Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,526 Year: 18,562/19,786 Month: 982/1,705 Week: 234/518 Day: 58/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 34 of 1043 (595330)
12-08-2010 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by arachnophilia
12-07-2010 9:58 PM


arachnophilia writes:

quote:
the KJV is not archaic in any way. it's only 400 years olds, and represents perhaps the most popular work in modern english. the english spoken at the time of shakespeare and king james is, for all intents and purposes, modern.

But just barely. Have you not actually seen a copy of the original Shakespeare texts? There is no consistency in spelling. Some of it is because as a dramatic work, he used spellings that would assist the actor in their presentation ("sweet" spelled with three e's to indicate that it is an important word and the actor should hold that vowel sound out), but the English of the 1600s was just coming around to standardization. It's why the classic old-tyme sign reads, "Ye Olde Shoppe." That's not pronounced "yee." It's pronounced, "the." That "y" is pronounced as "th." The "y" is actually a poorly written version of the Scandanavian letter commonly called "thorn" (Þ). The graphology stuck and since type from Germany and Italy didn't have the thorn character (not being Scandanavian), English typesetters substituted the letter "y." If you look at 1611 copies of the KJV, you will see it (such as Job 1:9).

But it has been many centuries since modern English was first solidified and it has adapted and changed since then. Every passing year makes it more and more difficult to understand what Shakespeare was writing. Not necessarily because of the topical references and turns of phrase but simply because the words don't mean the same thing anymore. They aren't pronounced the same way.

And the whine that language is "fluid and changing" is just that: A whine. You aren't being hip or modern or arty or whatever sort of emotional tinge you have attached to your need to deviate from common usage. I'm sure it means something to you.

It doesn't mean that to anybody else. Conventional forms exist in order to improve communication. Of course, conventions change, but the specific ones you are flaunting aren't among them.

I'm reminded of a common refrain from Miss Manners against those who claim that etiquette is a burden. Everybody has etiquette. Those who flaunt it and deny it simply don't seem to recognize it in themselves. But etiquette is designed to allow social interactions to flow smoothly without having to constantly re-examine every single detail and nuance in every new interaction. By having conventions, we allow ourselves the ability to concentrate on more important aspects of our interactions.

It's the same thing with grammar and syntax: You follow them so that we don't have to constantly wonder what on earth you're talking about. Rather than having to examine absolutely everything, we can concentrate on the actual meaning you are trying to convey.

Here's a good example: A poem where the conventions of line breaks and punctuation have been removed:

The deep red rose I see its thorn I just ignore the scent that's borne to me it's nothing I deplore those scratches that I got before I just complain about the pain a lot I think of beauty's gain.

Well, what's that poem mean? Is it this?

The deep red rose I see
Its thorn I just ignore
The scent that's borne to me
It's nothing I deplore
Those scratches that I got
Before I just complain
About the pain a lot
I think of beauty's gain

Or is it this:

The deep red rose, I see its thorn
I just ignore the scent that's borne
To me, it's nothing. I deplore
Those scratches that I got before
I just complain about the pain
A lot I think of beauty's gain

There's a reason you use convention. This is an extreme case, yes, but it makes the point.

Edited by Rrhain, : Gave concrete example

Edited by Rrhain, : Why I wrote "implore" rather than "deplore," I don't know. And yes, it's "usage."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 12-07-2010 9:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Omnivorous, posted 12-08-2010 8:38 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 9:48 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 12-08-2010 11:04 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 12-08-2010 8:23 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 47 of 1043 (595508)
12-09-2010 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jon
12-08-2010 9:48 AM


Jon writes:

quote:
Poetry is an oral art

It can be. It can also be a written art. That's why the poetry of e.e. cummings works the way it does. It's why there is such a thing called an "eye rhyme."

quote:
its understanding should not depend on how it is written on the page. If it does, then it just isn't that good of poetry.

Or perhaps a reader who just doesn't get it.

Theatre? Yeah, that's intended to be expressed rather than read. It was the biggest "hint" my Script Analysis prof told us. A class full of students griping about the number of plays we had to read: "You're all a bunch of actors. Why aren't you getting together, assigning parts, and reading these plays out loud? Shouldn't take you more than a couple hours. You'll understand it better."

Poetry? Well, that depends upon the poem. Some are lyric and meant to be spoken. Some are literary and are meant to be read.

But even then, spoken language has conventions. Why are questions spoken with a rising intonation? Despite the fact that we have question words in the sentence, we still have inflections to guide our speech so that we can detect meaning. This is especially true in tonal languages where pitch determines meaning. (and on an interesting note, such languages cannot truly be whispered. Oh, you can whisper and be understood, but only because of context. You cannot whisper the word and know the meaning due to the removal of intonation.)

The point is that communication necessarily involves conventional methods of construction. It's why English is an SVO language and while it is possible to reverse your syntax, it sounds artificial. It's why "the big, red balloon" seems right but "the red, big balloon" seems off.

quote:
(By the way, line 4 of your first rendition has an error.)

Actually, it's the other way around: That was the only time I got it right. It should be "deplore," not "implore."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 12-08-2010 9:48 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 816 of 1043 (761755)
07-05-2015 12:31 AM


Moose, you know better
You provide no indication as to what you think is in need of more reference.

And I posted the reference to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

So what on earth are you talking about?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by NoNukes, posted 07-05-2015 11:51 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 818 of 1043 (762095)
07-09-2015 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 817 by NoNukes
07-05-2015 11:51 AM


Re: Moose, you know better
NoNukes responds to me:

quote:
Methyl mercury vs. ethyl mercury?

This is basic biochemistry. Who doesn't know that different chemicals behave differently? Since Faith is the one quite literally screaming "MERCURY" and following up with a reference that confuses methyl mercury, mercury (I) chloride, and mercuric nitrate for ethyl mercury, isn't she the one who is supposed to be providing the justification?

Do I really need to derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics from first principles or can we just assume basic knowledge? Shouldn't someone who is entering into a discussion about this have done their homework first?

This is not obscure information.

quote:
Perhaps some cites to the scientific literature on this topic.

And when has Faith ever paid attention to the literature? Do you really think that she will pay attention to:

J Appl Toxicol. 2013 Aug;33(8):700-11. doi: 10.1002/jat.2855. Epub 2013 Feb 11.
Toxicity of ethylmercury (and Thimerosal): a comparison with methylmercury.
Dórea JG, Farina M, Rocha JB.

"Although methylmercury (meHg) is considered a hazardous substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and rice (in Asia), the World Health Organization considers small doses of thimerosal safe regardless of multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy."

Toxicol Sci. 2011 Apr;120(2):499-506. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfr009. Epub 2011 Jan 20.
Toxicokinetics of mercury after long-term repeated exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine.
Barregard L, Rekić D, Horvat M, Elmberg L, Lundh T, Zachrisson O.

"The results indicate that mercury from thimerosal is not accumulated in blood in adults. This is in accordance with short half-lives and rapid metabolism of EtHg to inorganic mercury."

Pediatrics. 2008 Feb;121(2):e208-14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3363.
Mercury levels in newborns and infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.
Pichichero ME, Gentile A, Giglio N, Umido V, Clarkson T, Cernichiari E, Zareba G, Gotelli C, Gotelli M, Yan L, Treanor J.

"CONCLUSIONS: The blood half-life of intramuscular ethyl mercury from thimerosal in vaccines in infants is substantially shorter than that of oral methyl mercury in adults. Increased mercury levels were detected in stools after vaccination, suggesting that the gastrointestinal tract is involved in ethyl mercury elimination. Because of the differing pharmacokinetics of ethyl and methyl mercury, exposure guidelines based on oral methyl mercury in adults may not be accurate for risk assessments in children who receive thimerosal-containing vaccines."

Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science
Interpreting Mercury in Blood and Urine of Individual Patients
Kern L. Nuttall
Accepted 19 May 2004

"Sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate (proprietary names include thimerosal, thiomersal, methiolate sodium, and merthiolate) is a water-soluble compound used as a preservative [38]. It is added to many commercial products of human plasma, immunoglobulins, and vaccines, usually to a final concentration about 10 mg/L. Toxicity is generally low, although allergic reactions occur, and symptomatic and fatal poisonings have been reported.

"Thimerosal rapidly breaks down in the body to release the ethylmercury ion (CH3CH2-Hg+). Ethylmercury appears to be less toxic than methyl-mercury in part because metabolism is more rapid [38]. The blood half-life in adults is about 18 days. Low dose ethylmercury derived from thimerosal in vaccines had a blood half-life of 7 days (95% CI 4–10) in 40 full-term infants."

Or will she just claim it's all a conspiracy?

Thimerosal is ethyl mercury. It is not metabolized the same as methyl mercury. It is not toxic at the doses give in vaccines and is rapidly metabolized and eliminated from the body (in infants, quite rapidly).

But she's the one making the claim. She's the one who needs to justify her claim.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 817 by NoNukes, posted 07-05-2015 11:51 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-09-2015 3:02 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 989 of 1043 (816161)
07-30-2017 4:13 PM


Still as foolish as ever, Moose
Moose,

Regarding your comment in Message 1143:

Same statement to you as to CRR: Why am I not surprised that you didn't do your homework before you started making claims?

it's still the responsibility of the person making the assertion to supply link(s)/reference(s) (and ?) to support the assertion.

You will notice that I provided the references asked for. The fact that I think CRR should have done his homework first does not alter that fact. Are you honestly complaining that I actually provided the references he asked for? It was in the very post to which you were responding. Didn't you read it?

That said, you will notice that I did so even though others had already provided references. Or have you forgotten RAZD's comments (Message 1010)? You did recall that CRR asked for RAZD to pick which one he thought was the best example (Message 1027), yes? And he made that request of RAZD the day before he responded to my post reiterating that we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. Thus, he had already been given some of the information he was looking for and was intimating that he had at least glanced at it.

So it seems your foolishness is the same as it has always been: You didn't read the thread you're moderating. Stop letting your animosity toward me color your reactions.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019