Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. - Page 144

Spanky · 04-06-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I believe this is the second post in which you've misused "new". Maybe it shouldn't, but this affects my ability to take your points very seriously. FYI. FWIW. NTTAWWT. and etc.

(how's that for constructive criticism, Hank?)

As long as people understand my meaning why should I be so concerned about spelling and grammatical rules? "A person that judges an argument, not by its internal logic, but how it is presented or who presents it, is clearly a person whose judgment should be ignored." The fact that you focus on form over substance makes me sceptical of anything that you say. How is that for constructive criticism?

ltl/fb · 04-06-2005, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
As long as people understand my meaning why should I be so concerned about spelling and grammatical rules? "A person that judges an argument, not by its internal logic, but how it is presented or who presents it, is clearly a person whose judgment should be ignored." The fact that you focus on form over substance makes me sceptical of anything that you say. How is that for constructive criticism?

Cite?

notcasesensitive · 04-06-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
As long as people understand my meaning why should I be so concerned about spelling and grammatical rules? "A person that judges an argument, not by its internal logic, but how it is presented or who presents it, is clearly a person whose judgment should be ignored." The fact that you focus on form over substance makes me sceptical of anything that you say. How is that for constructive criticism?

Ignore me. I care not. I just never new that there were lawyers who confused "knew" with "new". Seriously. It is knew to me.

Say_hello_for_me · 04-06-2005, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There was a Frontline series called. "Commanding Heights" on PBS. It is also a book. In it they interviewed Gorbachav, Weinberger, Schultz, Regan etc. In Gorbachave's interview he explains why he instituted Prerastroika and Glasnost. In it Schultz and Weinberger also claim that they new that massive US military buildup would undermine the Soviet Economy. The series also traces economic policy in various countrys (including Britain, the US, Chile, France etc) and shows the results of those economic policies. It goes into intense detial about how Pinochet hired a bunch of Economists from the University of Chicago (who were all Friedman clones) what they did to Chile and how it worked out. Many people would benefit greatly from watching thise series. You can order directly from PBS's website.

FWIW, this is based on a book that is a great read on macro-economic thinking from the '30s or so. The author places credit with turning the west around squarely on Margaret Thatcher's shoulders, and expressly or impliedly indicates that even Reagan would and did give her credit.

Also FWIW, the same author (Yergen?) wrote The Prize, which is the history of oil. Like the complete history of oil and how it has played out in world events up through 1990 or whenever it was written. Seriously a must read. It was a mini-series on PBS not to long after it was published.

I haven't followed this argument yet, but just wanted to throw this out. Read them both and loved them both, but before you read the Commanding Heights, I'd recommend reading the Prize. Freakin masterpiece book.

Hello

Gattigap · 04-06-2005, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Cite?

Google PBS. It's all there.

ltl/fb · 04-06-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Google PBS. It's all there.

sounsd to me like someone might be plagiarizing . . .

Spanky · 04-06-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Ignore me. I care not. I just never new that there were lawyers who confused "knew" with "new". Seriously. It is knew to me.

Are you being sarcastic or are you really this much of a prick? Let me give you two options.

1) I was typing very quickly and focused on responding to the question instead of making sure that I spelled every word correctly and making sure I used every word correctly. My time is sometimes constrained and did not feel that when posting to a "chat" board that I should give it the same attention as a letter I would send to a client or for some other important purpose. Sometimes, in my haste, I may use a similarly sounding word in the wrong context - for example there, their, or they're.

2) I am knot aware of the different definitions of Knew and new.

If you have time to proof every message you post on the board, maybe it is time to get a life. Or if you do find there are great demands on your time, you may look into a time management course. Seriously.

ltl/fb · 04-06-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I thought Jeb was supposed to be the smart one?

It's all relative.

Never say I'm not nice to you -- I gave you a pun, for chrissakes.

notcasesensitive · 04-06-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you being sarcastic or are you really this much of a prick? Let me give you two options.

1) I was typing very quickly and focused on responding to the question instead of making sure that I spelled every word correctly and making sure I used every word correctly. My time is sometimes constrained and did not feel that when posting to a "chat" board that I should give it the same attention as a letter I would send to a client or for some other important purpose. Sometimes, in my haste, I may use a similarly sounding word in the wrong context - for example there, their, or they're.

2) I am knot aware of the different definitions of Knew and new.

If you have time to proof every message you post on the board, maybe it is time to get a life. Or if you do find there are great demands on your time, you may look into a time management course. Seriously.

Apparently your brain functions differently than mine does. I was funning with you, and I'm tempted to continue in light of what an ass you are making of yourself, but I must get back to my muy importanto life right now.

(if you're gonna get this worked up over comments from posters on anonymous internet chat boards, you might want to find a knew hobby.)

Hank Chinaski · 04-06-2005, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have seen perestroika and glasnost explained many times in ways that do not refer to Ronald Reagan or his defense budgets. But if Schultz and Weinberger both took credit for the collapse of the USSR after the fact, then it must be true.

You should really watch Farenheit 911. You'd like it, and could start quoting from it too.

Spanky · 04-06-2005, 09:21 PM

Your comments remind me of an experience I had in law school. I did rather well on my Criminal Law midterm so the professor allowed other students to review my exam so they could see what he was looking for when he graded exams. It was a racehorse exam so the key was to spot more issues than the next guy. This guy in my class asked me about my exam. He said something along the lines like "your exam was a total mess. You misspelled words, your grammar sucks and I could barely read your writing. Your exam was full of sentence fragments etc." I explained to him that because I knew that the professor was grading us on our analytical skills, and not our English skills, I chose to sacrifice the latter to do better on the former. He was dumbfounded. He could just not fathom that any professor would give high marks to an exam that was so sloppy. This individual I am talking about, of course, was a social cripple, and completely unpleasant to be around. Does this sound familiar to you?

Hank Chinaski · 04-06-2005, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Picture of the Day on the elevator was an Iraqi soldier dancing to celebrate the election of Talabani as Iraqi President. Just to let you know our elevators seem to be bias-free. Oh, and while it's not a Pulitzer, I'm sure it is a significant honor to be Picture of the Day in our elevators.

On our's there was an amber alert photo for an 8 year old girl that looks a lot like your "niece" you introduced me to yesterday at your apartment.

Hank Chinaski · 04-06-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I believe this is the second post in which you've misused "new". Maybe it shouldn't, but this affects my ability to take your points very seriously. FYI. FWIW. NTTAWWT. and etc.

(how's that for constructive criticism, Hank?)

nice! you also passively dismiss all my posts since they all have typos. You win!

notcasesensitive · 04-06-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Your comments remind me of an experience I had in law school. I did rather well on my Criminal Law midterm so the professor allowed other students to review my exam so they could see what he was looking for when he graded exams. It was a racehorse exam so the key was to spot more issues than the next guy. This guy in my class asked me about my exam. He said something along the lines like "your exam was a total mess. You misspelled words, your grammar sucks and I could barely read your writing. Your exam was full of sentence fragments etc." I explained to him that because I knew that the professor was grading us on our analytical skills, and not our English skills, I chose to sacrifice the latter to do better on the former. He was dumbfounded. He could just not fathom that any professor would give high marks to an exam that was so sloppy. This individual I am talking about, of course, was a social cripple, and completely unpleasant to be around. Does this sound familiar to you?

You were at Harvard with Hank?

ltl/fb · 04-06-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Your comments remind me of an experience I had in law school. I did rather well on my Criminal Law midterm so the professor allowed other students to review my exam so they could see what he was looking for when he graded exams. It was a racehorse exam so the key was to spot more issues than the next guy. This guy in my class asked me about my exam. He said something along the lines like "your exam was a total mess. You misspelled words, your grammar sucks and I could barely read your writing. Your exam was full of sentence fragments etc." I explained to him that because I knew that the professor was grading us on our analytical skills, and not our English skills, I chose to sacrifice the latter to do better on the former. He was dumbfounded. He could just not fathom that any professor would give high marks to an exam that was so sloppy. This individual I am talking about, of course, was a social cripple, and completely unpleasant to be around. Does this sound familiar to you?

Because this is of course all about me, I will note that once one of my answers was a model answer. I seriously just thought someone else in my class's handwriting was eerily similar to mine.

But really, how is a law school exam relevant? If a client or judge or whatever (who knows what the fuck kind of law you practice) said "hey, you look like a moron with the crap spelling/grammar," would you trot out your story and say that the client/judge was a social cripple who was completely unpleasant to be around? It's not relevant in that case, and it's not relevant in this case. Plus, it's the repeated errors of similar type that make it seem like stupidity, not just carelessness.

Why such the chip, spankme? You are making yourself sound stupider every second.

Hey, I know, let's have an "it's her or me!" contest!