Religious Freedom

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 11:20
i fail to see what limitation of speech is caused by the nuance of english it's just a lot more difficult to ensure congruent comprehension. but provides for much humour and richness through metaphor and subtext

---

Wait a sec, there, Echidna-

You "fail to see what limitation"?

How is language to survive (as it indeed must), then?

Do you propose the dictionary be available by subscription, due to it's "fluidity"?
Are you shilling for the U.S. Postal Service?

The "humour and richness" you laud accrues to language through the passage of time, not via the mal-informed, agenda-serving whims of those who would do well to study the various shadings (nuance!) already available to those who love, respect, and practice the correct use of words. ;)

1. its absurd to suggest that a person deserves to lose his job because he said niggardly. get a clue echidna.

2. there's a difference between connotation (assimilation), and simply using/interpretting a word flat out incorrectly (niggardly). Assimilation is an absolute no-no word where i come from (geographically that is, not socially) for entirely legitimate reasons -- because of connotations with past crimes that are truly indefensible by today's standards.

3. I defy anyone to find a (credible) linguist who argues that the meaning of words is fixed. while you're at it, try to find a credible scientist that still believes in heliocentricity.

4. exploiting the fluidity of meaning is done by ALL political parties, all over the world, every day. where you stand politically is a non-issue. its also done by all humans all over the world every day, in all language activities.

5. i would recommend Blair's Politics and the English Language, and Derrida for anyone interested in the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@28 May 2003 - 12:22
1. its absurd to suggest that a person deserves to lose his job because he said niggardly. get a clue echidna.

2. there's a difference between connotation (assimilation), and simply using/interpretting a word flat out incorrectly (niggardly). Assimilation is an absolute no-no word where i come from (geographically that is, not socially) for entirely legitimate reasons -- because of connotations with past crimes that are truly indefensible by today's standards.

3. I defy anyone to find a (credible) linguist who argues that the meaning of words is fixed. while you're at it, try to find a credible scientist that still believes in heliocentricity.

4. exploiting the fluidity of meaning is done by ALL political parties, all over the world, every day. where you stand politically is a non-issue. its also done by all humans all over the world every day, in all language activities.

5. i would recommend Blair's Politics and the English Language, and Derrida for anyone interested in the subject.

---

You make excellent points, myfiles; you also prompt me to attempt a clarification of my post(s):

I felt entirely comfortable using the word "assimilation", as it has not the connotation, in the U.S., to which you object.
I will bear in mind your caution, if you will, in turn, bear in mind MY demographic.

I will, likewise, not argue the "morphing" of certain definitions amounts to a linguistic high crime.

I will heartily object to the off-hand assignment of obsolescent status to the heretofore "fixed" definitions of words.

I think your linguist might also insist, if for no more than archival purposes. ;)

It seems that someone was niggardly when it came to giving Echidna common sense!! :P :lol:

All this political correctness has to stop. It's getting beyond a joke when you can't express an opinion without someone accusing you of racism/sexism/etc. I was reading a post in the Lounge asking people to stop using profanities - Fuck Off, I'll say what I want when I want!!! I can use sentences without profanity as easily but sometimes a bit of emphasis can say a lot more than several long words used incorrectly (which seems to be par for the course on this forum).

As for the religious question: Religion, to me, seems about as realistic as the Teletubbies. It just breeds intolerance and hatred, keeping people in poverty whilst it's leaders are surrounded by wealth. Hypocrisy on a grand scale!! If that Muslim woman won't get a photo for her driving licence don't let her in a car. Religion is no excuse!!

Well, envy and jealousy are quite different, but people use them interchangably. People seem to do that with a lot of words these days. ;) "Hate" and "dislike" spring to mind.

Envy combines discontent, resentment, and desire for another's advantages or possessions.

Jealousy is apprehension of rivalship in cases nearly affecting one's happiness, suspicion of the faithfulness of husband, wife, or lover, or earnest concern or solicitude.

If that doesn't clear it up for you, perhaps it's because I'm more of a thesaurus than a dictionary. ;)

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+28 May 2003 - 15:34--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 May 2003 - 15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@28 May 2003 - 08:29
He looked at me, clipped his finger nails, and said, "Well, I&#39;m sure God made sure this didn&#39;t happen".

Wow, welcome to world of faith. :blink: Damn, smart guy too, it just blows my mind.

---

Might he have been humoring you, Hobbes?

BTW-You, me, and Clocker: drinks in the pub at six sharp. Be prepared to have your back slapped. :lol: :lol:[/b][/quote]
/me pours salt in J2K4&#39;s drink while he is in the mens room.

J2 knows Hobbes has a Masters in Non-verbal communication and a PHD in irony.

If he were joking , he has been keeping it a running one for the 5 years I have known him.

/me elbows Clocker, pointing to salt settling in J2&#39;s glass.

Clocker procedes to bounce peanut shells off my forehead.

Why does it say that the last post (previous to mine ) was by hobbes at 18:23 and I can&#39;t see it?

Have I been unilaterally cut out of the loop?

Bloody hell.. it just showed up after I posted...


Those weren&#39;t peanut shells, hobbes...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@29 May 2003 - 02:32

Quote:

---

sounds to me like the bureaucrat got what they deserved, someone in public office should be aware of and use their words carefully and he should have had, and used, a thesaurus

---

His usage was perfectly correct and appropriate in the context.

Quote:

---

which is really what bit the bureaucrat&#39;s ass

---

No, what bit him was people who have never used/had a thesauraus.

---

they clearly misjudged the reaction to their choice of word

i have no question as to the correctness [by definition] of the term

rather, with the appropriateness of his choice re. his audience
niggardly was obviously a poor choice of words for him as the response lost him his job

why not, chintzy, closefisted, illiberal, mean, miserly, narrow, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, skimpy, skinflint, tight, tight-fisted, or ungenerous

would these not have expressed his opinion of the budgeting and kept him his job? while also expressing that opinion to the thesaurus-less community at large?

i mean he got what was coming because he failed to comprehend the political situation of his position

[ :lol: i seem to remember a president having a very unique definition of sex in order to avoid dishonesty :lol: ]
[just don&#39;t inhale :lol:]

surely language must be chosen far more carefully in public life and media, than informally like here

@j2k4 :: i just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your words, i don&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use them.
that&#39;s all i meant [never though all would get so cheesed by this]

@MagicNator :: thanx

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna@28 May 2003 - 21:57
@j2k4 :: i just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your words, i don&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use them.
that&#39;s all i meant [never though all would get so cheesed by this]

---

I appreciate your alternate perspective, but it all comes back to "FREE SPEECH", which, by it&#39;s own definition, is.....you get my drift.

Public or not.

Also, the rest smacks of , "say what you want, just don&#39;t say it to me".

The P.C. crowd kinda has my goat these days; can you tell? :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+29 May 2003 - 13:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 May 2003 - 13:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--echidna@28 May 2003 - 21:57
@j2k4 :: i just wanted to provide you with a different perspective on your words, i don&#39;t mean that you shouldn&#39;t use them.
that&#39;s all i meant [never though all would get so cheesed by this]

---

I appreciate your alternate perspective, but it all comes back to "FREE SPEECH", which, by it&#39;s own definition, is.....you get my drift.

Public or not.

Also, the rest smacks of , "say what you want, just don&#39;t say it to me".

The P.C. crowd kinda has my goat these days; can you tell? :angry: [/b][/quote]
i&#39;m just trying to account for the freedom of interpretation, which prevails on the internet as well ;)

your poor goat does seem in a bit of a shabby mood :: is it bushes new african &#39;war on aids&#39;? or has it been eating the garbage again? :lol: