Okay, you want flame, here be flame.

[photopat]

@Hambil

Since my complaint is about Great Debates (and server slowness) everything else you are going to say is irrelevant. You already ran away. Good for you. I’d rather fight for something worth fighting for.

Then stay. If you think the quality of discourse in GD is subpar, become a member and work to raise it. Otherwise, you aren’t “fighting for something worth fighting for,” you’re just a drive-by shooter.

[Ace309]

@Hambil

I posted a thread about the nut jobs we are allowing to take over in Great Debates. We are allowing it by responding to their rhetoric posts. We being the collective we. Fine, it probably should have been posted here. But, instead, I was called ignorant and it was closed instead of moved. So fuck you.

Edited for accuracy:

@Hambil

I posted a thread about the nut jobs we are allowing to take over in Great Debates, because I’m above the rules and my thread really made a difference or something. I know I should have posted it in the Pit, but for reasons that aren’t clear, even to me, I felt like I’d get more attention in GD. But, instead, I was called ignorant and it was closed instead of moved. So fuck you.

I think that’s about right.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Grundlepuck

“… worse than the bite dogs.”! :smack:

It was a funny line, though. Too bad you fucked it up and will have to spend the rest of your life fretting about the missed opportunity.

I’m just sayin’, is all.

[sub]heh-heh-heh. Loser.[/sub]

[Contrapuntal]

@Grundlepuck[QUOTE

]“Rhetoric thread” rang a little odd to my ear at first too, but Hambil is right on this. It is called a compound noun and is perfectly valid – even to English teachers. Examples abound – church bells, fruit tree, police dog, even (gasp) BBQ Pit.

Well there are all sorts of ways to form compound nouns and it is by no means limited to noun+noun. By the same token, a compund noun is not necessarily formed every time two nouns are placed together. Your examples all use the compound form to describe a particular kind of thing, and to distinguish it from others which are similar but not the same. Church bells, not sleigh bells; fruit trees, not pine trees. None of these corollate with Hambil’s example of bark dog. A barking dog is not a kind of dog; rather, it is a dog behaving in a particular way. Virtually all dogs bark. To call a dog a barking dog distinguishes it from other dogs not in kind, but in behavior. To call a dog a bark dog, and claim it means the same as barking dog, is just silly.

[Grundlepuck]

@trandallt

To call a dog a bark dog, and claim it means the same as barking dog, is just silly.

Gosh trandallt, you think maybe he meant it to be silly? You think maybe everyone but you realized this? The actual usage which is under discussion here is “rhetoric thread”, which meets all of your ineptly pedantic criteria.

[Contrapuntal]

@Grundlepuck

Gosh trandallt, you think maybe he meant it to be silly? You think maybe everyone but you realized this? The actual usage which is under discussion here is “rhetoric thread”, which meets all of your ineptly pedantic criteria.

I have no idea what he meant but I do know what he said. If he were trying to make a case I fail to see how being silly achieves that.

I offered no criteria at all, ineptly pedantic or otherwise. I was merely showing how your examples differed from his example.

He gave a definition of “rhetoric post” but it appears to be a one-off. I can find no definition of “rhetoric” that justifies its use in a compound noun such as he defines it.

[Miller]

The problem I have with Hambil’s other thread was that pesky “we” in the title. (Well, both of them, I suppose.) Who’s this “we” you speak of? Rational debators? Paying members? Centrists? Capricorns? Or is it just “People who think like me”?

I object to any attempt to define this board as “ours,” where that collective noun means anything less than “posters who obey the board rules.” Which includes everyone from dues paying members from the AOL days to Hambil him/herself, and from the most skilled and practised debator to the shrillest partisan hack. Some people want to come to this board for reasoned debate. There’s plenty of room for that here. Other people want to come to this board to scream themselves red in the face about how much they hate one or more of this year’s presidential candidates. There’s plenty of room for that, too. The OP’s original complaint boils down to nothing more than, “I don’t want there to be any threads on the boards I don’t like.” Which is about as tired and worn out a sentiment as you are likely ever to find on the SDMB.

[Contrapuntal]

@Miller

The problem I have with Hambil’s other thread was that pesky “we” in the title. (Well, both of them, I suppose.) Who’s this “we” you speak of? Rational debators? Paying members? Centrists? Capricorns? Or is it just “People who think like me”?

I object to any attempt to define this board as “ours,” where that collective noun means anything less than “posters who obey the board rules.” Which includes everyone from dues paying members from the AOL days to Hambil him/herself, and from the most skilled and practised debator to the shrillest partisan hack. Some people want to come to this board for reasoned debate. There’s plenty of room for that here. Other people want to come to this board to scream themselves red in the face about how much they hate one or more of this year’s presidential candidates. There’s plenty of room for that, too. The OP’s original complaint boils down to nothing more than, “I don’t want there to be any threads on the boards I don’t like.” Which is about as tired and worn out a sentiment as you are likely ever to find on the SDMB.

Word.

[Grundlepuck]

@trandallt

I have no idea what he meant but I do know what he said. If he were trying to make a case I fail to see how being silly achieves that.

I offered no criteria at all, ineptly pedantic or otherwise. I was merely showing how your examples differed from his example.

He gave a definition of “rhetoric post” but it appears to be a one-off. I can find no definition of “rhetoric” that justifies its use in a compound noun such as he defines it.

I’ve got no beef with you trandallt, so seriously, just walk away from this one while you still can. They’re not all winnable.

[Contrapuntal]

@Grundlepuck

I’ve got no beef with you trandallt, so seriously, just walk away from this one while you still can. They’re not all winnable.

I have no beef with you at all either. Really. I know nothing of you other than you have a really cool user name. But in my mind advising someone to “walk away while you can” constitutes a warning, if not a threat, but certainly not a refutation. Thanks for the heads up but I think I’ll stick around and see what you got.http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5276781#
Wink

[Contrapuntal]

Sorry for the fubard code. I was trying to put a wink there.

[Hambil]

That looks like fun. Here, let me give it a go:

@Ace309

I think that’s about right.

@Ace309

I’m an ass who likes to put words in other people’s mouths because, I’m an ass.

[Hambil]

@Miller

I object to any attempt to define this board as “ours,” where that collective noun means anything less than “posters who obey the board rules.” Which includes everyone from dues paying members from the AOL days to Hambil him/herself, and from the most skilled and practised debator to the shrillest partisan hack.

Since the board is named straight dope, and not Miller’s anarchist hideaway, it’s already been defined long before I came along. So, get over it.

[Giraffe]

@Hambil

Since the board is named straight dope, and not Miller’s anarchist hideaway, it’s already been defined long before I came along. So, get over it.

Note to Hambil: your responses to other people’s posts will have more impact if you read said posts before writing said response.

Just a tip.

[Hambil]

@Giraffe

Note to Hambil: your responses to other people’s posts will have more impact if you read said posts before writing said response.

Just a tip.

Here’s a tip for you, tip for tip - seems only fair: Don’t be a condescending prick.

[andros]

If only you’d take your own advice, friend.

[Grundlepuck]

@trandallt

I have no beef with you at all either. Really. I know nothing of you other than you have a really cool user name.

Thanks!

But in my mind advising someone to “walk away while you can” constitutes a warning, if not a threat, but certainly not a refutation. Thanks for the heads up but I think I’ll stick around and see what you got.

Sigh.

Well, I’m afraid you are not going to get “what I’ve got” here, merely what I need for this one – the ability to think rationally at a minimal level.

Well there are all sorts of ways to form compound nouns and it is by no means limited to noun+noun.

Sure, but since we’re talking about noun+noun here, your point is completely irrelevant.

By the same token, a compund noun is not necessarily formed every time two nouns are placed together.

Bzzzzt! You can’t link two entirely unrelated phenomena with the phrase “by the same token”. Well actually you can, you’ll just look like a fool.

Your examples all use the compound form to describe a particular kind of thing, and to distinguish it from others which are similar but not the same. Church bells, not sleigh bells; fruit trees, not pine trees. None of these corollate with Hambil’s example of bark dog. A barking dog is not a kind of dog; rather, it is a dog behaving in a particular way. Virtually all dogs bark. To call a dog a barking dog distinguishes it from other dogs not in kind, but in behavior.

Ahh, I see – you took my three random examples, extrapolated from there to form a general rule encompassing the entire English language, and then passed judgment based on this. And, as we shall see, you applied it all to an example that you were the only person to not realize wasn’t even a serious one.

This kind of inductive reasoning run amuck is just barely legitimate if one has no other resources with which to form a hypothesis. However, in your case, you could have just looked up the fucking definition of compound noun.

To call a dog a bark dog, and claim it means the same as barking dog, is just silly.

Already dismissed, but your cluelessness amuses me enough to make it worth displaying again.

I have no idea what he meant but I do know what he said.

Really, dude, you don’t have to point this out. Your intellectual limitations have already become obvious to everyone.

If he were trying to make a case I fail to see how being silly achieves that.

He’d already made his case. He made a “silly” example because humor is enjoyable for those of us capable of understanding it. Sorry I can’t help you any more than that – it would be like trying to explain colors to a blind man.

I offered no criteria at all, ineptly pedantic or otherwise. I was merely showing how your examples differed from his example.

Well, that was certainly a worthwhile goal. I will admit also that my examples differed from his by using entirely different words which certainly invalidates my point entirely. Good catch Sherlock.

He gave a definition of “rhetoric post” but it appears to be a one-off. I can find no definition of “rhetoric” that justifies its use in a compound noun such as he defines it.

I can find plenty. Draw what conclusions from that you will.

Try these:

From
HyperDictionary

1. [n] study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)
   2. [n] loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric"
2. [n] high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation
3. [n] using language effectively to please or persuade

From Dictionary.com
1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.
1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.

Or how about this, from Plato, via WordIQ.com :

Once stripped of its more substantial elements, rhetoric became a much less prestigious topic of study. Much as Plato originally condemned the rhetoric of the sophists for its lack of concern for truth, rhetoric now came to be associated with emptiness: it ceased to be connected with ideas. In popular use, this connotation persists to this day.

[Hambil]

@andros

If only you’d take your own advice, friend.

If you can point out where I’ve been a condescending prick I’ll happily take my own advice and apologize.

[Giraffe]

@Hambil

Here’s a tip for you, tip for tip - seems only fair: Don’t be a condescending prick.

No way, I like being a condescending prick. After I spend all day being an abusive asshole, I find I need to break things up somehow. I guess I could try being a touchy-but-oblivious idiot for a while, but you’re not making it look like much fun.

[Hambil]

@Giraffe

No way, I like being a condescending prick. After I spend all day being an abusive asshole, I find I need to break things up somehow. I guess I could try being a touchy-but-oblivious idiot for a while, but you’re not making it look like much fun.

Maybe I need a funnier hat.