"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:1683h98yehcs4$.er3awwzb9bf3$.dlg@40tude.net...

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.

I explained the technical problems in arriving at precise numbers
of Deja messages in my first posting on this.

If only you had read it, you wouldn't be going off on your stupid,
desperate whinings.

You once again prove yourself to be an utter fool. We have no way of
knowing what was in all the other 27,000 (or 54,700) messages.

any way of knowing whether the readers of those messages were satisfied or
stupified by their contents.

irrelevancy.

messages mentioning PTedious by name* to the effect that he is someone who:

* can't read anything straight
* often doesn't bother to read things at all
* is quite incapable of admitting a mistake
* yet nonetheless frequently _IS_ mistaken in many fields
* has an uncontrollable urge to slime those who disagree with him
* rarely gets a joke & positively hates jokes about whatever he thinks
sacred
* simply invents what he imagines others have said
* is desperate to attract attention to himself

And since you have hinted that reactions to my own few messages here might
prove to be just as negative as those dissing Peter or perhaps even more so,
yes, of course they would be. Why wouldn't they be???

In fact, if they were not negative, I would be ashamed of myself.

I am in fact playing the role of opposition here, I am telling you that a
large hunk of modern linguistics simply stinks and that you fully tenured
jerks, for all your claims that you oppose this situation, are doing sweet
fanny adams to bring about any meaningful changes.

As a battle-hardened veteran of 'Sixties campaigning in three different
countries, i am furthermore accustomed to playing the role of the
opposition. And to accepting all the attacks such a role necessarily
entialis.

And I am also accustomed to _winning_ in the end.

So go ahead, you slithery slime-heads, go through all the messages about me
here and show me how much I have offended you!

Or as i once again wrote in my original message, but i am sure you didn't
bother to read it:

_Just to show you how unoriginal their minds are and how low their thoughts
truly run, i guarantee that even now it has occurred to one or both of them
to run to Deja and come up with some counter-quotes about me that might
somehow end up justifying Peter's genuine excesses.

_Don't do it, mates. It's not the same at all. I am not guilty of posting
54,000 or even 27,000 messages on dozens, perhaps hundreds, of newsgroups.
I have come here and to two other related groups on a few occasions for a
specific purpose, to demonstrate how totally out of whack what passes for
current linguistics truly is._

And from some of the messages we've been seeing here lately, it looks like i
may have begun to succeed.

Thanks, Richard. I had explained that in my very first posting on this
subject. But these jerks don't read--they don't even truly react, they're
more like plants and exhibit emotive tropisms.

On 18 Jan 2004 09:36:34 -0800 pfwood@t-online.de (Paul Wood)
wrote in
news:5ab6c4c6.0401180936.1d9c3f36@posting.google.com> in
sci.lang:

"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.

snipped

That's a telling slip on your part: unqualified !=
uncertified. Obviously I don't want to go to an unqualified
dentist, but I'd have no objection to using a dentist who
was qualified but not certified.

"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message news:<1hcgc375ica5l$.cpnt39wk8k15$.dlg@40tude.net>...
On 18 Jan 2004 09:36:34 -0800 pfwood@t-online.de (Paul Wood)
wrote in
news:5ab6c4c6.0401180936.1d9c3f36@posting.google.com> in
sci.lang:

"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.

snipped

That's a telling slip on your part: unqualified !=
uncertified. Obviously I don't want to go to an unqualified
dentist, but I'd have no objection to using a dentist who
was qualified but not certified.

Dear Three Fish,

Since I know you have cancelled all other appointments in the hope
that I will reply to your blatherings - you must have some sort of
vice versa Spam filter set: please allow anything by PFW through so
that we can mug it at once – let me say this.

Apart from the fact that it is the self-outed skinhead Brian who needs
certifying (BE geddit?) and apart from the fact that you three leading
representatives of the mainstream monolingual linguistics-rules-all
community cannot, together, string a single coherent sentence together
as to why it so incenses you that other people may think differently
to you and apart from the fact that your queuing up to bash anything I
may have to say merely (like that perky 'merely'?) reflects the
invidiousness of what you have to compulsively say and apart from the
fact that to the power of n …

Auf Wiedersehen pets

Paul

Quote 1
"Their work required intelligence (scholasticism) but it did not
require thought". The Unconscious Civilisation [John Ralston Saul:
Penguin 1997 p178]

Quote 2
"The fish don't think coz they know … everything". [Pop & Gregovic:
Mercury / Kamarad 1993]

Cue more unthinking blatherings from the Three Fish!

"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in message news:<1hcgc375ica5l$.cpnt39wk8k15$.dlg@40tude.net>...

On 18 Jan 2004 09:36:34 -0800 pfwood@t-online.de (Paul Wood)
wrote in
news:5ab6c4c6.0401180936.1d9c3f36@posting.google.com> in
sci.lang:

"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.

snipped

That's a telling slip on your part: unqualified !=
uncertified. Obviously I don't want to go to an unqualified
dentist, but I'd have no objection to using a dentist who
was qualified but not certified.

Dear Three Fish,

Since I know you have cancelled all other appointments in the hope
that I will reply to your blatherings - you must have some sort of
vice versa Spam filter set: please allow anything by PFW through so
that we can mug it at once – let me say this.

Apart from the fact that it is the self-outed skinhead Brian

What we do see is a preponderance of opinion in *those
messages mentioning PTedious by name*

to the effect that he is someone who:

* can't read anything straight

* often doesn't bother to read things at all

* is quite incapable of admitting a mistake

* yet nonetheless frequently _IS_ mistaken in many fields

* has an uncontrollable urge to slime those who disagree with him

* rarely gets a joke

& positively hates jokes about whatever he thinks sacred

* simply invents what he imagines others have said
* is desperate to attract attention to himself

"benlizross" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote...

Alexander Gross wrote:

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

And since you have hinted that reactions to my own few messages here might
prove to be just as negative as those dissing Peter or perhaps even more so,
yes, of course they would be. Why wouldn't they be???

In fact, if they were not negative, I would be ashamed of myself.

I am in fact playing the role of opposition here, I am telling you that a
large hunk of modern linguistics simply stinks

and that you fully tenured
jerks, for all your claims that you oppose this situation, are doing sweet
fanny adams to bring about any meaningful changes.

As a battle-hardened veteran of 'Sixties campaigning in three different
countries,

i am furthermore accustomed to playing the role of the
opposition. And to accepting all the attacks such a role necessarily
entialis.

And I am also accustomed to _winning_ in the end.

So go ahead, you slithery slime-heads, go through all the messages about me
here and show me how much I have offended you!

It doesn't interest me in the least. I would rather you started to

"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:LewCeeKqJ7CAFw7c@baesystems.com...
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.

Thanks, Richard. I had explained that in my very first posting on this
subject.

But these jerks don't read--they don't even truly react, they're
more like plants and exhibit emotive tropisms.

"Alexander Gross" <language@sprynet.com> wrote in message

* often doesn't bother to read things at all

I've never seen a case of this (and certainly never posted about it)

Ok, so let's get some compromise.

Let's agree to a ceasefire.

Let's pretend none of these discussions ever happened.

From now on, Mr. AG will participate in this open forum...

Mr. PW (if in fact he's a separate person) is invited to the table.

Both Mr. AG and Mr. PW stand warned that almost no one here (with an
apparent exception in Mr. GL, and at specific issues only) has much if
any respect for Mr. NC's academic work.

Both Mr. AG and Mr. PW stand warned that almost no one here (with an
apparent exception in Mr. GL, and at specific issues only) has much if
any respect for Mr. NC's academic work.

Also, most if not all are firm
in the belief that anyone basing universal rules on their very limited
knowlege of that universe is in all probability playing the fool.

As
both Mr. AG and Mr. PW or anyone else might have observed by punctual
lurking. Also, the mindframes of most here were long shapen by the time
Mr. NC came to notoriety, so the conceiveable assumption that they can't
see past their lenses just isn't fit.

Oh really? NC was already very influential when I studied linguistics
as an undergrad (1960-64). I had the impression most of those
participating in these discussions were of a younger generation.