[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: how does one...? was Re: JVP 27(1)



----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff Green" <dinonaut@emerytelcom.net>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:53 AM


Actually, my post was tongue-in-cheek.

Oh. Unfortunately, that was not obvious at all. For example, like Tim, I believed that you had probably honestly applied to American Idol and was going to ask.


Yours came across as malicious.

May I suggest that you two are using "infamous" in two different ways? German has different words for those senses: one for "deeply evil", and another for "widely known for being qualitatively (or morally) bad". I think it's obvious that the "malicious" post used the latter sense, without the parenthesis. (BTW, the first sense seems to have developed from the second, via the parenthesis.)


So, with that, I have a new question for you. Do the judges
really make fun of shut ins and mentally ill people?

No idea. However, I've read that the judges in the German version make rather disgusting jokes about the candidates themselves, so I guess it's not out of the question... The Libanese version was not nice either.


That doesn't mean I think he should have his
name blotted out of the science for heresy.

Nobody said it should be.

This is my last post on the Dinosaur Mailing List.

Well, frankly, I don't understand that. The worst example on this list, Tim, is often more aggressive than necessary, but it's always possible to separate _what_ he says from _how_ he says it. _What_ he said in this case was simply that, although Czerkas is fully entitled to his own opinions (his own interpretations of the facts), he is not entitled to his own facts (at least not in science...), and some of the "facts" in that book are his own*, which is widely known and well documented and therefore fulfills the second definition of "infamous" (but, obviously, not the first).


Let me wish you all the best.

* It is entirely sufficient -- just in case I get misunderstood -- to assume that lack of knowledge of certain facts is the explanation for those parts of the book that are at variance with reality. No malicious intent need to be assumed, therefore parsimony argues against assuming any.