Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[Gob]

And if we are willing to accept the degradation of the language, then there we are.

If "phile" no longer means anything, then "pedophile" can mean whatever we want it to mean.

And "breadbox" can mean "a thing with wings that transports people and/or freight".

I may be qixotic -- after all, I still (rightly) object to the splitting of infinitives, and I still (rightly) recognize that "dissect" is not "disect" -- but I'll still take "aircraft".

Ok, so giving that the terminology is exclusive of acts of sexual nature against children, rape of an infant for example, by those who are not sexually attracted towards children. What is the correct terminology for us to us Andrew, seeing you seem hung up on the definition?

[thestoat]

Firstly, I think that quibbling over exact phraseology of the term is pointless. Everyone I know would understand what I mean when I use the term pedophile. It may be that clever men in smoking jackets might sit around quibbling over the minutia of the language and congratulating themselves on how clever they are but for the rest of us, a pedophile is someone who sexually interferes with children. Simple as. Language moves on. It was Charles I (or maybe II) who coined the term awful (he used awefull) as being full of awe.

Secondly, I don't think there can be many who will read Andrew D's comments and think "Ah yes, Lo would have known that nuance of the language, being so erudite and careful in her writings."

[thestoat]

I still (rightly) object to the splitting of infinitives

Was that intentional or ironic?

[Andrew D]

As to the terminology, how about "child-rapist"? It seems to fit the facts, it seems to fit the language, and I seem to have used it repeatedly without objection.

As to this:

I still (rightly) object to the splitting of infinitives

Was that intentional or ironic?

Do you think that in my language which you quoted there is an infinitive?

[thestoat]

Do you think that in my language which you quoted there is an infinitive?

I'm happy to allow you the word on this Andrew, since I am sure your language skills are better than mine. It obviously isn't an infinitive - does the rule only apply to infinitives? Can you say "I boldly go" or should you say "I go boldly"?

[Andrew D]

Well, yes, the rule against splitting infinitives applies only to infinitives.

"Can you say"? Of course you can.

Especially given that neither "I boldly go" nor "I go boldly" involves an infinitive.

Was your comment intentional or ironic?

[thestoat]

It was an honest mistake - I seem to be one of very few on the board who admit to them

[The Hen]

Hey Stoat, you join the rank of the chosen few who will admit to a mistake.

It is one of the attributes I most admire in a person.

Many other aspects of personalities are bluff and bluster, but those who will put there hands up and state they were in error are very rare indeed.

[thestoat]

Thanks Hen

[Lord Jim]

I thank you sir, for your honestly, in the stead of your projection.

The best way to get supportive comments from an egomaniac is to flatter him LoCa, so if that's what you want from Andrew you're definitely taking the right tact....

[Sean]

I've only ever been wrong once...

There was an occasion when i thought I was wrong about something.

But I was wrong... I'd been right all along!

[thestoat]

[Sean]

I thank you sir, for your honestly, in the stead of your projection.

The best way to get supportive comments from an egomaniac is to flatter him LoCa, so if that's what you want from Andrew you're definitely taking the right tact....

Just imagine the support she'd get if she could flatter coherently...

[quaddriver]

Firstly, I think that quibbling over exact phraseology of the term is pointless. ."

Ok, now THAT had to be a joke? right?

Most of the arguments here are one person in partic, but sometimes with his posse arguing one of two things:

a) what he said using certain words is not what he said at all because he instructs those words to have different meaning
b) what other people said using certain words means something entirely different because he instructs those words to have different meaning.

the sole common factor is: he reserves the right to alter meanings on a whim. not surprising, he comes from a land where their advertising states that a product will not do something 'not one tiddly bit'. A phrase with zero meaning because it contains word(s) that do not exist in any earthly language. Hence, he was granted freedom from linguistic responsibility from birth.

So Andrew is perfectly correct to argue the point as he does, but I bet he finds it equal to pissing up a tree. A slippery tree at that.

[thestoat]

The reason I suggest it is pointless may be found by quoting the next statement too

[quaddriver]

The reason I suggest it is pointless may be found by quoting the next statement too

And I would be inclined to agree with you.

But.

If you note the threads I have been in, and Andrew as well, we have faced the same nemesis', doing as I indicated above.

Some of us refuse to play the game no?

[thestoat]

That is true - some of us certainly refuse to play the game. And ordinarily, the exact meaning of a phrase is very important. However, as Hen correctly (IMO) says, "Popular usage of the word has re-defined the word", and getting into a pissing match about the exact meaning of that word would abstract us from the core problem which is, once again, lo says something inaccurate. And while I can believe that Andrew knows what he is talking about when using specific words (as much as he was like a baying jackal ready to tear my throat out for a single mistake), I don't believe lo can be afforded that privilege.

[Gob]

Well said.

[Andrew D]

The best way to get supportive comments from an egomaniac is to flatter him LoCa, so if that's what you want from Andrew you're definitely taking the right tact....

So says Lord Jim, whose arrogance vastly exceeds that of all other posters here combined ....

But if my whole life were a lie, perhaps I would behave the same way.

(Incidentally, one takes a "tack" not a "tact".)

[Gob]

Oh grow up Andrew for fucks sake.

That's just childish.