As he does so often, Barry barges into a thread without having bothered to read the whole thing, and as a result gets things wrong (especially if he's piling on to a post from someone unreliable, like Steve or Richard, as he does here). And of course he further distorts the situation he's commenting on by reading it into his own contrary-to-fact fantasies, as he also does here.
What actually happened is that Share misused the term "transcript," which created a misunderstanding. She was corrected, the misunderstanding was straightened out, and that would have been the end of it had not Richard, Xeno, and Steve leaped to defend her from having made a mistake, making a huge deal of a very minor problem that had already been solved. (Just imagine, by the way, how Barry would have responded if someone he doesn't like had used, say, a computer term inaccurately.) Sure Judy, you seem to feel it's important to apply a rigorous standard in setting where it really doesn't matter much. But that's your prerogative of course. Sometimes that pays dividends here, I think. Oftentimes not. Nitpicking over unimportant trivia that doesn't matter in the slightest as part of trying to demean someone they don't like is their whole ACT. Now that they can't lure the people they don't like into arguing with them one-on-one (because most people have "wised up") they try to start bullshit threads like this one to lower the whole tone of the forum and drag other people down to their level just trying to plod through them looking for something more meaningful to read. It's a form of revenge they act out in response to being ignored. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : It's actually not fine, because it's misleading to those who know what the word means. Basic rule of thumb: If you don't know what a word means and are too lazy to look it up, don't use it. In this case, it appears that the idea was to show off by using a fancier, more technical term when the word "article" would have sufficed and been perfectly clear. But the more technical term was used incorrectly, and lack of clarity was the result. I would have liked to have seen a full transcript, so I asked for the URL. The response to that request revealed the error, which Richard has been compounding with his own irrelevant comments about "legal documents" and school records, which had nothing to do with the issue. I think for the great majority, (probably 99.9%) of people who have some education, and for purposes of a chat room, the use of the term transcript in this instance was fine. I think everyone understood it for what it was. Now, maybe it, if someone felt so inclined it might warrant some minor clarification. But doesn't it seem a little out of whack to attempt make some over sized issue out of this. You might want to direct that last comment to Richard. (Of course, you're now attempting to make it an "over sized issue" yourself without even having understood what the problem was.) But perhaps "grudges" must always supersede general cordiality. No, "grudges" aren't a factor here, except perhaps for yours against me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymaenot@...> wrote : You are in delusion too much of the time, Richard. I don't know if you really believe your convoluted posts or if you do it on purpose to amuse yourself. You are losing/have lost all credibility with this MO. The point was to clear up Share's lack of knowledge about using the word "transcript" to mean "article" - it was an inaccurate use of the word in the way she was applying it. Your post is completely irrelevant and meaningless. Case closed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : From now on and henceforth, on FFL, a transcript means any written record of a speech, debate, or a discussion; and shall not be used as a legal document in any case law; or submitted to a school board as a record of grades and course completed. To reiterate: A transcript is any written record of a speech, debate, or discussion. There are no legal documents on this chat site. Case closed. On 3/16/2014 10:45 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: A transcript is a complete, verbatim written record of everything that was said, without narrative interpolations (except perhaps for "[laughter]" or "[applause]"). A transcript is a complete, verbatim written record of everything that was said, without narrative interpolations (except perhaps for "[laughter]" or "[applause]"). You are overruled 2-1: On FFL and most other discussion groups, a transcript means any written record of a speech, debate, or discussion, not a legal document. Sorry, you don't make the rules around here. Now take your seat, Ms Stein.