 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / May 2008Americans: Zune : Your opinon
So I was watching diggnation and they were plugging the Zune ("welcome to the social"). Are Microsoft still doing the whole Zune thing? Seriously? Why??!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?! The iPhone & iPod is king, why mess around with stupid Zune adverts? I notice they don't sell it here in the uK. Proabbly because no-one would be stupid enough to buy it...ahahhahahahahahahhahahaha zune... more like ...poo-one. Amirite? >So I was watching diggnation and they were plugging the Zune ("welcome >to the social"). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >would be stupid enough to buy it...ahahhahahahahahahhahahaha zune... >more like ...poo-one. Amirite? Just a note: Just because an idiot posts in a Mac newsgroup, please don't assume all Mac fans are idiots. > >So I was watching diggnation and they were plugging the Zune ("welcome > >to the social"). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just a note: Just because an idiot posts in a Mac newsgroup, please > don't assume all Mac fans are idiots. Yep - though this post had three significant strikes against it from the start: 1. The Subject header contains "Zune". 'Nuff said. 2. The Message-ID header contains "googlegroups.com". The overwhelming majority of both SPAM and clueless, misdirected posts originate at Google Groups. 3. The Newsgroups header contains "uk.comp.sys.mac". That U.K. news group is full of freak w.nkers. Three strikes - you're out! If you kill all posts whose Message-ID header contains "googlegroups.com", and kill all posts whose Newsgroups header contains "uk.comp.sys.mac", you'll never see garbage posts like this again - unless someone else responds to it. Ignorance, in this case, is bliss. : )  SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR [snip] > Just a note: Just because an idiot posts in a Mac newsgroup, please > don't assume all Mac fans are idiots. And please do not assume that everyone posting in a Mac newsgroup is a Mac fan. Some of us just use Macs without signing up to the Cult of The iSteve, you know. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rowland. You gotta remember that the OP _is_ our good friend Chris Holland. Signatureemail to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. [snip] > You gotta remember that the OP _is_ our good friend Chris Holland. Aye, but it doesn't look like I'm replying to him, does it? Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >> Just a note: Just because an idiot posts in a Mac newsgroup, please >> don't assume all Mac fans are idiots. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Some of us just use Macs without signing up to the Cult of The iSteve, >you know. One can be a Mac fan without signing up - it is rare. My kid sister's son is graduating from high school this week, getting the Mac laptop he wanted - to go with his Zune! I have to admit that is rare, but I like to see people who obviously use other criteria than whether it is Apple or Microsoft or whatever brand to decide what he wants. In my case, the first Apple product I bought was an iPod. Then my wife fell in love with the iMac design and got hers. Only then did I decide that it was a value purchase for me. > >> Just a note: Just because an idiot posts in a Mac newsgroup, please > >> don't assume all Mac fans are idiots. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > One can be a Mac fan without signing up - it is rare. One can also own and use Macs without being a Mac fan. It's common - I'm an example of one such person. There are no PCs in this house powered by MS. The only x86 CPU powered computer is my Psion 3. Everything else is powered by 6502s, Z-80s, 68k, and PPC CPUs (aside from whatever's in the washing machine and calculators and so on). I'm not a Mac fan, but I am a MS loather. I dislike the firm Apple, and I loathe The iSteve (he's personally obnoxious to me: I'd not take tea with him). But I've liked Macs up until recent years - MacOS X was a step backwards in terms of UI, and things have got worse recently. > My kid > sister's son is graduating from high school this week, getting the Mac > laptop he wanted - to go with his Zune! God knows why anyone would want a Zune, but there you go. Some people are attracted by feature lists. Sensible people concern themselves with the practicalities of `what can I do with it for me, and how easily can I do it?' I've no real use for any sort of portable media player myself. > I have to admit that is rare, but I like to see people who obviously > use other criteria than whether it is Apple or Microsoft or whatever > brand to decide what he wants. Only complete idiots make buying decisions based on brand alone. (Having said that, my personal strategy of `never buy Microsoft' has worked very well over the decades. I started to avoid MS like the plague back in the 1970s when I met MS Basic, which was really really crap and I don't understand why it gets such nostalgic raving these days - it was the crappy low-end Basic interpreter when compared to the competition, especially the competition that came out in the first couple of years of the 1980s. MS-DOS was just as old-fashioned and rubbish as MS Basic - a rip-off of CP/M: good solid 1970s tech, was CP/M - but MS-DOS was hanging around until the end of the 1990s! <shrug> MS Windoze v1, I never used. I did have to use v2, v3, and '95. Then I managed to escape and I've never looked back - MS Windoze is awful. MS is just awful, full stop. Anything else...) > In my case, the first Apple product I bought was an iPod. Then my > wife fell in love with the iMac design and got hers. Only then did I > decide that it was a value purchase for me. <shrug> Beats me why `everyone' `defaults to Windows' without people noticing that they're buying for the brand name alone; but if you buy an iPod, then obviously you must be a lemming who's just following the herd. You were buying on brand name before then, I'll bet. Never mind that MS Windoze has always been shite but gets people using it lemming-like, insisting on MS brand products regardless of anything but the brand-name, putting up with all that shite because it's MS. Brand following is how most people decide their lives. And never mind that the iPod is by far the most convenient to use solid state music player going, especially when you look at how to get music on it. Me? I look at performance - i.e., how readily my PC enables me to do what I want to do. MS software fails to let me do what I want to do in all cases where I've tried it. I can't get what I want from a Mac either, but it's less of a disaster than the dark side. Or used to be... I've never been influenced by the prettiness of the casing or whatever - chosing a computer because it looks pretty is a bit daft if you ask me. Performance - that is, what it permits you, the user, to do (not computing speed - that on its own is irrelevant) - that's the only thing that matters. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking ><shrug> Beats me why `everyone' `defaults to Windows' without people >noticing that they're buying for the brand name alone; Often people buy because the company making the software they want (or need) chose Windows. And that's a perfectly valid reason. ... >And never mind that the iPod is by far the most convenient to use solid >state music player going, especially when you look at how to get music >on it. At the time I made my choice, it was. I haven't had a reason to analyze the characteristics and price of competing models since then. It would be foolish for me to assume that each generation had the same winner (like the families that have used Dodge or Ford or GM for 80 years - sometimes one make is better, sometimes another is better). Although, as with Windows users - iPods and iTunes have a head start next time I am in the market - because I won't need a learning curve. > ><shrug> Beats me why `everyone' `defaults to Windows' without people > >noticing that they're buying for the brand name alone; > > Often people buy because the company making the software they want (or > need) chose Windows. And that's a perfectly valid reason. That's very rarely the reason, if you assess things by the number of decisions made each way (rather than doing it on the number of PCs bought - a commercial operation will make one decision to buy thousands of PCs based on that sort of criteria). Most people just go with what they know without considering any alternative; mostly they refuse to consider an alternative to what they know. I've heard from one consultant who found that he occasionally lost a contract simply for suggesting that the firm looking for an internal computer setup might *consider* Macs. A lot of the decision making is done on a very irrational basis. > >And never mind that the iPod is by far the most convenient to use solid > >state music player going, especially when you look at how to get music > >on it. > > At the time I made my choice, it was. I haven't had a reason to > analyze the characteristics and price of competing models since then. It's a mistake to look at the characteristics of just the player. It's what you can do with it that counts, and that means it's got to have a convenient interface to the source of music. There's still nothing to match the iPod on that front. Not that I think this is a good thing at all: the lack of competition in the marketplace for iPod-like gadgets is a problem from my point of view, but there you go. > It would be foolish for me to assume that each generation had the same > winner (like the families that have used Dodge or Ford or GM for 80 > years - sometimes one make is better, sometimes another is better). Well, yes, but there's still no serious competition for the iPod mostly because you get a vertically integrated package with yer iPod + iTunes + iTunes Music Store. The implementation has ease of use that's not been matched by anyone else yet. No sense in making assumptions; look at what's out there every time. And for one thing, every time I've looked, MS OSes have been rubbish. > Although, as with Windows users - iPods and iTunes have a head start > next time I am in the market - because I won't need a learning curve. A more relevant point is that the learning curve with ITunes is very short and very shallow. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >> At the time I made my choice, it was. I haven't had a reason to >> analyze the characteristics and price of competing models since then. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >convenient interface to the source of music. There's still nothing to >match the iPod on that front. I believe he bought it before iTunes sold unprotected songs. I no longer buy protected songs (people at work can't listen to them). Looking up a song on iTunes, checking to see if it is Plus, and if not, switching to Amazon is not a convenient interface. Although I don't know if he has an account - maybe he doesn't have a charge card that he's willing to use, and prefers to burn CDs. I haven't asked him. > >> At the time I made my choice, it was. I haven't had a reason to > >> analyze the characteristics and price of competing models since then. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I believe he bought it before iTunes sold unprotected songs. I no > longer buy protected songs (people at work can't listen to them). Those aren't protected songs, that's music with added consumer rights denial technology added to it, but the workaround is to burn to CD and then you can do what you like with it. Consumer rights denial technology offers the buyer less security than buying music honestly on a CD - it's no protection at all because this consumer rights denial technology means you can only listen to your music as long as the firm that supplied it wants you to. What happens if you lose the ability to authorise iTunes for playing the music you want for some reason? What if Apple switches you off? - that kind of thing has been known to happen accidentally Or what if Apple goes belly up entirely? And there's the other problem any music you `buy' that way is lossily compressed (or was last time I looked). Low quality music, and you don't even get to own the copy, but instead merely have a licence to listen to it on Apple products at Apple's discretion - except Apple can't enforce its will on you unless you buy music infected with its consumer rights denial technology (dishonestly presented as `copy protection' or `digital rights management' - when it's no protection, and acts to deny consumers their rights). Seems to me that only mugs would spend their money that way, but it seems that there are a lot of mugs in the world who find it convenient to do so. And that's the point: it's got unmatched ease of use, so that people *do* buy music that way. The ones who want to, that is - obviously, if you don't (like me), then it's not. But regardless of that, there's no more convenient way (short of hiring someone to do the job for you) of getting music from CD onto a music player than via iTunes onto an iPod. And that's how come iPods have no serious competition - it's not just about the player, it's about the whole package. The only two firms in existence even *trying* to do that job properly are Apple and MS. It's a shame that Microsoft has always failed to get this sort of thing right throughout its entire history. Apple needs some competition on this one and it's got none. > Looking up a song on iTunes, checking to see if it is Plus, and if > not, switching to Amazon is not a convenient interface. You're failing to make a valid comparison. You're not an iTunes music store mug - you don't want to buy that way. So it's invalid to look at what you'd have to do to work around the problems you get through not being willing to be ripped off by Apple. What you should do is compare what you get with an iPod with what you get with other music players. You're failing to do that. > Although I don't know if he has an account - maybe he doesn't have a > charge card that he's willing to use, and prefers to burn CDs. I > haven't asked him. Like I say, only mugs buy from the iTunes music store. The only sane way of buying music is on an actual disc that you *own*, not a computer file you `licence' use of. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >Those aren't protected songs, that's music with added consumer rights >denial technology added to it, but the workaround is to burn to CD and >then you can do what you like with it. I don't think iTunes still lets this work. >Consumer rights denial >technology offers the buyer less security than buying music honestly on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >protection' or `digital rights management' - when it's no protection, >and acts to deny consumers their rights). I'd love to always buy lossless, but have an option to compress on the fly while loading my iPod. When I buy a song, let me have it at maximum fidelity. I can archive it and then compress what I want on my computer or iPod as I wish. > >Those aren't protected songs, that's music with added consumer rights > >denial technology added to it, but the workaround is to burn to CD and > >then you can do what you like with it. > > I don't think iTunes still lets this work. I've not heard that they stopped it. Limits on the number of copies you can make that way have existed, I gather. But I'll never find out from personal experience because you'll not catch me doing anything stupid like paying money for a limited licence to listen to music infected with consumer rights denial tech. I want to buy outright a copy of a full quality recording that lets me do what I want with it. [snip] > I'd love to always buy lossless, It's easy: buy CDs. >but have an option to compress on the > fly while loading my iPod. You can have losslessly compressed music: it's what my wife has on her iPod. Compression does not mean lossy compression only; there's lossless too. ALC works well with iPods and iTunes. > When I buy a song, let me have it at > maximum fidelity. I can archive it and then compress what I want on > my computer or iPod as I wish. Easily done: buy CDs, rip 'em to ALC, and Bob's yer auntie's live-in lover. If you want more compression - well, LAME does a damned fine job of lossless compression if you ask me, churning out mp3s so you're not stuck with AACs (iTunes is quite good and producing them, but crap at mp3s) that'll only play on an iPod. What you want has been available for some time. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > lover. If you want more compression - well, LAME does a damned fine job > of lossless compression if you ask me, churning out mp3s so you're not > stuck with AACs (iTunes is quite good and producing them, but crap at > mp3s) that'll only play on an iPod. AACs play on a reasonable number of non-Apple devices, including the Zune. Cheers, Chris > (Rowland McDonnell) said: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > AACs play on a reasonable number of non-Apple devices, including the Zune. Oh! Righto. Didn't know that. Made an invalid assumption again. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >> (Rowland McDonnell) said: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Oh! Righto. Didn't know that. Made an invalid assumption again. You might be thinking of *protected* AAC[0] files - they pretty much play only on the iPod, iTunes and a few Motorola/Apple phones. Jim [0] protected with Fairplay, that is. Signaturehttp://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Sometimes when I talk to a Windows person about using a Mac, I feel like I'm explaining Van Halen to a horse." Merlin Mann > >> (Rowland McDonnell) said: > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You might be thinking of *protected* AAC[0] files - they pretty much play only > on the iPod, iTunes and a few Motorola/Apple phones. Ah yes - that's where I made my mistake. Thanks for the correction. > Jim > [0] protected with Fairplay, that is. That's not protection: that's legal rights denial technology. And it's not Fairplay at all - that term is pure newspeak, along with Minitrue, Minilove, and so on. It cannot give protection to anyone but the shareholders of the big music firms that own the copyright on the recordings that are infected with this legal rights denial sh.t. It's just a way for capitalist pigs to assert more control, this sh.t they call `protection' - yeah, like paying the Mafia 10% of one's takings is `protection'. They create nothing, they extort the work fo others and get fat on the proceeds. Parasites, the lot of them. f.ck 'em. (and if that sounds a bit Communist, well, I *am* an anarcho-syndicalist at heart, so a casual observer could mistake me for a Commie. But a true Commie would take time out from capitalist bashing to bash me first. C.f. the Spanish Civil War.) If this legal rights denial sh.t resulted in the creative artists - the musicians - being properly paid, I would not be so stroppy about it. But the musicians are being screwed as badly as ever by the capitalist pigs who forced them to hand over their copyright just for the privilege of making money for said capitalist pigs. Yes, that's right: look at the CDs on your shelves/racks. All the major music labels steal the copyright off the musicians who make the recordings. Oh, it's not theft in a legal sense, you say? Well, it's damned well theft in a moral sense if you ask me. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > >> (Rowland McDonnell) said: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > not Fairplay at all - that term is pure newspeak, along with Minitrue, > Minilove, and so on. It isn't newspeak, it is a product name. The product that the music is encrypted with is called 'Fairplay', not to be confused with the term 'fair play' as it is not particulary fair in that it is designed to stop it playing. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com [snip] > > That's not protection: that's legal rights denial technology. And it's > > not Fairplay at all - that term is pure newspeak, along with Minitrue, > > Minilove, and so on. > > It isn't newspeak, it is a product name. <ROFL> Has Mr Logic left the building? Being a product name does not preclude it being newspeak. The two assessments are clearly orthogonal, aren't they? Just how thick do you think I am? I must say I'm quite insulted that you thought I *am* stupid enough to fall for that bit of bullshit from you. Obviously, as any child could tell you, many product names count as newspeak - it's the aim of company and product names to mislead and misdirect the consumer. Marketing is legalised lying, as Rudyard Kipling pointed out. He should know: he used to write the stuff. > The product that the music is > encrypted with is called 'Fairplay', not to be confused with the term > 'fair play' as it is not particulary fair in that it is designed to stop > it playing. Except that the product name was and is intended to be confused with the phrase `fair play'. Which is what makes it newspeak. Do give it a rest - you're just being an awkward prat over this one. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you thought I *am* stupid enough to fall for that bit of bullshit from > you. Oh go and f.ck yourself you stupid twat. So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it means. Next you will expect people to know other common terms like widget. I thought you were doing your usual hard of thinking thing again. It is honestly very hard to tell if you are really thick or just go out of your way to appear it. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it > means. Nah, that was George Orwell. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four> Cheers, Chris >> So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it >> means. > > Nah, that was George Orwell. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four> Ahh, ok, I forgot that Rowland had a prescribed list of what jargon you were allowed to use. SignatureWoody > > usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) said: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ahh, ok, I forgot that Rowland had a prescribed list of what jargon you were > allowed to use. <very puzzled> But it's a normal English word that you will find in normal English dictionaries. It's not obscure, and it's not jargon, which means it's acceptable for general usage in any reasonable person's judgement. But of course I'm a twat for thinking that you knew a standard English word in common usage that can be found in most English dictionaries. newspeak (noun) ambiguous euphemistic language used chiefly in political propaganda. ORIGIN 1949: the name of an artificial official language in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. is what Dictionary.app says (actually, it's wrong on that: newspeak is not ambiguous or euphemistic; it's deliberate lies to distort the users' ability to understand what's really going on, and to get them to accept lies more readily. That is what Orwell said it was all about - read the book). My list of `words acceptable for use' includes all words in a normal dictionary, plus jargon (optionally) as judged suitable. Okay, so you're very ignorant - which is why you decided to call me a twat for using a normal non-jargon word of a sort that it's reasonable to assume all educated English speakers are familiar with. And if you weren't - well, why didn't you try looking it up in the dictionary instead of calling me a twat? that's not like you suggesting I spent 10-30 minutes Web searching to track down the meaning of some jargon. All you had to do was cmd-ctrl-D with the mouse over the word (assuming your newsreader works wiht that shortcut - MacSoup doesn't) and you'd've found out what it means, as well as correcting a lamentable hole in your knowledge of standard English. But of course I'm a twat for expecting you to understand standard English, aren't I? Yes, I admit it: I should have found out just how restricted your vocabulary was before I wrote, and made sure that I didn't use any words that you don't know, and also made sure that the meanings I used for those words matched whatever your misconceptions are. Of course, because only Woody's English usage has any significance in this world: anyone deviating from your English usage is a twat, obviously. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) said: > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But it's a normal English word that you will find in normal English > dictionaries. I looked in my normal English dictionary and it certainly isn't. > It's not obscure, and it's not jargon, which means it's > acceptable for general usage in any reasonable person's judgement. > > But of course I'm a twat for thinking that you knew a standard English > word in common usage that can be found in most English dictionaries. No, you are not a twat for that reason. > My list of `words acceptable for use' includes all words in a normal > dictionary, plus jargon (optionally) as judged suitable. I have a normal dictionary and it isn't in there. So by your definition do you accept that you are wrong then? > Okay, so you're very ignorant - which is why you decided to call me a > twat for using a normal non-jargon word of a sort that it's reasonable > to assume all educated English speakers are familiar with. As I said, I didn't call you a twat for that reason. > And if you weren't - well, why didn't you try looking it up in the > dictionary instead of calling me a twat? I did, it wasn't there. > that's not like you suggesting > I spent 10-30 minutes Web searching to track down the meaning of some > jargon. huh, what? Who said 10-30 minute web search on what? What are you on? > But of course I'm a twat for expecting you to understand standard > English, aren't I? No, as I said, you are not a twat for that reason. Although we have had that argument from the other side where I believed you called me stupid for assuming the dictionary term meant what it said and I was inflexable. > Yes, I admit it: I should have found out just how > restricted your vocabulary was before I wrote, and made sure that I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in this world: anyone deviating from your English usage is a twat, > obviously. No, people can deviate from any form of english, I don't care. I can generally work it out. It is where you get abusive at someone because they didn't understand what you meant in the same breath as getting abusive with someone else because you didn't understand what they meant. That is what makes you a twat, the 'fact' it is always you who is in the right, regardless of the circumstances. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com >> > >> So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it >> > >> means. >> > > Nah, that was George Orwell. >> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four> >> > Ahh, ok, I forgot that Rowland had a prescribed list of what jargon you were >> > allowed to use. >> <very puzzled> >> >> But it's a normal English word that you will find in normal English >> dictionaries. >I looked in my normal English dictionary and it certainly isn't. If you really have a modern English dictionary - except perhaps the smallest pocket kind - and it doesn't have "newspeak", then you should certainly get a better one! 1984 is probably not so widely read as it once was; I fear that in a few years people will be wondering what was supposed to be so bad about the world portrayed in it. And I agree with Rowland that "Fairplay" is an excellent example of real-life newspeak. -- Richard :wq > 1984 is probably not so widely read as it once was; I fear that in a > few years people will be wondering what was supposed to be so bad > about the world portrayed in it. I always wondered what would be so bad about living in Potterville. SignatureW. Oates [snip] > 1984 is probably not so widely read as it once was; I fear that in a > few years people will be wondering what was supposed to be so bad > about the world portrayed in it. The bulk of the population never knew: it's how come that the US government has got away with what it's got away with recently. If the population of the USA had read 1984, they've killed Dubya and cronies by now. You see if kids today have a clue why the telly programmes `Big Brother' and `Room 101' have those names. > And I agree with Rowland that "Fairplay" is an excellent example > of real-life newspeak. The amount of newspeak went through the roof under Bliar. Thankfully, Broon's an uncomplicated old fashioned shameless liar, which is more comfortable for me. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking >> 1984 is probably not so widely read as it once was; I fear that in a >> few years people will be wondering what was supposed to be so bad [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >population of the USA had read 1984, they've killed Dubya and cronies by >now. I doubt that very much. We're very good at fooling ourselves and enabling others. > >> 1984 is probably not so widely read as it once was; I fear that in a > >> few years people will be wondering what was supposed to be so bad [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I doubt that very much. We're very good at fooling ourselves and > enabling others. Due to the appalling state of education and literacy in the USA[1], the current population of the USA is such that a very large fraction simply never reads books, and wouldn't be able to understand something like 1984. (We have something similar but not quite so bad in the UK) If the population could read 1984 and did so, I promise you that the US citizenry would be a good deal less easy to fool. Imagine all US states full of people who'd been turned by education into something more like New Englanders - where they have real English civilised bloodymindedness, real English mistrust of the authorities, and a rather non-English big heap of firearms. Rowland. [1] And don't do the usual knee-jerk USAian thing of `Oh, you're criticising the USA, that's just anti-Americanism'. For starters, why not be anti-American? US foreign and environmental policy is such that all decent minded citizens of the globe should be campaigning against the USA - anti-Americanism is just a common sense reaction to the problems caused by the US government over the decades, and not any kind of bigotry. But that's not got anything to do with it: the point is that US patriots have been screaming about the decline in US educational standards for *decades* by now. All I'm doing is tell you what patriotic US citizens like Robert Heinlein have told me about US education. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > > usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) said: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I looked in my normal English dictionary and it certainly isn't. You have /Applications/Dictionary.app, probably the nearest thing to a normal English dictionary that you have access to, and it has the word `newspeak'. That is proof you are lying once again. Is it any wonder I call you a liar, when you keep on lying so often? And why do you get so annoyed when I point out your lies, you liar? The Concise Oxford Dictionary also has the word. The truth of what you're saying is this: you've managed to find some tiny pocket sized English dictionary without that word - fair enough, it's a crappy dictionary, not a normal English dictionary like the ones I referred to. Of course I"m not even going to read the rest of your post - not when you start out with blatent lies. You can't expect me to have any time for you when you're in lying bastard mode, can you? You've done what you often do, which is switch into lying bastard mode for the purposes of hurling personal abuse and criticism at me. That's despicable of you as far as I'm concerned. [snip] Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > > > > usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) said: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > normal English dictionary that you have access to, and it has the word > `newspeak'. That is proof you are lying once again. And if you had half a brain, which obviously you don't, you would have seen that when I made the post I was posting from a client known as 'windows mail', which may suprise you to know is a windows application. For whatever reason, there didn't appear to be an /Applications/Dictionary.app running under vista. The nearest thing to a dictionary was a normal english dictionary in arms reach made of paper. It would suprise you to know, seeing as you prefer to call people liars (which of course is not personal abuse when you do it), that is not proof I am lying. I know, it is easier to call someone a liar becasue you don't understand the problem and get upset if they don't agree with you. > Is it any wonder I call you a liar, when you keep on lying so often? > And why do you get so annoyed when I point out your lies, you liar? Why do you get upset when I point out that you are a twat, you twat? > The Concise Oxford Dictionary also has the word. Thats nice. I will put it on my shopping list. > The truth of what you're saying is this: you've managed to find some > tiny pocket sized English dictionary without that word - fair enough, > it's a crappy dictionary, not a normal English dictionary like the ones > I referred to. It is my normal english dictionary that is on my shelf. It isn't even small. > Of course I"m not even going to read the rest of your post - not when > you start out with blatent lies. You can't expect me to have any time > for you when you're in lying bastard mode, can you? No, about as much time for you when you are in twat mode. Assuming there is another one. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com >> But it's a normal English word that you will find in normal English >> dictionaries. > I looked in my normal English dictionary and it certainly isn't. Then you have a spectacularly poor dictionary. It's in AH3, CODE8, CODE9, and NOAD. > I have a normal dictionary and it isn't in there. So by your > definition do you accept that you are wrong then? Actually, since it is in every dictionary I own but my 1913 Webster's, I think you either have exceedingly (and exceptionally) poor taste in Dictionaries or you are lying. define:newspeak in google works as well # deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language use to mislead and # manipulate the public; "the welfare state brought its own newspeak" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen # Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only # language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak > It is where you get abusive at someone because they didn't understand *YOU* were the one who got abusive though. YOU were the one who started the name calling. Signature"Alas, earwax." > >> But it's a normal English word that you will find in normal English > >> dictionaries. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then you have a spectacularly poor dictionary. It's in AH3, CODE8, > CODE9, and NOAD. Are they dictionaries or some kind of code I am missing? > > I have a normal dictionary and it isn't in there. So by your > > definition do you accept that you are wrong then? > > Actually, since it is in every dictionary I own but my 1913 Webster's, > I think you either have exceedingly (and exceptionally) poor taste in > Dictionaries or you are lying. I have no 'taste' in dictionaries. I had one that was on the shelf. It is not something I collect. > > It is where you get abusive at someone because they didn't understand > > *YOU* were the one who got abusive though. YOU were the one who > started the name calling. Before he called me an awkward prat I was name calling was I? Could you possibly point out which post was that? SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > >> But it's a normal English word that you will find in normal English > > >> dictionaries. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I have no 'taste' in dictionaries. I had one that was on the shelf. It > is not something I collect. You *CHOSE* to get up from your chair and hunt down a small dictionary that you hoped wouldn't have the word, rather than continuing to sit in your chair and look in /Applications/Dictionary.app - which is more competent, would have been easier for you to look in, and does in fact contain the word in question. Shall we call this deliberate dishonesty on your part, Woody? I think we shall. You made a big effort to try to find a dictionary less competent than the one you had to hand that you knew does contain the word in question. That's very dishonest of you, Woody. > > > It is where you get abusive at someone because they didn't understand > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Before he called me an awkward prat I was name calling was I? Could you > possibly point out which post was that? I called you an awkward prat because you were behaving as an awkward prat - denying that `Fairplay' counted as newspeak in this particular case. And you claimed that not because you had any reason to think so, but because you were completely ignorant of what I meant! So you were in fact behaving like an awkward prat. Clearly, my remark wasn't abuse: that was a perfectly unremarkable, ordinary conversational response. Only the very pompous and stuck up could view it otherwise. /You/ started the abuse by posting this: "Oh go and f.ck yourself you stupid twat." Message-ID: <1ihcxtl.f45ltj5d0yntN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk> That's not any sort of conversational remark: that's pure abuse. You posted abuse because I objected to you claiming that `Fairplay' (Apple consumer rights limitation technology) wasn't Newspeak. You made a blatently false post, I pointed out that fact, and you became abusive. Your usual behaviour pattern - and one that you ascribe to me. I had no idea that you had made your wrong claims due to your *ignorance*. I had not considered that you could be so ignorant as to not know what the standard English word `Newspeak' meant. I had not thought that even you would be so dishonest as to claim that `Newspeak' wasn't in your dictionary, when you know damned well that not only is the word in your dictionary, but also that I know it's in your dictionary, and you know it's in all decent English dictionaries. You know all that - but you had to go hunt down a tiny pocket sized dictionary of the sort I met at Middle School and use it as `evidence' to `prove' your point. And I used to sneer at the sort of dictionary you referred to when I was at Middle School because my vocabulary was a lot bigger than that contained by those tiny tomes. How come? I read books. That's all it takes. You'd not be so ignorant if you read more, you know. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking [snip] > define:newspeak in google works as well > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > # Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only > # language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year. ... A very good point to be making under the circumstances, I feel. > > It is where you get abusive at someone because they didn't understand > > *YOU* were the one who got abusive though. YOU were the one who > started the name calling. I'm glad someone else has noticed that. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > All you had to do was cmd-ctrl-D with the mouse over the word > (assuming your newsreader works wiht that shortcut - MacSoup doesn't) > and you'd've found out what it means, as well as correcting a lamentable > hole in your knowledge of standard English. And if you'd tried that with "widget" you'd have found: > widget > a small gadget or mechanical device, esp. one whose name is unknown > or unspecified. > Computing - a component of a user interface that operates in a particular way. So all your bluster about having to spend 10-30 minutes typing the word into Google and clicking "definition", which would take any normal reasonable person about 14 seconds (I just tried it), is just that - bluster. Dishonest, hypocritical, abuse-hurling bluster. SignaturePd > anyone deviating from your English usage is a twat, > obviously. I bet you use a lot of psychobabble down the pub. SignatureW. Oates > > anyone deviating from your English usage is a twat, > > obviously. > > I bet you use a lot of psychobabble down the pub. I bet you are a arrogant tosser with no human decency, whom I would not piss on to extinguish if he were on fire. Tell me, why did you choose to enter this thread with a post that did nothing but insult me? How was that meant to make the world a better place? Or was it just done to give you a feeling of personal satifaction, due to you taking pleasure from nastiness towards others? Do tell. I'm interested as to your motivation, you poisonous turd, Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking In article <1ihjvxl.1ltimrxng63geN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>, > How was that meant to make the world a better place? Or was it just > done to give you a feeling of personal satifaction, due to you taking > pleasure from nastiness towards others? Exactly. Nasty little leftie w.nkers like you, down the foul-smelling suburban pub solving the world's problems over pint after poisonous pint of warm piss. It's not their fault they often go To Maidenhead And talk of sport and makes of cars In various bogus-Tudor bars And daren't look up and see the stars But belch instead. > Do tell. I'm interested as to your motivation, you poisonous turd, Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough To get it ready for the plough. -- John Betjeman SignatureW. Oates > > How was that meant to make the world a better place? Or was it just > > done to give you a feeling of personal satifaction, due to you taking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suburban pub solving the world's problems over pint after poisonous pint > of warm piss. I ask questions in response to personal abuse, and what do I get? More personal abuse - abuse that is based on your fantasies about me that you are advertising to anyone who reads. Nothing to do with me---just your fantasies about me. So I have another couple of questions to try. I assume you'll respond with further abuse rather than any attempt to answer my questions, as I'd expect from a malicious piece of work like you, but: Why do you spend time creating your fanatsies about me? Why are you publishing your fantasies about me? Rowland. [snip] SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it > means. So you've not read "Nineteen Eighty-Four?" The 60th anniversary of the invention of the term newspeak is fast approaching. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix >> > [snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So you've not read "Nineteen Eighty-Four?" Nope. > The 60th anniversary of the invention of the term newspeak is fast > approaching. Thats good. I just looked in my dictionary, and it wasn't there. Rowland is very keen we don't use any words that everyone doesn't know. But you make a good point. He didn't invent a term, but he is still a twat. SignatureWoody > >> > [snip] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Nope. You should. Not having anything to do with this thread; it's just a decent read. > > The 60th anniversary of the invention of the term newspeak is fast > > approaching. > > Thats good. I just looked in my dictionary, and it wasn't there. From a recursive point of view, that's humorous. It's in the one that's included in Mac OS. I don't feel like getting up to look in any of the hard-copy ones I have right now. > Rowland is > very keen we don't use any words that everyone doesn't know. Perhaps. Or he may have just assumed it was universally known. I have to admit I was a bit surprised to see someone not understanding the reference, to the point where initially I wasn't sure if you were being sincere. Broadly, the term newspeak refers to an attempt to influence and restrict thought by careful manipulation and restriction of societal vocabulary. > But you make a good point. He didn't invent a term, but he is still a twat. I don't have enough impression of him at present to claim otherwise. I think I must have agree with you at one point, because he's in my killfile. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > > >> > [snip] > > >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You should. Not having anything to do with this thread; it's just a > decent read. I am sure it is. I can put it on my list of things to do. Unfortunately that is a bit long. > > > The 60th anniversary of the invention of the term newspeak is fast > > > approaching. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > included in Mac OS. I don't feel like getting up to look in any of the > hard-copy ones I have right now. I wouldn't either, but I was sitting next to the bookcase earlier and it was to hand. > > Rowland is > > very keen we don't use any words that everyone doesn't know. > > Perhaps. Or he may have just assumed it was universally known. And if it was anyone other than Rowland, that would have been a reasonable thing to do. However, one of his things is to pick one word of your argument, claim he didn't understand it and that you must be stupid for using it. Anyone else would look it up, or work it out from the context. > I have to > admit I was a bit surprised to see someone not understanding the > reference, to the point where initially I wasn't sure if you were being > sincere. Hey, a low level CSE in english will do that! > Broadly, the term newspeak refers to an attempt to influence > and restrict thought by careful manipulation and restriction of societal > vocabulary. Yes, standard politicing. > > But you make a good point. He didn't invent a term, but he is still a twat. > > I don't have enough impression of him at present to claim otherwise. I > think I must have agree with you at one point, because he's in my > killfile. If I had any sense he would be in mine, but up until this point I saved my kill file for people intentionally trolling (or chris holland as we call him), but now I am beginning to believe that Rowland is beginning to fall in that catagory. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com [snip] > > > > So you've not read "Nineteen Eighty-Four?" > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am sure it is. I can put it on my list of things to do. Unfortunately > that is a bit long. Bizarre. Things to do is what I fit in around reading books. [snip] > > > Rowland is > > > very keen we don't use any words that everyone doesn't know. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And if it was anyone other than Rowland, that would have been a > reasonable thing to do. I made no such assumption. And why does it matter that it's me doing it? Your reasoning seems to be that because I have trouble understanding things, then it's appropriate for you to hurl sh.t at me when I'm in trouble. That seems to me to be deeply antisocial behaviour on your part - the sort of behaviour that'd have you ejected from anywhere that I could eject you from, because it's just totally unacceptable behaviour in my book. Insanely unacceptable would be more to the point - just completely and utterly out of order. You see, the line I take with words is that someone writing or speaking should try to make sure that they're understood by doing things like selecting a vocabulary that appears to match the audience. And if the audience fails to understand, then it is the person generating the words who has failed and needs to act to correct things. That's my line, I apply it to everyone including myself perfectly even-handedly, and I have no idea why anyone's suggesting anything else. Woody's line is that if someone he doesn't like fails to understand something, then one should get abusive rather than attempt to offer an explanation. >However, one of his things is to pick one word > of your argument, claim he didn't understand it and that you must be > stupid for using it. Anyone else would look it up, or work it out from > the context. Except that ou don't do that, do you? So you're lying again. I behave the way you do - but somehow that makes me a tosser and makes you a good bloke. And there's the point that when I meet terms I don't understand, I explain that I don't understand and request an explantion. Your response on discovering that you'd failed to understand a term was to tell me: `Oh go and f.ck yourself you stupid twat.' So: if Rowland finds himself not understanding, Rowland requests an explanation; but when Woody finds himself not understanding, Woody hurls abuse. Naturally, Woody's behaviour is much more reasonable. Further proof that he's a great guy is that when Rowland requests an explanation off Woody, Woody hurls abuse. This makes Rowland a stupid twat, and shows that Woody's an all-round good bloke. Yes, of course. [snip] > > Broadly, the term newspeak refers to an attempt to influence > > and restrict thought by careful manipulation and restriction of societal > > vocabulary. > > Yes, standard politicing. No. Read 1984. You know /nothing/ of which you speak. Newspeak is one possible end-point that could develop from the trends obvious from standard politicking. We have not got there yet - Bliar tried to push things more in the newspeak direction, but Broon's more like Stalin than Big Brother, thankfully. Newspeak was a language constructed to replace English and it did replace English. Get your head round that. > > > But you make a good point. He didn't invent a term, but he is still a > > > twat. > > > > I don't have enough impression of him at present to claim otherwise. I > > think I must have agree with you at one point, because he's in my > > killfile. He's easily wound up - and there are people here like Woody and zoara who take pleasure in doing so. That's what you've run into. I'm mad, you see, and I fly off the handle when faced with certain types of totally shitty people like those w.nkers Woody and zoara and others. If I'm not faced with nasty pieces of sh.t like that, then there's no flying off the handle. It's purely a reaction by a loony to shitty behaviour from others. If I'm treated like a human being ought to be treated, then there's no flying off the handle. > If I had any sense he would be in mine, but up until this point I saved > my kill file for people intentionally trolling (or chris holland as we > call him), but now I am beginning to believe that Rowland is beginning > to fall in that catagory. It seems to me that you're admitting to deliberate trolling. You don't seem to understand that it's not on to hurl personal abuse around in the way that you do. I'm amazed that people think I'm trolling - what kind of fuckwits are you lot? Have you no understanding of humanity? No souls of your own? Seemingly not. <shrug> But of course I'm the looney, so any off-colour posts I make must be trolling, and off-colour posts from your favourite regulars are fine. Yes, I know how it goes. Tossers, the lot of you. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > Bizarre. Things to do is what I fit in around reading books. "When I get a little money, I buy books. And if there is any left over, I buy food" SignatureThere is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. > Rowland <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote: > > Bizarre. Things to do is what I fit in around reading books. > > "When I get a little money, I buy books. And if there is any left > over, I buy food" <grin> Correct priorities. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking [...] > > I don't have enough impression of him at present to claim otherwise. I > > think I must have agree with you at one point, because he's in my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > call him), but now I am beginning to believe that Rowland is beginning > to fall in that catagory. Halleujah! And happy birthday btw. :-) Signaturebellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk > [...] > > > I don't have enough impression of him at present to claim otherwise. I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And happy birthday btw. :-) Thanks! SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > [...] > > > > I don't have enough impression of him at present to claim otherwise. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Halleujah! Yes, of course you'll be happy for people to agree with the Rowland-hating clique that I can see has developed here. Never mind - I can't get rid of scum like you, but I can mostly ignore you completely. [snip] Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > >> > [snip] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Nope. <shakes head sadly> Oh dear. It's one of those books I think should be banned, in order to get everyone to read it. It's a book that you really do need to read. Everyone does. btw, why didn't you do a Google search for the term, if you couldn't understand it? You expected me to do that to untangle a word you used that I couldn't figure out in context - but is it that there's one rule for Woody and another one for Rowland? I think that's the case - not only ignorant, not merely dishonest, but hypocritical too. > > The 60th anniversary of the invention of the term newspeak is fast > > approaching. > > Thats good. I just looked in my dictionary, and it wasn't there. Rowland is > very keen we don't use any words that everyone doesn't know. You are lying. It's rather annoying to find you lying about my points of view in public. What the truth is, is this: I'm very keen that people should make a decent effort to be understood. That's all: you are mis-represeting me deliberately for the purposes of making me appear to be unreasonable. If you were honest, you'd be showing that my attitudes are very sensible and reasonable. But I can't expect honesty from someone like you, can I? > But you make a good point. He didn't invent a term, but he is still a twat. Yes, of course I am. And of course there's nothing wrong with hurling personal abuse around like that in this newsgroup, is there? And of course no-one who comes out with gratitous personal abuse like that could possibly expect to face any opprobrium themselves over their actions, could they? Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > > Thats good. I just looked in my dictionary, and it wasn't there. Rowland is > > very keen we don't use any words that everyone doesn't know. > > You are lying. It's rather annoying to find you lying about my points > of view in public. Why? You lie about everyone elses. You have claimed today that people have gone out of their way to get at you when they haven't (not including me there obviously) > What the truth is, is this: > > I'm very keen that people should make a decent effort to be understood. Unless it is you, and then anyone who doesn't understand what you are saying is deliberately not understanding you. > That's all: you are mis-represeting me deliberately for the purposes of > making me appear to be unreasonable. Now you are daft. You are without a doubt the most unreasonable person anyone could hope to meet. How many other people are currently ranting about so many people deliberately going out of their way to misrepresent you? Thats right, noone. Now either everyone is in some big conspiracy to get at you, or you are unreasonble. Both are possible, one is likely. > If you were honest, you'd be > showing that my attitudes are very sensible and reasonable. That is the funniest thing I have heard in ages. > But I can't expect honesty from someone like you, can I? Not 'Rowlands honesty' no, I don't think I can do that. > > But you make a good point. He didn't invent a term, but he is still a twat. > > Yes, of course I am. And of course there's nothing wrong with hurling > personal abuse around like that in this newsgroup, is there? Of course there is. unless the recipient is a twat, in which case no. > And of > course no-one who comes out with gratitous personal abuse like that > could possibly expect to face any opprobrium themselves over their > actions, could they? We live by our actions. How many peoples lives have been better this week because of you being in it? You are the original Mr Personal Abuse. You reap what you sow matey-boy. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > We live by our actions. How many peoples lives have been better this > week because of you being in it? > You are the original Mr Personal Abuse. You reap what you sow matey-boy. Right. This has gone on long enough. Woody is right, Rowland is a twat. I'm barring Rowland from this group for 10 days. My decision is final. > So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it > means. Next you will expect people to know other common terms like > widget. No, he didn't. I don't like him much, but he's obviously got a better edjacashun than you. SignatureW. Oates > > So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it > > means. Next you will expect people to know other common terms like > > widget. > > No, he didn't. I don't like him much, but he's obviously got a better > edjacashun than you. Certainly a better english education, for what good it does him. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > Certainly a better english education, for what good it does him. Well, you must admit his superior English does allow him to craft more elegant insults. > > > So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know what it > > > means. Next you will expect people to know other common terms like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Certainly a better english education, for what good it does him. I had no English teaching at all from the age of 12, when I started high school. They haven't taught English in English lessons for over 30 years in high schools. I'm self-taught when it comes to English. I got taught maths. I taught myself mechanicking, computery stuff, electronics, and so on. Then there was one degree in physics, and another one in instrumentation. <shrug> But bugger all education in English. All I did was read, really. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking > So you have invented a term 'newspeak' and expect people to know > what it means. No, he didn't invent it. It's been around quite a long time. Next you will expect people to know other common terms like > widget. > I thought you were doing your usual hard of thinking thing again. It > is honestly very hard to tell if you are really thick or just go out > of your way to appear it. "It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought...should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words." -George Orwell "Donât you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." New Oxford American Dictionary (built in to OS X): newspeak |Ën(j)uËspik| noun ambiguous euphemistic language used chiefly in political propaganda. ORIGIN 1949: the name of an artificial official language in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. SignatureThere is something to be said for grace and respect but humour alway helps - Toby Morris >> I don't think iTunes still lets this work. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >consumer rights denial tech. I want to buy outright a copy |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message