Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:24 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> : >>>> [snip] >>>>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists >>>>> is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present >>>>> perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this >>>>> is how we explain the attack. >>>> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation? >>>> [snip] >>> You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of >>> Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I can >>> tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution (Jan.-Sept. >>> 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 per month) to >>> have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape is about $15 >>> dollars. Quite more for video. >> So, Dr. Scott presented his refutation to his congregation, and not to >> the scientific community? You don't see anything odd about that?
> Since he had no respect for Darwinists whatsoever----No. To submit is > to accept someone's superiority over you.
Who said anything about submitting? The scientific community (see that word "community") is a community of equals, of peers. If one intends to refute a scientific theory, there are two things that one must do: have one's argument properly thought through and well supported, and present that argument to the community for its consideration and eventual agreement.
Dr. Scott instead presented some kind of information (and we don't know what without forking over money to buy the tapes) to people who are not experts, but whose opinions he apparently wanted to mold. If he was attempting to refute evolution, he did it to a completely inappropriate audience.
> He always said (speaking of Pat Robertson): anyone who would resign > his position as Pastor to run for President is a fool because > President of the U.S. is a step down.
Of course. To be accountable to the people who put you in a position of power is a step down from getting yourself into a position of power and being unaccountable to anyone else.
> The point is: secular is inferior. Since the most basic claim of the > N.T. is that God is in us then the Christian should be smarter than > any secular. Of course that is the case: we are smarter than Atheists.
I had no idea that that was the case. You certainly had me fooled.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): >"psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from >SSSSSatan.
When I was stationed at fort Knox in the early 1960s our unit had to go to training sessions in the base theater that were more like indoctrination sessions.
At one point we were pretty much blown away when the master sergeant who conducted the trainings finished up a patriotic harangue with "It's Amer-I-can but Communissssm, ya hear the hiss?"
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > >"psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > >SSSSSatan.
> When I was stationed at fort Knox in the early 1960s our unit had > to go to training sessions in the base theater that were more > like indoctrination sessions.
> At one point we were pretty much blown away when the master > sergeant who conducted the trainings finished up a patriotic > harangue with "It's Amer-I-can but Communissssm, ya hear the > hiss?"
Ray's going to need the proper pronunciation of "canibal" as it comes from Cain and Able, or cannon ball, or some such. -- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > > >"psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > > >SSSSSatan.
Hmmm; if I ever saw "Ph.D. in Philosphies of Education" on a resume, it would _immediately_ have gone to the bottom of the stack.
Particularly if accompanied by such blatant garbage as cited here. :-)
> > When I was stationed at fort Knox in the early 1960s our unit had > > to go to training sessions in the base theater that were more > > like indoctrination sessions.
> > At one point we were pretty much blown away when the master > > sergeant who conducted the trainings finished up a patriotic > > harangue with "It's Amer-I-can but Communissssm, ya hear the > > hiss?"
> Ray's going to need the proper pronunciation of "canibal" as it comes > from Cain and Able, or cannon ball, or some such.
>On Nov 8, 6:24 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >> > On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> :
>> >> [snip]
>> >>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists >> >>> is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present >> >>> perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this >> >>> is how we explain the attack. >> >> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation?
>> >> [snip]
>> > You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of >> > Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I can >> > tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution (Jan.-Sept. >> > 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 per month) to >> > have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape is about $15 >> > dollars. Quite more for video.
>> So, Dr. Scott presented his refutation to his congregation, and not to >> the scientific community? You don't see anything odd about that?
>Since he had no respect for Darwinists whatsoever----No. To submit is >to accept someone's superiority over you.
>He always said (speaking of Pat Robertson): anyone who would resign >his position as Pastor to run for President is a fool because >President of the U.S. is a step down.
>The point is: secular is inferior. Since the most basic claim of the >N.T. is that God is in us then the Christian should be smarter than >any secular.
Well you, and all the other creationists on this group, certainly prove that idea wrong.
> Of course that is the case: we are smarter than Atheists.
Hohohohoho!
>Ray
-- Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:43:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <6ed34074-1cba-42e4-99fb-964164ba0...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
>>> On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> : >>>> [snip] >>>>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists >>>>> is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present >>>>> perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this >>>>> is how we explain the attack. >>>> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation? >>>> [snip] >>> You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of >>> Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I can >>> tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution (Jan.-Sept. >>> 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 per month) to >>> have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape is about $15 >>> dollars. Quite more for video. >> So how could "Dana and the other howlers present perceive Dr. Scott's >> refutation of evolution to be irrefutable" if they'd never seen it?
> They have----when I outlined it here many years ago (w)hen I first > came to Talk Origins).
> I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > Poison (= snake venom).
> According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > SSSSSatan.
Of all his and your made up etymologies, that is a particularly funny one. Gossip originates in old Norse godsib and godsifja, from God and sibb, meaning Godfather and -mother. Since the 14th century, this was extended to the wider family and friends - the people who would share secrets at family gatherings.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in <b7e0b672-395b-4d80-9eac-3235761fb...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> :
>On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:43:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <6ed34074-1cba-42e4-99fb-964164ba0...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
>> >On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> :
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists >> >> >is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present >> >> >perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this >> >> >is how we explain the attack.
>> >> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation?
>> >> [snip]
>> >You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of >> >Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I can >> >tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution (Jan.-Sept. >> >2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 per month) to >> >have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape is about $15 >> >dollars. Quite more for video.
>> So how could "Dana and the other howlers present perceive Dr. Scott's >> refutation of evolution to be irrefutable" if they'd never seen it?
>They have----when I outlined it here many years ago (w)hen I first >came to Talk Origins).
And you outlined it correctly?
>I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical.
I find that very hard to believe. Can you point me to an example of Dana's hysteria?
>He saw no way to >refute
That's strange, because I see you get refuted on a regular basis. Heck, sometimes I refute you myself.
>----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). >Poison (= snake venom).
Yet you slander Dana. Why is that?
>According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): >"psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from >SSSSSatan.
Yes, you've said that before, and it's very silly. But I'm willing to be convinced. Can you give me a citation to an etymological source that makes this association?
>Howler slander is evidence supporting the existence of Satan and his >demons.
Or maybe Dr. Scott made errors in his refutation. Isn't that a possibility?
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:47:17 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in <16bc5c3f-5d72-4b79-a4a1-7bda4e44d...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>The point is: secular is inferior. Since the most basic claim of the >N.T. is that God is in us then the Christian should be smarter than >any secular. Of course that is the case: we are smarter than Atheists.
I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Voltaire:
If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed.
In this case I would modify it to say that
If creationists want us to believe they are smarter, let them act smarter.
> On Nov 8, 6:24 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > >> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> :
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists > > >>> is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present > > >>> perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this > > >>> is how we explain the attack. > > >> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation?
> > >> [snip]
> > > You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of > > > Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I can > > > tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution (Jan.-Sept. > > > 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 per month) to > > > have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape is about $15 > > > dollars. Quite more for video.
> > So, Dr. Scott presented his refutation to his congregation, and not to > > the scientific community? You don't see anything odd about that?
> Since he had no respect for Darwinists whatsoever----No. To submit is > to accept someone's superiority over you.
> He always said (speaking of Pat Robertson): anyone who would resign > his position as Pastor to run for President is a fool because > President of the U.S. is a step down.
> The point is: secular is inferior. Since the most basic claim of the > N.T. is that God is in us then the Christian should be smarter than > any secular. Of course that is the case: we are smarter than Atheists.
But you were suckers, willing suckers, for Gene Scott. Bless him, he harvested from the fools as he was commanded in the words of Titanic Thompson:
> On Nov 8, 6:24 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez > > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > >> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> :
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against anti-evolutionists > > >>> is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the other howlers present > > >>> perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of evolution to be irrefutable----this > > >>> is how we explain the attack. > > >> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation?
> > >> [snip]
> > > You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of > > > Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I can > > > tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution (Jan.-Sept. > > > 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 per month) to > > > have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape is about $15 > > > dollars. Quite more for video.
> > So, Dr. Scott presented his refutation to his congregation, and not to > > the scientific community? You don't see anything odd about that?
> Since he had no respect for Darwinists whatsoever----No. To submit is > to accept someone's superiority over you.
> He always said (speaking of Pat Robertson): anyone who would resign > his position as Pastor to run for President is a fool because > President of the U.S. is a step down.
> The point is: secular is inferior. Since the most basic claim of the > N.T. is that God is in us then the Christian should be smarter than > any secular. Of course that is the case: we are smarter than Atheists.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:43:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <6ed34074-1cba-42e4-99fb-964164ba0...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> :
>>> On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> >>>> :
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against >>>>> anti-evolutionists is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the >>>>> other howlers present perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of >>>>> evolution to be irrefutable----this is how we explain the attack.
>>>> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation?
>>>> [snip]
>>> You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of >>> Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I >>> can tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution >>> (Jan.-Sept. 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 >>> per month) to have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape >>> is about $15 dollars. Quite more for video.
>> So how could "Dana and the other howlers present perceive Dr. Scott's >> refutation of evolution to be irrefutable" if they'd never seen it?
> They have----when I outlined it here many years ago (w)hen I first > came to Talk Origins).
> I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > Poison (= snake venom).
Ray, you are making things up again. I did not become "hysterical", and I've always pointed out that a religious opinion cannot refute a scientific theory. I've never slandered (or libeled) anyone.
> According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > SSSSSatan.
Another folk etymology, and is wrong.
> Howler slander is evidence supporting the existence of Satan and his > demons.
There is no slander on my part. I'm telling the truth.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:24 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:27:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> <2ff0134e-420b-4f20-87a2-f558c67fd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> >>>> :
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The *degree* of slander seen in this post against >>>>> anti-evolutionists is equal to the *degree* that Dana and the >>>>> other howlers present perceive Dr. Scott's refutation of >>>>> evolution to be irrefutable----this is how we explain the attack. >>>> Where can I find a copy of Dr. Scott's refutation?
>>>> [snip]
>>> You would have to write the Ministry and ask for a tape catalogue of >>> Dr. Scott's teachings. Then you would have to order these tapes. I >>> can tell you that Dr. Scott spent 9 months refuting evolution >>> (Jan.-Sept. 2001). This means you would have to order 36 tapes (4 >>> per month) to have all of the relevant teachings. I think each tape >>> is about $15 dollars. Quite more for video.
>> So, Dr. Scott presented his refutation to his congregation, and not >> to the scientific community? You don't see anything odd about that?
> Since he had no respect for Darwinists whatsoever----No.
Yet you claim his refutation (ie, religious opinion) was scientific. If it was scientific, the proper venue would have been science, not his congregation of true believers.
> To submit is > to accept someone's superiority over you.
Since Gene wasn't a scientist, and hadn't studied the matter, he was inferior to the scientific community.
> He always said (speaking of Pat Robertson): anyone who would resign > his position as Pastor to run for President is a fool because > President of the U.S. is a step down.
Irrelevant to the issue. In any case, it would also be a cut in pay for Gene.
> The point is: secular is inferior.
Inferior to what? When it comes to study of the natural world, science is the superior method.
> Since the most basic claim of the > N.T. is that God is in us then the Christian should be smarter than > any secular.
Have you considered the possibility that Gene may not have had God in him?
> Of course that is the case: we are smarter than Atheists.
You haven't shown yourself to be smarter than an atheist. For that matter, you haven't shown yourself to be smarter than an eggplant.
> Ray Martinez wrote: > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > > Poison (= snake venom).
> So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > > SSSSSatan.
> Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > linguistics.
> gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > Indo-European roots.]
> Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from > Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, > to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
Evasion of what I said.
According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously mentioned.
Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from post Roman Empire sources.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to >>> refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the >>> well). Poison (= snake venom).
>> So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That >> surely doesn't look good, does it?
>>> According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of >>> Education): "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip >>> originates from SSSSSatan.
>> Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one >> in linguistics.
>> gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English >> godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in >> Indo-European roots.]
>> Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from >> Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from >> śāṭan, to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
> Evasion of what I said.
Speaking of evasion, Ray, do you have any evidence to support your claim that I became "hysterical"? You are already on record of spreading obvious lies about me, so why should anyone believe you?
> According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > mentioned.
Your 'Ph.D." had a habit of making up folk eytmologies. The above derivation of the term is the correct one, yours is wrong.
> Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > post Roman Empire sources.
Which is infinitely more reliable than Gene Scott's folk etymologies.
> On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > > > Poison (= snake venom).
> > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > > > SSSSSatan.
> > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > > linguistics.
> > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > > Indo-European roots.]
> > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from > > Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, > > to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
> Evasion of what I said.
> According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > mentioned.
> Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > post Roman Empire sources.
Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker and fool.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:22 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote: > > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > > > > Poison (= snake venom).
> > > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> > > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > > > > SSSSSatan.
> > > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > > > linguistics.
> > > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > > > Indo-European roots.]
> > > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from > > > Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, > > > to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
> > Evasion of what I said.
> > According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > > mentioned.
> > Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > > post Roman Empire sources.
> Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker > and fool.
> -- > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The evidence says that you are the sucker.
You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
+. Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 9, 10:30 am, Will in New Haven snip
>>> Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from >>> post Roman Empire sources.
>> Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker >> and fool.
>> -- >> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> The evidence says that you are the sucker.
What evidence, Ray? Please lay out the evidence that supports your claim, and refutes Will's.
> You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
A "common dictionary" is written by many scholars, who acutally did research into the word meanings. Your own source just made up his etymology, or more likely, just heard it somewhere. It is false, and indicates the poor quality of Gene's "scholarship".
> Explains a lot about your kind.
It explains a lot that you can't admit that Gene made mistakes.
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 1:22 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote: > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > > > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > > > > > Poison (= snake venom).
> > > > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > > > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> > > > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > > > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > > > > > SSSSSatan.
> > > > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > > > > linguistics.
> > > > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > > > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > > > > Indo-European roots.]
> > > > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from > > > > Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, > > > > to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
> > > Evasion of what I said.
> > > According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > > > mentioned.
> > > Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > > > post Roman Empire sources.
> > Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker > > and fool.
> > -- > > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> The evidence says that you are the sucker.
> You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
> Explains a lot about your kind.
Gene was smart but he stopped bothering with scholarship once he found his gig. He got your lot to pay for his coke and his hookers. He didn't spend much time on scholarship. He knew he could make up anythng sounded halfway reasonable and your kind would swallow it right down.
> On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > > > Poison (= snake venom).
> > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > > > SSSSSatan.
> > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > > linguistics.
> > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > > Indo-European roots.]
> > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from > > Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, > > to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
> Evasion of what I said.
Since when is a direct response considered an evasion?
> According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > mentioned.
> Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > post Roman Empire sources.
> Ray
Of course that's true, since 'gossip' is not derived from Latin. It derives from an Old English word. If you think that 'gossip' and 'Satan' have a linguistic relationship, what do you make of the more obvious relationship between 'gossip' and 'gospel'? Dr. Scott was not an idiot, but you are going out of your way to make him appear as if he were. I suspect that you have interpreted one of his aphorisms as an etymology. Again.
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> <snip>
>>> I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to >>> refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). >>> Poison (= snake venom). >> So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That >> surely doesn't look good, does it?
>>> According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): >>> "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from >>> SSSSSatan. >> Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in >> linguistics.
>> gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English >> godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in >> Indo-European roots.]
>> Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from >> Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, >> to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.]
> Evasion of what I said.
> According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > mentioned.
And as always, we just have to take your word for it a) that your source really said what you claim it said and b) that your source has based its analysis on the appropriate sources, using the appropriate methodology and so getting it right where all professional etymologists got it wrong.
And of course, as always, you won't be able to show how using the morphological and syntactic rules of the claimed source language and the target language, you can actually derive gossip from Satan, words that only have the "S" in common
No, thanks, I stick with the reputable sources, in my case the OED and Robert Gorrel's book "What's in a Word?: Etymological Gossip About Some Interesting English Words", university of Nevada Press 2001, p. 162.
Gorell was Professor for linguistics at the University of Nevada, and his PhD in linguistics was from Cornell
Finally there is Theo Venneman's article "Key issues in English Etymology", in Teresa Fanego, Belen Mendez-Naya and Elena Seoane (eds) Sounds, Words, Texts and Change, John Benjamins Publishing Co 2002 which at p. 241 gives a detailed analysis of "sibb" and how it formed gossip later. Note that Venneman, Professor emeritus in Germanic and Theoretical Linguistics at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, holds a somewhat maverick opinion on the influence of Semitic loan words on Germanic word formation, so he would have had massive reasons to promote the Satan connection of it had any merit whatsoever.
Unlike your source, these are all professional linguist and know what hey are talking about.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:38:22 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
>Explains a lot about your kind.
Wouldn't that depend on the scholar?
Besides, dictionaries are put together by scholars.
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Ray Martinez wrote: > On Nov 9, 10:30 am, Will in New Haven > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >> On Nov 9, 1:22 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> Ray Martinez wrote: >>>>> On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to >>>>> refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). >>>>> Poison (= snake venom). >>>> So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That >>>> surely doesn't look good, does it? >>>>> According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): >>>>> "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from >>>>> SSSSSatan. >>>> Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in >>>> linguistics. >>>> gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English >>>> godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in >>>> Indo-European roots.] >>>> Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Satān, from >>>> Greek Satanas, Satān, from Hebrew śāṭān, devil, adversary, from śāṭan, >>>> to accuse, act as adversary; see śṭn in Semitic roots.] >>> Evasion of what I said. >>> According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously >>> mentioned. >>> Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from >>> post Roman Empire sources. >> Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker >> and fool.
>> -- >> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> The evidence says that you are the sucker.
> You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
Do you have _any_ idea just how scholarly the OED is? Maybe visited their website at some point and looked up the names on the editorial board, or the highly instructive "evidence " section where they describe how they check their facts?
John Simpson, the chief editor, is Fellow of Kellogg College at the University of Oxford, as are almost all of the senior editorial staff. The Principal Etymologist, Philip Durkin, has his PhD in Middle English from the university of Oxford, and is a prolific writer in etymology, author of one of the standard textbooks in the field.
The current project on the third revision invests £34 million check each entry already published and comprehensively review them in the light of new documentary evidence and modern developments in scholarship. This employs 300 scholars full time, plus an enormous number of assistants, researchers etc all with relevant degrees in the field.
Here a list of scholars that have contributed to entries, you will be hard pressed to find any significant scholar in linguistics who is _not_ on the list
And of course, they can also use the resources of their reading programmes and similar public engagement activities which mean in essence that thousands of people have contributed to the work, providing references to earlier than previously recorded versions of words.
No single scholar can possibly compete with this massive combination of expertise and resources.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 1:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 9, 10:30 am, Will in New Haven
>> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >> > On Nov 9, 1:22 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > > > Ray Martinez wrote: >> > > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > > > <snip>
>> > > > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to >> > > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). >> > > > > Poison (= snake venom).
>> > > > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That >> > > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
>> > > > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): >> > > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from >> > > > > SSSSSatan.
>> > > > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in >> > > > linguistics.
>> > > > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English >> > > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in >> > > > Indo-European roots.]
>> > > > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Sat?n, from >> > > > Greek Satanas, Sat?n, from Hebrew ????n, devil, adversary, from ???an, >> > > > to accuse, act as adversary; see ??n in Semitic roots.]
>> > > Evasion of what I said.
>> > > According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously >> > > mentioned.
>> > > Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from >> > > post Roman Empire sources.
>> > Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker >> > and fool.
>> > -- >> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>> > - Show quoted text -
>> The evidence says that you are the sucker.
>> You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
>> Explains a lot about your kind.
>Gene was smart but he stopped bothering with scholarship once he found >his gig. He got your lot to pay for his coke and his hookers. He >didn't spend much time on scholarship. He knew he could make up >anythng sounded halfway reasonable and your kind would swallow it >right down.
Question: Is this Gene Scott the guy I used to see on my cable TV on infomercials Some twenty or so years ago?
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:42:45 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >On Nov 9, 1:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 10:30 am, Will in New Haven
> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >> > On Nov 9, 1:22 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > Ray Martinez wrote: > >> > > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > >> > > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > >> > > > > Poison (= snake venom).
> >> > > > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > >> > > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> >> > > > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > >> > > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > >> > > > > SSSSSatan.
> >> > > > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > >> > > > linguistics.
> >> > > > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > >> > > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > >> > > > Indo-European roots.]
> >> > > > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Sat?n, from > >> > > > Greek Satanas, Sat?n, from Hebrew ????n, devil, adversary, from ???an, > >> > > > to accuse, act as adversary; see ??n in Semitic roots.]
> >> > > Evasion of what I said.
> >> > > According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > >> > > mentioned.
> >> > > Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > >> > > post Roman Empire sources.
> >> > Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker > >> > and fool.
> >> > -- > >> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >> The evidence says that you are the sucker.
> >> You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
> >> Explains a lot about your kind.
> >Gene was smart but he stopped bothering with scholarship once he found > >his gig. He got your lot to pay for his coke and his hookers. He > >didn't spend much time on scholarship. He knew he could make up > >anythng sounded halfway reasonable and your kind would swallow it > >right down.
> Question: Is this Gene Scott the guy I used to see on my cable TV > on infomercials Some twenty or so years ago?
I wouldn't have called them infomercials, but yes. He was usually on during the wee hours of the morning.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:42:45 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >On Nov 9, 1:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 10:30 am, Will in New Haven
> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >> > On Nov 9, 1:22 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Nov 8, 6:53 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > Ray Martinez wrote: > >> > > > > On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > I remember Dana's reaction: he became hysterical. He saw no way to > >> > > > > refute----hence the slander. Satan's main weapon (poisoning the well). > >> > > > > Poison (= snake venom).
> >> > > > So why have you decided to include slander in *your* arsenal? That > >> > > > surely doesn't look good, does it?
> >> > > > > According to Dr. Scott (who has a Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education): > >> > > > > "psst" originates from "gosssssip" and gossip originates from > >> > > > > SSSSSatan.
> >> > > > Dr. Scott may have had a degree in education, but he didn't have one in > >> > > > linguistics.
> >> > > > gossip: [Middle English godsib, gossip, godparent, from Old English > >> > > > godsibb : god, god; see god + sibb, kinsman; see s(w)e- in > >> > > > Indo-European roots.]
> >> > > > Satan: [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin Sat?n, from > >> > > > Greek Satanas, Sat?n, from Hebrew ????n, devil, adversary, from ???an, > >> > > > to accuse, act as adversary; see ??n in Semitic roots.]
> >> > > Evasion of what I said.
> >> > > According to my Ph.D. source the terms *originate* as previously > >> > > mentioned.
> >> > > Your "source" is probably a for-profit dictionary that cobbled from > >> > > post Roman Empire sources.
> >> > Yes, but his source is correct and you are a proven gullible sucker > >> > and fool.
> >> > -- > >> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >> The evidence says that you are the sucker.
> >> You think a common dictionary source out ranks a scholar.
> >> Explains a lot about your kind.
> >Gene was smart but he stopped bothering with scholarship once he found > >his gig. He got your lot to pay for his coke and his hookers. He > >didn't spend much time on scholarship. He knew he could make up > >anythng sounded halfway reasonable and your kind would swallow it > >right down.
> Question: Is this Gene Scott the guy I used to see on my cable TV > on infomercials Some twenty or so years ago?
That's him. I couldn't help watching him sometimes. Great delivery and sincerity like that is important. If you can fake it, you have it made. I wish I had the lack of integrity to go into that line of work.
|
