>From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World >Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:24:56 +0200 > >At 17:24 03-10-2002 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: > >>Jeroen, >> >>I have presented eight valid sources (most accepted **internationally** in >>their fields) that explain that proper usage of a particular word in >>English is not what you, in your opinion, consider the 'logical' >>definition of it to be. >> >>You want me to accept that your postulated argument is more valid than the >>one I've proven? Show me the authorities and source materials that agree >>with you. > >The authority on this is called "plain and simple logic".
No. This is a non-sequitur. I have already posted 8 versions of proof from rather impressive (IMO) authorities that say that the word's modern English usage does not correspond to what _you think_ should be it's logical definition. The onus is now upon you to disprove what I have posted using **valid _sources_ from internationally recognized authorities on the English language.** I'd appreciate it if you would read the previous sentence again, carefully. Please don't make me repeat myself. You already know that you need to back up your opinion with documentation from a valid authority. You've shown previously onlist that your skills at dissembling are good enough that I shouldn't have to waste my time repeating myself. When you show me proof from an internationally recognized authority that your original argument is valid and can be applied to modern English language usage I'll assume you're serious about continuing this discussion. Show me the sources. Show me the documentation. Otherwise, your argument, and by extension you, are wrong. :-) What was it you had posted to the list incessantly a few months ago? "I'm still waiting for Jeroen to post proof and documentation to these accusations?" You'd think I'd remember it better from having seen it a few hundred times. :-) Oh, and by the way, if you feel inclined, I'd really love to see you provide further documentation that the authors and publishers of the eight dictionaries whose definitions were posted to the list are biased and members of the "pro-Israel" crowd. I did interpret that correctly, didn't I? >You show precisely the behaviour I described for the pro-Israel crowd. Your >Israel-related posts from earlier this year show that you are in fact part >of that crowd. So, you have a very good reason for your (mis)interpretation >of the word "anti-Semite" -- admitting that your interpretation of the word >is wrong would seriously undermine the most favourite tactic of said >population group. Jeroen, if you can't prove me wrong, then second-guessing my motives rather than disproving my accuracy is a rather pathetic alternative to admitting your own mistake, wouldn't you say? Jon _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
