees 100% with what I’ve been trying to say; with why the writers of the constitution chose to use the word castellano instead of the word espanol. That paragraph explains it much more clearly than my attempts have.
Excalibre, I can’t address the points you raise without repeating myself word for word. I’m just not gonna do that. If you want to take your interpretation of my words over my own, then obviously there’s just nothing I can do about it. But I was parroting other sources, largely, so the interpretation I offered was already out there; I did not in fact pull it fresh from my ass. We can go round and round with what “generic” means, or “political,” or whatever. But the fact remains that my original intent was to try to explain my understanding of why the writers of the constitution chose to use the word castellano instead of the word espanol. I continue to fail in that explanation, but I just don’t think I’m gonna try anymore.
In addition, you quote only the one professor as support of “my” translation, which suggests to me that you have not read any of the other cites. To repeat myself again, in addition to those cites, if you do a google search for that line of the constitution with the word “Castilian” in the translation, you get 17 hits. If you do the same search with the word “Spanish” substituted, you get zero hits. So more than one person has translated it that way; in fact I’d say that translation appears to be standard. That’s just the straight translation, though; the first of my nine cites. The following eight are more analytical, and they support that translation as well. Which is not to say (again) that there is some disagreement and debate on this.
(Neither is this.)