Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000
was your minimum figure for an estimated number of
postings by PTD during the period from 2000/1/1 to
2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason,
you refer to as a "three-year period".

Netscan says that <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> made 7518
posts in the year ending 30 Nov 2002, 4530 in the preceding
year, 2701 in the year before that, and 5370 in the year
before that. That's close enough to AG's period and comes
to a total of 20,119 posts. AG seems to have overestimated
by a good third or so.

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Your original post did not contain the "20%-30%" figure. Nor is that
figure to be found in any of the three Deja pages you cited.
I take it you are now going to try to claim that you derived this figure
by going through all of the 1,980 threads with "Peter Daniels" in
content, putting aside the ones referring to Peter Daniels the
investment counsellor, Peter Daniels the stock-car driver, Peter Daniels
the veterinarian, and examining just those which refer to our friend
here. And yet you can't be any more exact than "20%-30%"? Pull the other
one, mate.

What's happened to Peter Daniels the quondam boyfriend of Lainie Kazan?
He got the name into the gossip columns once in a while 30-odd years
ago.

(She's mostly a torch/cabaret singer, but she's in a marvelous Eli
Wallach movie, *Diary of a Mad Horsethief*, about gypsies, and I doubt
there's a legitimate word of Romany in it anywhere, but you never know.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

Wow, and all this time we Hoosiers thought Lainie was dating a
linguist who specialized in writing systems. Another "cunning
linguist" myth has been dispelled and I, for one, am disappointed!

Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist

P.S. I just got your book in the mail from OUP. It's a thick sucker!
I'm looking forward to reading it.

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Your original post did not contain the "20%-30%" figure. Nor is that
figure to be found in any of the three Deja pages you cited.
I take it you are now going to try to claim that you derived this figure
by going through all of the 1,980 threads with "Peter Daniels" in
content, putting aside the ones referring to Peter Daniels the
investment counsellor, Peter Daniels the stock-car driver, Peter Daniels
the veterinarian, and examining just those which refer to our friend
here. And yet you can't be any more exact than "20%-30%"? Pull the other
one, mate.

What's happened to Peter Daniels the quondam boyfriend of Lainie Kazan?
He got the name into the gossip columns once in a while 30-odd years
ago.

(She's mostly a torch/cabaret singer, but she's in a marvelous Eli
Wallach movie, *Diary of a Mad Horsethief*, about gypsies, and I doubt
there's a legitimate word of Romany in it anywhere, but you never know.)

I take it that Eli Wallach was the horsethief.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:01:23 +1300 benlizross
benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:4009BEC3.293@ihug.co.nz> in sci.lang:

[...]

Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000
was your minimum figure for an estimated number of
postings by PTD during the period from 2000/1/1 to
2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason,
you refer to as a "three-year period".

Netscan says that <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> made 7518
posts in the year ending 30 Nov 2002, 4530 in the preceding
year, 2701 in the year before that, and 5370 in the year
before that. That's close enough to AG's period and comes
to a total of 20,119 posts. AG seems to have overestimated
by a good third or so.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:28:12 GMT "Peter T. Daniels"
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:4008657C.627F@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:

Paul Wood wrote:

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<40071173.5BCA@worldnet.att.net>...

[...]

How many translations of 1200-page French books have _you_ published,
Pifflewood?

Dear Peter

Avoiding obvious gibes such as size doesn't matter, gibes you would
have made, have you got a degree in French? Have you spent at least
two years in France cut off from English language and linguistics
unilateralism? Have you got a professional qualification in
translation? Has your book been peer-reviewed?

Please send me copies of all relevant reviews.

Very few are published yet; you can probably find some via google, if
you're interested. Scholarly journals have a fairly long turn-around
time, but I've seen a few because my publisher happens to do typesetting
for several journals in the field.

Will assess
objectively.

I find that rather hard to believe.

Regards?

I notice you didn't answer the question.

He also has a bad case of credentialism. (And a tin ear:
'linguistics unilateralism' indeed.)

Brian

It's about time the Mrkn and Brits of this world went back to learning
foreign languages. And not relying on their English language
unilateralism for communication all the time. You know it makes sense.

Linguistics is a useful adjunct to the study of languages; it is not a
replacement.

One can only wish that Chomsky had been admitted to
whatever philosphy of language department it was that turned him down
all those years ago. He might have been less grumpy there. I think
Quine had something to do with the rejection.

Admittance would have
spared thousands of post-grads writing Chomskyist unintelligiblese –
and us of Ross Clark.

Yours in sorrow more than ...

Paul

Paul Wood wrote:

It's about time the Mrkn and Brits of this world went back to learning
foreign languages. And not relying on their English language
unilateralism for communication all the time. You know it makes sense.

Linguistics is a useful adjunct to the study of languages; it is not a
replacement.

The study of languages, which presumably means in this context learning
foreign languages, can benefit from the findings of linguistics, but at
no point has linguistics had as one of its aims the improvement of
teaching foreign langauges.

"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message news:<19tn2cozwypas.d7i4pixik827.dlg@40tude.net>...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:28:12 GMT "Peter T. Daniels"
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:4008657C.627F@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:

Paul Wood wrote:

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<40071173.5BCA@worldnet.att.net>...

[...]

How many translations of 1200-page French books have _you_ published,
Pifflewood?

Dear Peter

Avoiding obvious gibes such as size doesn't matter, gibes you would
have made, have you got a degree in French? Have you spent at least
two years in France cut off from English language and linguistics
unilateralism? Have you got a professional qualification in
translation? Has your book been peer-reviewed?

Please send me copies of all relevant reviews.

Very few are published yet; you can probably find some via google, if
you're interested. Scholarly journals have a fairly long turn-around
time, but I've seen a few because my publisher happens to do typesetting
for several journals in the field.

Will assess
objectively.

I find that rather hard to believe.

Regards?

I notice you didn't answer the question.

He also has a bad case of credentialism. (And a tin ear:
'linguistics unilateralism' indeed.)

Brian

Or a good case of professionalism, as the case may me.

You want to go to an unqualified dentist, that's OK by me. Have your
SUV repaired by a hairdresser, fine. Hey, let's fly in an unserviced
aeroplane: so much cheaper.

But any old mathematician such as yourself can write up theories about
LANGUAGE, yes?

dictionaries are big enough, yes?

Acquire Swedish in 15 minutes, yes?

What several of the current overlapping threads are saying is this:
that the more languages you speak, the better your linguistics will
be.

It's a non vice versa situation, though.

It's about time the Mrkn and Brits of this world went back to learning
foreign languages. And not relying on their English language
unilateralism for communication all the time. You know it makes sense.

Linguistics is a useful adjunct to the study of languages; it is not a
replacement.

whatever philosphy of language department it was that turned him down
all those years ago. He might have been less grumpy there. I think
Quine had something to do with the rejection. Admittance would have
spared thousands of post-grads writing Chomskyist unintelligiblese –
and us of Ross Clark.

Yours in sorrow more than ...

Paul

"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message news:<19tn2cozwypas.d7i4pixik827.dlg@40tude.net>...

He also has a bad case of credentialism. (And a tin ear:
'linguistics unilateralism' indeed.)

Or a good case of professionalism, as the case may me.

You want to go to an unqualified dentist, that's OK by me.

Have your SUV repaired by a hairdresser, fine.

Hey, let's fly in an unserviced aeroplane: so much cheaper.

But any old mathematician such as yourself can write up theories about
LANGUAGE, yes?

Any old amateur like PTD can translate -- provided his
dictionaries are big enough, yes?

Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:01:23 +1300 benlizross
benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:4009BEC3.293@ihug.co.nz> in sci.lang:

[...]

Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000
was your minimum figure for an estimated number of
postings by PTD during the period from 2000/1/1 to
2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason,
you refer to as a "three-year period".

Netscan says that <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> made 7518
posts in the year ending 30 Nov 2002, 4530 in the preceding
year, 2701 in the year before that, and 5370 in the year
before that. That's close enough to AG's period and comes
to a total of 20,119 posts. AG seems to have overestimated
by a good third or so.

Maybe he counts crosspostings separately.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:01:23 +1300 benlizross
benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:4009BEC3.293@ihug.co.nz> in sci.lang:

[...]

Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000
was your minimum figure for an estimated number of
postings by PTD during the period from 2000/1/1 to
2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason,
you refer to as a "three-year period".

Netscan says that <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> made 7518
posts in the year ending 30 Nov 2002, 4530 in the preceding
year, 2701 in the year before that, and 5370 in the year
before that. That's close enough to AG's period and comes
to a total of 20,119 posts. AG seems to have overestimated
by a good third or so.

[...]

Brian

In message <400A7F37.5D32@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes
Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:01:23 +1300 benlizross
benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:4009BEC3.293@ihug.co.nz> in sci.lang:

[...]

Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000
was your minimum figure for an estimated number of
postings by PTD during the period from 2000/1/1 to
2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason,
you refer to as a "three-year period".

Netscan says that <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> made 7518
posts in the year ending 30 Nov 2002, 4530 in the preceding
year, 2701 in the year before that, and 5370 in the year
before that. That's close enough to AG's period and comes
to a total of 20,119 posts. AG seems to have overestimated
by a good third or so.

Maybe he counts crosspostings separately.

That's a known failing of Google's counting system.

--
Richard Herring

Alexander Gross wrote:

snippity snip

I can be pretty certain in advance that Stoogius Major aka PTedious
will
not
look in either, since he boasts that he has never been to my website
and
in
any case never bothers to read anything straight to begin with, as at
least
a dozen members of the jury of his peers have already testified.

Hm. A dozen bad reactions for 27,000 [?] posts doesn't seem too
terrible to me. Anybody been tabulating Gross's percentages?

Ross, you've just proved to me that you are illiterate, innumerate, a
poor
researcher, and pretty much devoid of common sense.

Let me guess. This means that you must be a professor of linguistics.

It's never wise to take Gross's word for anything.


Illiterate & innumerate because of your total mistake in claiming "a
dozen
bad reactions for 27,000." Had you bothered to go to the Deja page i
cited,
you would have found that from 20% to 30% of the messages containing the
name "Peter Daniels" as part of the content were fairly harsh judgments
of
Peter.

Your original post did not contain the "20%-30%" figure. Nor is that
figure to be found in any of the three Deja pages you cited.
I take it you are now going to try to claim that you derived this figure
by going through all of the 1,980 threads with "Peter Daniels" in
content, putting aside the ones referring to Peter Daniels the
investment counsellor, Peter Daniels the stock-car driver, Peter Daniels
the veterinarian, and examining just those which refer to our friend
here. And yet you can't be any more exact than "20%-30%"? Pull the other
one, mate.

That's a lot different from "12 out of 27,000," which proves you are
a lousy researcher. And lack of common sense covers the lot.

Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000 was your minimum
figure for an estimated number of postings by PTD during the period from
2000/1/1 to 2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason, you
refer to as a "three-year period". You presented 27 quotations, adding
"I could easily have included twice as many. Or perhaps even ten times
as many." So even at your most wildly optimistic estimate, you would
have 270 such quotations. Or about 1%.

In other words, almost a third of those posting these messages were
complaining about the quality of his messages. Probably about 50% were
neutral, leaving at best one-sixth saying anything favorable about him,
if
that much.

Face it, Peter has a few problems, aside from those concerned with
factuality.

As do you. You're illiterate, innumerate, and you lie.

Ross Clark

In message <400A7F37.5D32@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes

Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:01:23 +1300 benlizross
benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:4009BEC3.293@ihug.co.nz> in sci.lang:

[...]

Let's go back to what was in your original post. 27,000
was your minimum figure for an estimated number of
postings by PTD during the period from 2000/1/1 to
2003/12/21 -- a four-year period which, for some reason,
you refer to as a "three-year period".

Netscan says that <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> made 7518
posts in the year ending 30 Nov 2002, 4530 in the preceding
year, 2701 in the year before that, and 5370 in the year
before that. That's close enough to AG's period and comes
to a total of 20,119 posts. AG seems to have overestimated
by a good third or so.

Maybe he counts crosspostings separately.

That's a known failing of Google's counting system.