Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070415 > unrolled thread

Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 10:26 -0500
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 16:42 +0000
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
            Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
              Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500

#2070415 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
<sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>> 
>> > Robert Duncan wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>> >> >> Beliefs need no proof.
>> >> >> Assertions do.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. 
>> >> 
>> >> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>> > 
>> > Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>> > 
>> >> 
>> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>> >> anyone else to have the same belief.
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > Or the same "tenant", right?
>> 
>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>> the word "tenet"?
>
>Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.

OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
expression becomes more "optional".

/end rant/
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070441

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
> 
> > Bob Casanova wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
> >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
> >> 
> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
> >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof.
> >> >> >> Assertions do.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
> >> > 
> >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"?
> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
> >> >> anyone else to have the same belief.
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > Or the same "tenant", right?
> >> 
> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
> >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
> >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
> >> the word "tenet"?
> > 
> > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants"
> > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far,
> > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep
> > trying.
> 
> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
> same error (along with many others - breech/breach,
> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
> expression becomes more "optional".
> 
> /end rant/

I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070540

Ted&Alice Street wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>> 
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>> 
>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>> 
>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants"
>>> when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far,
>>> he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep
>>> trying.
>> 
>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>> same error (along with many others - breech/breach,
>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>> expression becomes more "optional".
>> 
>> /end rant/
> 
> I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck.

i certainly don't

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070848

On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 19:22:17 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
<sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>> 
>> > Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>> >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>> >> 
>> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>> >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof.
>> >> >> >> Assertions do.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>> >> > 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>> >> >> anyone else to have the same belief.
>> >> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Or the same "tenant", right?
>> >> 
>> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>> >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>> >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>> >> the word "tenet"?
>> > 
>> > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants"
>> > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far,
>> > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep
>> > trying.
>> 
>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>> same error (along with many others - breech/breach,
>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>> expression becomes more "optional".
>> 
>> /end rant/
>
>I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck.

I primarily blame an education system which has abdicated
responsibility for education in favor of "feel good" and
"self actualization". And, of course, tweeting. ;-)
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070859

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 19:22:17 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
> 
> > Bob Casanova wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
> >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
> >> 
> >> > Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
> >> >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
> >> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
> >> >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof.
> >> >> >> >> Assertions do.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
> >> >> >> anyone else to have the same belief.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Or the same "tenant", right?
> >> >> 
> >> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
> >> >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
> >> >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
> >> >> the word "tenet"?
> >> > 
> >> > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants"
> >> > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far,
> >> > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep
> >> > trying.
> >> 
> >> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
> >> same error (along with many others - breech/breach,
> >> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
> >> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
> >> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
> >> expression becomes more "optional".
> >> 
> >> /end rant/
> > 
> > I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck.
> 
> I primarily blame an education system which has abdicated
> responsibility for education in favor of "feel good" and
> "self actualization". And, of course, tweeting. ;-)

So I've heard. How stupid. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070760

On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>
>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>
>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>> the word "tenet"?
>>
>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>
> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
> expression becomes more "optional".
>
> /end rant/
>

Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.

:-)

It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are 
under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to 
do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by 
spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation 
software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means 
that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.

Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking 
pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks 
of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that 
they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.

Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who 
will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in 
flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the 
vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070798

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>
>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>
>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>
>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>
>> /end rant/
>>
>
>Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>
>:-)
>
>It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are 
>under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to 
>do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by 
>spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation 
>software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means 
>that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.
>
>Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking 
>pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks 
>of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that 
>they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>
>Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who 
>will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in 
>flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the 
>vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.

I am presently reading an otherwise very good WWII book, _The
Nightingale_ by Kristin Hannah, that has a German in a train
compartment reading a book on one page, and says on the next that he
did not look up from his German newspaper.  This sort of goof that
anyone can make (and does) is the sort of thing authors and publishers
need human copy editors to catch.  To my mind, the publishers need
them more, as their reputations are more on the line when the book is
in their print, but they probably cannot afford it any more.  I think
ebooks are doing to publishers what Gutenberg did to the monks.

-- 
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
         Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean) 
          Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070826

On 06/03/2016 15:26, Don Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>>
>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>>
>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>>
>>> /end rant/
>>>
>>
>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are
>> under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to
>> do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by
>> spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation
>> software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means
>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.
>>
>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking
>> pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks
>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that
>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>>
>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who
>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in
>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the
>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.
>
> I am presently reading an otherwise very good WWII book, _The
> Nightingale_ by Kristin Hannah, that has a German in a train
> compartment reading a book on one page, and says on the next that he
> did not look up from his German newspaper.  This sort of goof that
> anyone can make (and does) is the sort of thing authors and publishers
> need human copy editors to catch.  To my mind, the publishers need
> them more, as their reputations are more on the line when the book is
> in their print, but they probably cannot afford it any more.  I think
> ebooks are doing to publishers what Gutenberg did to the monks.
>

OTOH, mistakes in print back then could be very costly indeed.  The 
publishers of the Wicked Bible (where a simple omission meant that one 
of the ten commandments demanded that the faithful indulge in adultery) 
lost their licence and were fined very heavily.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2070854

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>:

>On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>
>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>
>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>
>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>
>> /end rant/
>>
>
>Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>
>:-)

Oooh! A threefer! ;-)

>It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are 
>under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to 
>do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by 
>spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation 
>software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means 
>that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.

Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless
for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly.

>Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking 
>pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks 
>of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that 
>they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>
>Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who 
>will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in 
>flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the 
>vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.

That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as
good as anyone's!"
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071152

On 06/03/2016 18:05, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in
> sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>>
>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>>
>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>>
>>> /end rant/
>>>
>>
>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Oooh! A threefer! ;-)

I have my moments.
:-)


>
>> It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are
>> under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to
>> do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by
>> spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation
>> software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means
>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.
>
> Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless
> for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly.

That "if" deserves to be capitalised, underlined and printed in a 36pt 
font ...

English is a language replete with homonyms.  That alone should require 
a trained human eye because no computer can ever properly decypher these.


>
>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking
>> pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks
>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that
>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>>
>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who
>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in
>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the
>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.
>
> That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as
> good as anyone's!"
>

The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they 
are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not 
nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071248

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:11:25 +0000, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>:

>On 06/03/2016 18:05, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>
>>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>>>
>>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>>>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>>>
>>>> /end rant/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Oooh! A threefer! ;-)
>
>I have my moments.
>:-)
>
>
>>
>>> It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are
>>> under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to
>>> do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by
>>> spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation
>>> software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means
>>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.
>>
>> Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless
>> for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly.
>
>That "if" deserves to be capitalised, underlined and printed in a 36pt 
>font ...
>
>English is a language replete with homonyms.  That alone should require 
>a trained human eye because no computer can ever properly decypher these.

That would seem to apply more to voice-input applications
than to typed input, since spellcheck only determines if a
particular word is valid, not that it's used correctly; I
assume (never having used voice input, and probably
erroneously) that potential homonym issues are flagged in
the printout. And it would be advantageous if the "trained
human eye" were also more than semi-literate.

>>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking
>>> pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks
>>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that
>>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>>>
>>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who
>>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in
>>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the
>>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.
>>
>> That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as
>> good as anyone's!"
>>
>
>The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they 
>are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not 
>nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas.

Too true...
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071252

Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 18:05, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> 
>>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street"
>>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God.
>>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof.
>>>>>>>>>> Assertions do.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No, you're wrong.  It's a belief.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or
>>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an
>>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so
>>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for
>>>>>> the word "tenet"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when
>>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't
>>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying.
>>>> 
>>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the
>>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach,
>>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently
>>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only
>>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate
>>>> expression becomes more "optional".
>>>> 
>>>> /end rant/
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot.
>>> 
>>> :-)
>> 
>> Oooh! A threefer! ;-)
> 
> I have my moments.
> :-)
> 
> 
>> 
>>> It goes beyond education, IMO.  The media (in particular print) are
>>> under strong pressure to control costs.  So one editor will be asked to
>>> do the job of two or three.  Proof-readers will be replaced by
>>> spellchecking software.  Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation
>>> software and feed their articles directly into the system.  This means
>>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience.
>> 
>> Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless
>> for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly.
> 
> That "if" deserves to be capitalised, underlined and printed in a 36pt 
> font ...
> 
> English is a language replete with homonyms.  That alone should require 
> a trained human eye because no computer can ever properly decypher these.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking
>>> pettifoggery.  Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks
>>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that
>>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong.
>>> 
>>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who
>>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in
>>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the
>>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.
>> 
>> That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as
>> good as anyone's!"
>> 
> 
> The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they 
> are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not 
> nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas.

Nor should every persons opinion be giving the same weight as the next
opinion.

The saddest thing to happen is the start of eye witness new. This happens
when a camera and mic get put into the face of someone on the street for an
report... Which might not even be factual.

-- 
Yep it is me, and Carole believes  adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071377

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Nor should every persons opinion be giving the same weight as the next
>opinion.

    Like yours for example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071456

<mur@.> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nor should every persons opinion be giving the same weight as the next
>> opinion.
> 
>     Like yours for example.
> 

How ever my opinion is qualified with date and evidence. Your opinion is
hear-say and faulty logic.

-- 
Yep it is me, and Carole believes  adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071376

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:11:25 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they 
>are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not 
>nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas.

   The opinion of the strong atheist is no more fact based than that of any
other religious belief but instead is completely dependant on the faith of the
atheist that his or her opinion happens to be correct. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web