|
Post by jean on Jan 29, 2014 17:07:54 GMT 1
Shame you weren't talking about soldiers and shooting though, isn't it, but criticisng someone. That's the figurative use, derived from the military one. No, those are meanings for the noun snip.(Are you still using the same research assistant? I'd tell her to shape up, if I were you.)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 29, 2014 17:27:52 GMT 1
You're denying that you argued that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was valid - the "weak" version, at any rate? Sorry - I missed this one. I'm not - you're arguing with me! I pointed out that you'd forcefully supported the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as you did. When I pointed out that all the evidence for that theory had been conclusively shown to be either false or fraudulently fabricated, you backtracked and claimed you only supported a "weak" version of the idea. I then asked you what on earth you meant by this phrase, and you were unable to answer. Your crony then gave a definition of it that was, one, nothing like either Whorf or Sapir had said, and two, was an unexceptionable observation made centuries before. But if you want to now give a defence of this "weak" hypothesis, and argue what on earth it has to do with either Whorf or Sapir, go ahead. Damn right he'll remember. As no doubt he'll remember my demonstrations that the complaints were justified. Where? I don't give partial quotes.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 29, 2014 17:32:26 GMT 1
Shame you weren't talking about soldiers and shooting though, isn't it, but criticisng someone. That's the figurative use, derived from the military one. Obviously not. Shooting at gamebirds, or making short sharp cuts? No - snipe. Which obviously derives from snip. I'm beginning to think you and Abacus may be the same person.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 29, 2014 17:32:55 GMT 1
Look Nick, if you want to postulate a proto-Indo-European root that accounts for both snip and snipe, feel free. I think Skeat even suggests one that might have gave rise to snap as well. But it won't tell us anything about about meanings that developed as recently as in England in the eighteenth century. A tree-diagram might give you some idea of where you're going wrong. ...while relying on the authority of Funk & Wagnell is a sign of original thought on your part. But no reliance occurs, that's the difference. I take it to be the considered opinion of the academic experts who compiled it, that's all. Just as I take what I read in the OED to be the considered opinion of the academic experts who compiled it.If you weren't trying to outsmart me with My dictionary's bigger than yours, why write that F & W is Well? I don't keep these things going - you do. It was you who dragged snipe from nowhere onto this thread, with which everyone will agree it has nothing whatever to do, not me.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 29, 2014 17:35:25 GMT 1
Look Nick, if you want to postulate a proto-Indo-European root that accounts for both snip and snipe, feel free. Don;t be silly. No need to posit such speculations - Dutch and Icelandic are much more closely related than that. Anyway - you've drivelled on enough and buggered up this thread with your trivial obsessions enough. You'll get no more responses on the subject from me. I
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 29, 2014 17:40:32 GMT 1
Look Nick, if you want to postulate a proto-Indo-European root that accounts for both snip and snipe, feel free. I think Skeat even suggests one that might have gave rise to snap as well. But it won't tell us anything about about meanings that developed as recently as in England in the eighteenth century. A tree-diagram might give you some idea of where you're going wrong. But no reliance occurs, that's the difference. I take it to be the considered opinion of the academic experts who compiled it, that's all. Just as I take what I read in the OED to be the considered opinion of the academic experts who compiled it.If you weren't trying to outsmart me with My dictionary's bigger than yours, why write that F & W is Well? Because it apparently contradicts your source, which on previous occasions you've trumpeted as the most authoritative. F & W was compiled by nearly two thousand of the most qualified experts in every subject at the time. No. I merely respond to you. You seemingly forget it was a light-hearted rejoinder to your claim of superior expertise to back up your totally irrelevant and intrusive quibble about my use of whom.Anyway - enough.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 29, 2014 17:50:48 GMT 1
Where? I don't give partial quotes. You do. I wrote My first post here was to point out that you have offered no evidence for what I quote below, which besides being entirely wrong as far as I'm concerned is as irrelevant to the thread as anything I've contributed to it: Jean has a very similar background to you, I strongly suspect, (and has swallowed the same sort of cognitive relativist nonsense you've been fed) - a lifetime sitting behind a desk shuffling paper and words about; a humanities or (very) soft science education, in a post-war promoted university, from an influx of ill-trained bearded lecturers wearing denim jackets and smoking pipes infused with quasi-Marxist views via Marcuse and Gramsci and Foucault and Sapir-Whorf (all the result of the same misunderstanding of Kant as you suffer from), all very smugly eager to teach their moony-eyed Comprehensively prepared students that Reality and Truth and Reason and Knowledge are ideological deceptions in the bourgeois capitalist conspiracy to promulgate their false-consciousness. And you cut off what I'd said in this way: It's not "entirely wrong" though, is it? I had carefully said that your characterisation was entirely wrong as far as I was concerned. It did, and does, not apply to me. My background is not such as you described.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 29, 2014 17:56:27 GMT 1
You seemingly forget it was a light-hearted rejoinder to your claim of superior expertise to back up your totally irrelevant and intrusive quibble about my use of whom.It was just a lighthearted question, of course...but you never did answer it! If anything was intrusive, it was all that speculation about my education. Had you not indulged in that, I wouldn't be posting here at all. I have now reposted most of the snipe discussion on the WHS board, where you first demanded (in that lighthearted way of yours) that I reveal my sources.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 30, 2014 14:04:34 GMT 1
Where? I don't give partial quotes. You do. I wrote My first post here was to point out that you have offered no evidence for what I quote below, which besides being entirely wrong as far as I'm concerned is as irrelevant to the thread as anything I've contributed to it: Jean has a very similar background to you, I strongly suspect, (and has swallowed the same sort of cognitive relativist nonsense you've been fed) - a lifetime sitting behind a desk shuffling paper and words about; a humanities or (very) soft science education, in a post-war promoted university, from an influx of ill-trained bearded lecturers wearing denim jackets and smoking pipes infused with quasi-Marxist views via Marcuse and Gramsci and Foucault and Sapir-Whorf (all the result of the same misunderstanding of Kant as you suffer from), all very smugly eager to teach their moony-eyed Comprehensively prepared students that Reality and Truth and Reason and Knowledge are ideological deceptions in the bourgeois capitalist conspiracy to promulgate their false-consciousness. And you cut off what I'd said in this way: It's not "entirely wrong" though, is it? I had carefully said that your characterisation was entirely wrong as far as I was concerned. It did, and does, not apply to me. My background is not such as you described. But as I pointed out, line by line, it does apply to you.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 30, 2014 14:08:25 GMT 1
You seemingly forget it was a light-hearted rejoinder to your claim of superior expertise to back up your totally irrelevant and intrusive quibble about my use of whom.It was just a lighthearted question, of course...but you never did answer it! I did. Look again. No speculation was required. I'm happy you're posting. I only wish you'd contribute to the threads, or start one of your own. So? Spread your foolishness all over the net, it's no skin off mine.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 30, 2014 17:53:45 GMT 1
I had quite forgotten what a history there was to these waterbirds and the figures of speech they've given rise to. But here it all is, starting with the original thread from MCL a year ago, in which the origins of to snipe were first mentioned: pinkmelon.proboards.com/thread/8548/credible?page=3I see it was actually quite good-natured. And there it might have rested, but for this, out of the blue on a recent thread on WHS about something else entirely: Do I detect some hint of scepticism here? From the oft self-proclaimed expert on etymology who tells people with all the authority she deserves that to snipe derives from the bird? closely followed by this: ...your "dispute" was with Jonjel, or so I'm informed, not me - and he, sensibly, probably out of gentlemanly embarrassment for you, chose not to dispute your ludicrous claim at all. Secondly, you cited no "authority" but your own - for the reason no doubt that no real "authority" would make such an obvious and foolish mistake. Would they? Speak up, miss. Nick hadn't even taken part in the discussion! He wasn't even lurking - someone informed him about it! I wonder who that was? I let the shot bounce off me then, but the sniping continued: Aren't you going to post a link to the OED citation you claim you quoted, Jean? Where you claim you learned your sniping expertise? You will have been taught to cite your sources, and ascribe them accurately, I'm sure - in such a department of renowned scholarship? I regret to say that, terminally irritated by being targeted in this way, I responded to the latest volleys on this board, as you may see. No. I merely respond to you. Merely respond?Slip out from cover, fire a few shots and scuttle back again, more like. More fool me for attempting any sort of rational argument in response.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 30, 2014 18:49:01 GMT 1
I had quite forgotten what a history there was to these waterbirds and the figures of speech they've given rise to. But here it all is, starting with the original thread from MCL a year ago, in which the origins of to snipe were first mentioned: pinkmelon.proboards.com/thread/8548/credible?page=3I see it was actually quite good-natured. And there it might have rested, but for this, out of the blue on a recent thread on WHS about something else entirely: Not "out of the blue" though, was it? I had just recounted how I had some relevant personal experience about the subject being discussed, and "out of the blue" you called me a liar. Conveniently forgot about that, did you? Or thought it best not to mention it? Once again, merely in response to yours. Yep. Like I'm doing now. Huh? What are you babbling about now? I have no problem with rational argument. If you'd stuck with that in the first place, you'd never have had a problem, would you?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 30, 2014 18:59:33 GMT 1
Not "out of the blue" though, was it? I had just recounted how I had some relevant personal experience about the subject being discussed, and "out of the blue" you called me a liar. Conveniently forgot about that, did you? Or thought it best not to mention it? You mean when you wrote: I'll add a personal note, if I may. As someone who passed the course to be a Royal Marines officer, but decided at the last moment not to take the commission... and I passed the course to be an RAF pilot too... and I in my gentle good-natured way called you the Walter Mitty of Woman's Hours? Is that what you're referring to? You do. I never departed from it for an instant. The only problem I have is that I've allowed myself to respond to your sniping.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 31, 2014 1:10:39 GMT 1
No, machines cannot think. That is only true if you define "think" as "something that a machine cannot do", which leads to "machine" as "something which cannot think". All very pointless and philosophical (a tautology). "I am" is a statement of selfrecognition. It seems that sheep can recognise individual humans so at that level the sheep can think exactly as much as a human can. Now let's have a biometric camera, like the one that recognises me at O'Hare Airport. Same input, same output, as me looking in a mirror or my dog looking at me. If the input and output are the same, what evidence do you have for assuming that the processes inside the black boxes are different? Or even if they are, what reason do you have for giving them different names?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 31, 2014 13:54:36 GMT 1
No, machines cannot think. That is only true if you define "think" as "something that a machine cannot do", which leads to "machine" as "something which cannot think". All very pointless and philosophical (a tautology). "I am" is a statement of selfrecognition. It seems that sheep can recognise individual humans so at that level the sheep can think exactly as much as a human can. Now let's have a biometric camera, like the one that recognises me at O'Hare Airport. Same input, same output, as me looking in a mirror or my dog looking at me. If the input and output are the same, what evidence do you have for assuming that the processes inside the black boxes are different? Or even if they are, what reason do you have for giving them different names? No, the camera is simply registering certain patterns of light and comparing this with internally stored images. This is an entirely automatic process not requiring any thinking and the camera can only react to that which it is designed to react to, not possessing any commonsense. A human being would be able to pick-up many more subtle aspects of a person's image such as mood or health, etc.
|
|