Re: OT - Coulter

NJH wrote:
> "trotsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > NJH wrote:
> >
> > > "trotsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > [ . . . ]
> > >
> > >
> > > > Shitzwerg, the QUESTION "would Bush veto the bill?" begs the larger
> > > > question of "What is Bush's position on the draft?" [ . . . ]
> > >
> > >
> > > Is literacy off topic here?
> > >
> > > The phrase "begs the question" does not have anything to do with any
> actual
>
> > > question. I know, I know, you've seen it used that way on TV. We all
> have.
>
> > > It's wrong. It's illiterate. It's yet another case of the language being
> > > corrupted by dimwits mimicking imbeciles. The lesson here is that you
> don't
>
> > > learn proper English by watching TV, or reading stuff written by other
> > > illiterates.
> >
> >
> > Uh, no.  English is a constantly evolving language,
>
>
> That's the regular, standard and predictable excuse of illiterates and
> semi-literates. No usage of theirs is ever incorrect because "English is a
> constantly evolving language," evidently meaning that in their opinion there
> are no rules to the language at all. Their failure to be aware of (let alone
> acknowledge) correct usage is of course what makes them illiterates in the
> first place.


Unfortunately, you're doing a poor job of using your brain.  "Begs the 
question" isn't terribly heinous compared to "borrow me a dollar" or 
just about anything that can be termed "ebonics."  Now, if you want to 
turn over a new leaf and prove you can actually make value judgements, 
go for it.  ("Go for it" is primarily a colloquial expression that is 
pretty much self-explanatory.)


> > which is why
> > Webster's feels obligated to enter in "new" words.
>
>
> "Begs the question" is not "new." It's a phrase which has been around
> probably longer than you have.
>
>
>
> > > It's like saying "prime lens" when you mean single-focal-length lens. It
> > > advertises your ignorance. It makes you look stupid to anyone who writes
> and
>
> > > speaks correctly.
> >
> >
> > You are really being a sore loser now, "Neil."  I wrote an entire
> > paragraph about bullshit the American public has been forced to deal
> > with because of Bush, and you were unable to respond.
>
>
> Much of your typical post is standard leftist claptrap which has been
> replied to and thoroughly demolished time and time again.


Uh, no.  Where are the WMDs?  Why is the U.S. stripping people of basic 
human rights?  Why has nothing been done to the Saudis and/or the bin 
Laden family members that were whisked out of the country?  Why isn't 
Ken Lay in prison?  --These aren't questions that have been 
"demolished", except maybe in your propaganda laced mind.


 When I run into
> that I usually just ignore and omit it. Apparently you are one of those
> leftists whose nonsense can be logically and thoroughly exposed as such 100
> times, but when anyone just ignores it the 101st time you crow that they are
> "unable to respond." Grow up.


Uh, no.  "Don't hold your breath waiting for apologies" is your way of 
telling us that you were fucked.  There is no other interpretation.


> > Now you come up
> > with some horseshit about "prime lenses"?  Go lick your wounds somewhere
> > else.
>
>
> Check the newsgroups, genius. I'm answering these posts in
> rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I would not expect you to have any technical
> knowledge about that or anything else.


Oh, my bad. (Another colloquial expression.)  I must've missed the 
"Nerd" moniker tattooed across your forehead.


> > > "Begs the question" simply means to reason badly. That's all it means.
> > > That's all it ever meant.
> > >
> > > It does NOT mean to *raise* some actual question, even though that is
> its
>
> > > current fashionable usage among illiterates.
> >
> >
> > I see.  You're just getting all "nucular" on me, right?  Bush is in
> > office, stupidity is in fashion.  Don't hate me because I'm fashionable.
>
>
> End of your post. See what I mean? You are monumentally ignorant of the
> subject and really have nothing to say, but claim that your betters are
> "unable to respond" when they just ignore your completely meaningless,
> irrelevant blather.


Again, you are just proving that you are unable to make value 
judgements.  You criticize MY excellent use of the language, while the 
leader of the most powerful nation on earth is stupider than a box of 
rocks.  You just can't seem to get all your ducks in a row.  (Another 
figure of speech--it's probably in the dictionary.)