Anyone else notice this pattern?

It's an adjective, Perfesser. The corresponding verb is "to go on". It is quite permissible to say ... go on, going on, gone on, went on.I think Nator's point in the OP had more to do with the ability to express one's point clearly than with the homogenization of language. It takes all kinds, after all.ABE:Case in point, a load of gibberish like this (Message 49):

quote:

---

The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.

---

Edited by Ringo, : Added example.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

It does have a Whitmanesque quality, though, don't you think?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

I didn't say that. The topic isn't about the content of posts. It's about the style.I find your gibberish odd in a thread about style. Are you the love-child of IamJoseph and tesla? You should try, occasionally, informing your audience what your pronouns refer to. That might adversely effect my income from Internet porn.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Sentences. Egad?Really, if you don't want to come across as yet another creationist empty-head, you'd do better to write in plain English instead of trying to be Mr. Pedantic.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

The quote:

quote:

---

If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?

---

is apt, whether it was what you meant or not. I comprehend quite well what you said. Whether or not you said what you meant is your problem - which may be close to the topic. I was born cute - no "trying" involved.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

You just might have yourself a topic there, buddy. Call it "The Modern Pharisees", maybe. Ask why today's Christians think they have the wisdom of God, why they think they're the spiritual/intellectual elite - contrary to appearances.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Name six. You're welcome to bring your Doctor of Screwology to the Bible Study forum. Hint: One of the keys to writing clarity is anticipating what your words will mean to the reader. Knowing what's in your own mind isn't enough. Communication hinges on being able to trigger the same thoughts in other minds.When you said:

quote:

---

If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?

---

you were saying more than you thought you were saying.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

I was going to go with twelve, but I anticipated that you might ask me to name twelve who can understand me. I have a short memory, so I went with six. Well, if I make up bullshit excuses, I'll look bad. As it is, you're the one making bullshit excuses and looking bad. That would be because of my brilliance, in spite of your lack of clarity. That's exactly why you have to anticipate how your audience will probably think. I'd like to see you explain things 30 different ways here. Your words said more than you understood.

quote:

---

Psa 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes....

---

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

You could come up with all that (unattributed) and you can't come up with six people who understand you?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

I didn't say you said more than what you said. I said the words mean more than you thought they meant. It's a good quote in a general sense even if you meant it in a narrower context.You don't own the words. I didn't say you weren't. Your intent is irrelevant to my signature. Only if you change your name to riVeRgoD.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Maybe they're just doing what PD suggested, not carrying baggage from on thread to another - only they're extending it to individual posts. Every post is a clean slate.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Speaking for myself, I point out to them that they don't know everything about their "chosen subject" either. Their sloppy thinking on scientific matters is usually consistent with sloppy thinking in matters Biblical. I'd start with a nitpick: Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not from a tree of general knowledge. As far as we know, they acquired the rest of their knowledge the same way as we do, by observing the world around them.I'd also mention that - literally true or not - the important point in the Adam and Eve story is that they acquired the knowledge of good and evil, not how they acquired it. If the details of the story don't seem to be literally true based on our observations of the real world, that doesn't mean we have to reject the point of the story.Bottom line: I'd point out that there are more alternatives than keeping the bathwater or throwing the baby out with it.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs