> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > > On Oct 20, 5:48 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >>> On Oct 20, 12:52 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 20, 11:41 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >>>>>>> annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I > >>>>>>>> assume Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
> >>>>>>> 2. What did you mean by "Jessica Watson posts" - posts about > >>>>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? My own view is that you almost > >>>>>>> certainly meant about, but I need your confirmation.
> >>>>>> I see no ambiguity: > >>>>>> Adjectival form - about > >>>>>> Possessive form - by
> >>>>> 1. "Jessica Watson" is not an adjective.
> >>>> Then I take it that 'rose' is not an adjective in 'rose gardens'?
> >>> You take it correctly.
> >> So, in 'beautiful gardens', 'beautiful' is describing the gardens, > >> but in 'rose gardens', 'rose' is not?
> >> If 'rose' is not acting as an adjective, how is it acting?
> > You didn't ask whether it was "acting as an adjective", you asked > > whether it was an adjective.
> I asked whether it was an adjective _in_ 'rose gardens', and it is. If it walks > like a duck and quacks like a duck...
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. If it simultaneously looks like a rose, perhaps you've been eating moldy bread.
Your smugness, Duckman, is misplaced because you are wrong. Most people would understand 'rose gardens' to mean gardens of rose bushes. In that phrase, 'rose' is NOT an adjective. Now, read slowly...
Rose - NOUN - a species of flowering bush - may be used as a MODIFIER. Rose - ADJECTIVE - having a pink or reddish colour.
So, the phrase 'rose gardens', if we assume 'rose' to be an adjective, means any gardens of pink flowers, and might contain no rose bushes at all. If the phrase 'rose gardens' is intended to mean 'gardens of roses' then 'rose' is NOT THE ADJECTIVE, but the NOUN.
Again, DavidW proved himself to be a twat.
Again DavidW, by ignoring the truth, proved himself to be a twat.
ODFO, I'm not following your links because you're too lazy to even copy & paste, let alone use your own words. You're not only a grammar troll, and a clueless one, you're fucking lazy.
On Oct 20, 8:01 pm, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
> >>> I asked annily what sense of modification he intended - posts about > >>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? > >>> He has subsequently explicitly refused to answer that query. > > Ambiguities, such as the one you created, are introduced accidentally > > or intentionally. I know of no third possibility.
> Did anyone imply a third possibility? Why did you jump to the conclusion > that the ambiguity was intentional?
BTW, I did not reach that conclusion, jumping or otherwise; I said it was the obvious one.
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > On Oct 20, 7:37 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>> On Oct 20, 5:48 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>> On Oct 20, 12:52 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>> On Oct 20, 11:41 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>>>> annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I >>>>>>>>>> assume Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
>>>>>>>>> 2. What did you mean by "Jessica Watson posts" - posts about >>>>>>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? My own view is that you almost >>>>>>>>> certainly meant about, but I need your confirmation.
>>>>>>>> I see no ambiguity: >>>>>>>> Adjectival form - about >>>>>>>> Possessive form - by
>>>>>>> 1. "Jessica Watson" is not an adjective.
>>>>>> Then I take it that 'rose' is not an adjective in 'rose gardens'?
>>>>> You take it correctly.
>>>> So, in 'beautiful gardens', 'beautiful' is describing the gardens, >>>> but in 'rose gardens', 'rose' is not?
>>>> If 'rose' is not acting as an adjective, how is it acting?
>>> You didn't ask whether it was "acting as an adjective", you asked >>> whether it was an adjective.
>> I asked whether it was an adjective _in_ 'rose gardens', and it is. >> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. If > it simultaneously looks like a rose, perhaps you've been eating moldy > bread.
> Your smugness, Duckman, is misplaced because you are wrong. Most > people would understand 'rose gardens' to mean gardens of rose bushes. > In that phrase, 'rose' is NOT an adjective. Now, read slowly...
> Rose - NOUN - a species of flowering bush - may be used as a MODIFIER. > Rose - ADJECTIVE - having a pink or reddish colour.
> So, the phrase 'rose gardens', if we assume 'rose' to be an adjective, > means any gardens of pink flowers, and might contain no rose bushes at > all.
Wrong. You are confusing 'rose' the noun used as an adjective with 'rose' the adjective, which is irrelevant here. What would your argument be in cases where the word has no independent adjective, such as 'junkyard dog'?
> If the phrase 'rose gardens' is intended to mean 'gardens of > roses' then 'rose' is NOT THE ADJECTIVE, but the NOUN.
It's a noun used as an adjective. In that sentence it is as much an adjective as 'beautiful'.
> Again, DavidW proved himself to be a twat.
> Again DavidW, by ignoring the truth, proved himself to be a twat.
You might want to consider a name substitution there. You were wrong on commas, wrong on who/whom and now you are wrong on nouns as adjectives.
> ODFO, I'm not following your links because you're too lazy to even > copy & paste, let alone use your own words. You're not only a grammar > troll, and a clueless one, you're fucking lazy.
It is impolite and not the convention to paste entire articles from other websites. The only reason you're not going there is that you don't want any authoritative source telling you you're wrong, or you've been there and seen that you're wrong but don't want to say so.
annily wrote: > DavidW wrote: >> annily wrote: >>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I assume >>> Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
>> Let's work this through: She was alive and kicking when there were >> MANY Jessica Watson posts last night, so it stands to reason that NO >> Jessica Watson posts means that she is dead.
> No, because there would be even more than previous days if she were > dead.
But she doesn't tell us her position. There ought to be a map showing her path and current position, similar to the kayakers who crossed the Tasman (and went round in circles for a few days).
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > On Oct 20, 8:01 pm, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
>>>>> I asked annily what sense of modification he intended - posts about >>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? >>>>> He has subsequently explicitly refused to answer that query.
>>> Ambiguities, such as the one you created, are introduced accidentally >>> or intentionally. I know of no third possibility. >> Did anyone imply a third possibility? Why did you jump to the conclusion >> that the ambiguity was intentional?
> BTW, I did not reach that conclusion, jumping or otherwise; I said it > was the obvious one.
Yes, sorry. My question should have been, why did you assume that it was the obvious conclusion?
Also, I'm still puzzled by your mention of a third possibility.
-- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
>>> Someone has been trawling the Internet for witty responses. >> If you're in contact with that "someone" could you send him over here? >> Aus.tv desperately needs some wit.
> Unfortunately, you and your ilk are only half qualified in that > department.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ heh, beat me to it....:^)
-- jonz "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind - boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford,1992
> >>> Someone has been trawling the Internet for witty responses. > >> If you're in contact with that "someone" could you send him over here? > >> Aus.tv desperately needs some wit.
> > Unfortunately, you and your ilk are only half qualified in that > > department.....
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > heh, beat me to it....:^)
Beaten to the punch by Springy, by a whole day, and you're dopey enough to draw attention to it, Mr jonz?
> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > > On Oct 20, 8:01 pm, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I asked annily what sense of modification he intended - posts about > >>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? > >>>>> He has subsequently explicitly refused to answer that query.
> >>> Ambiguities, such as the one you created, are introduced accidentally > >>> or intentionally. I know of no third possibility. > >> Did anyone imply a third possibility? Why did you jump to the conclusion > >> that the ambiguity was intentional?
> > BTW, I did not reach that conclusion, jumping or otherwise; I said it > > was the obvious one.
> Yes, sorry. My question should have been, why did you assume that it was > the obvious conclusion? > >>>>> I asked annily what sense of modification he intended - posts about > >>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? > >>>>> He has subsequently explicitly refused to answer that query. > Also, I'm still puzzled by your mention of a third possibility.
I did NOT mention a third possibility. In fact, I was quite definite in saying I knew of NO third possibility. By what gymnastics of logic (Do I really want to know?) do you equate NO POSSIBILITY with THIRD POSSIBILITY?
If I said, "Here are the two cats, there is no third cat," would you respond in paranoid manner, "Why are you talking about a third cat?"?
Really annily, your logic/syntax trolling, or whatever it is, is as clumsy as Duckman's grammar trolling.
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > On Oct 21, 8:49 am, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote: >> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>> On Oct 20, 8:01 pm, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I asked annily what sense of modification he intended - posts about >>>>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? >>>>>>> He has subsequently explicitly refused to answer that query. >>>>> Ambiguities, such as the one you created, are introduced accidentally >>>>> or intentionally. I know of no third possibility. >>>> Did anyone imply a third possibility? Why did you jump to the conclusion >>>> that the ambiguity was intentional? >>> BTW, I did not reach that conclusion, jumping or otherwise; I said it >>> was the obvious one. >> Yes, sorry. My question should have been, why did you assume that it was >> the obvious conclusion?
>>>>>>> I asked annily what sense of modification he intended - posts about >>>>>>> Jessica, or posts by Jessica? >>>>>>> He has subsequently explicitly refused to answer that query.
>> Also, I'm still puzzled by your mention of a third possibility.
> I did NOT mention a third possibility. In fact, I was quite definite > in saying I knew of NO third possibility.
Er, that is mentioning a third possibility, just in the negative.
> Really annily, your logic/syntax trolling, or whatever it is, is as > clumsy as Duckman's grammar trolling.
Your logic is mind-boggling.
-- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
> >> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I assume > >> Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
> Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten to keep up with how she was > going, since she seems to have dropped out of the media now.
You mean you actually care! I was *pleased* the media finally found something else besides the exploits of a spoilt, rich girl. They WILL let you know however as soon as she runs into another ship, runs aground, breaks another mast, capsizes, gets kidnapped, runs out of food and water, or anything else some might find of interest.
Mr.T wrote: > "annily" <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote in message > news:4AF0D067.2020101@ihopethisdoesntexist.com... >>>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I assume >>>> Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing? >> Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten to keep up with how she was >> going, since she seems to have dropped out of the media now.
> You mean you actually care! I was *pleased* the media finally found > something else besides the exploits of a spoilt, rich girl. > They WILL let you know however as soon as she runs into another ship, runs > aground, breaks another mast, capsizes, gets kidnapped, runs out of food and > water, or anything else some might find of interest.
> MrT.
Fortunately, in the meantime, I can read her blog. She seems a very intelligent, pretty and brave young lady, spoilt or not.
-- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
> Fortunately, in the meantime, I can read her blog. She seems a very intelligent, pretty > and brave young lady, spoilt or not.
All those personalities who blogtwityouface, it isn't really them, they paid PR copywriters to rough out the daily message months ago and complete 5 possible daily outcomes yesterday. Add a couple of daily topical references to freshen it up and post. There are months worth of prose prewritten waiting to be cutnpaste on appropriate days.
>> Fortunately, in the meantime, I can read her blog. She seems a very intelligent, pretty >> and brave young lady, spoilt or not.
> All those personalities who blogtwityouface, it isn't really them, > they paid PR copywriters to rough out the daily message > months ago and complete 5 possible daily outcomes yesterday. > Add a couple of daily topical references to freshen it up and post. > There are months worth of prose prewritten waiting to be cutnpaste on appropriate days.
Is that how your post was created?
-- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
>>> Fortunately, in the meantime, I can read her blog. She seems a very intelligent, >>> pretty and brave young lady, spoilt or not.
>> All those personalities who blogtwityouface, it isn't really them, >> they paid PR copywriters to rough out the daily message >> months ago and complete 5 possible daily outcomes yesterday. >> Add a couple of daily topical references to freshen it up and post. >> There are months worth of prose prewritten waiting to be cutnpaste on appropriate >> days.
>>>> Fortunately, in the meantime, I can read her blog. She seems a very intelligent, >>>> pretty and brave young lady, spoilt or not. >>> All those personalities who blogtwityouface, it isn't really them, >>> they paid PR copywriters to rough out the daily message >>> months ago and complete 5 possible daily outcomes yesterday. >>> Add a couple of daily topical references to freshen it up and post. >>> There are months worth of prose prewritten waiting to be cutnpaste on appropriate >>> days.
> 5 OCEANS MEDIA is an interactive media, sport and entertainment company, specialising in > content creation, production services and talent management
What's your point? Jessica is a sporting talent they manage. That hardly means they create her blogs.
-- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
She does? Why does she constantly say "we"? "We had a pretty good day", "We had scrambled eggs for lunch". "We had a good night sleep last night" etc etc. Wasn't this supposed to be a failed attempt at a SOLO trip around the world? So how many others are on the boat?
Coach wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> annily wrote: >>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I assume >>> Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
> She does? Why does she constantly say "we"? "We had a pretty good > day", "We had scrambled eggs for lunch". "We had a good night sleep > last night" etc etc. Wasn't this supposed to be a failed attempt at a > SOLO trip around the world? So how many others are on the boat?
Just as you sometimes recommend that aus.tv posters read your blog to get the facts on one subject or another , I suggest that you read Jessica's blog to find out who "we" are. Clearly, you have not given it your best effort.
> Coach wrote: > > On Nov 4, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >> annily wrote: > >>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I assume > >>> Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
> > She does? Why does she constantly say "we"? "We had a pretty good > > day", "We had scrambled eggs for lunch". "We had a good night sleep > > last night" etc etc. Wasn't this supposed to be a failed attempt at a > > SOLO trip around the world? So how many others are on the boat?
> Just as you sometimes recommend that aus.tv posters read your blog to get the > facts on one subject or another , I suggest that you read Jessica's blog to > find out who "we" are. Clearly, you have not given it your best effort.
I assume you are suggesting that "she" refers to Jessica and her boat. So how, pray tell, does a boat have a good night sleep, or have breakfast etc etc. Do you ever think AT ALL before replying?
Coach wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> Coach wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>> annily wrote: >>>>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I >>>>> assume Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
>>> She does? Why does she constantly say "we"? "We had a pretty good >>> day", "We had scrambled eggs for lunch". "We had a good night sleep >>> last night" etc etc. Wasn't this supposed to be a failed attempt at >>> a SOLO trip around the world? So how many others are on the boat?
>> Just as you sometimes recommend that aus.tv posters read your blog >> to get the facts on one subject or another , I suggest that you read >> Jessica's blog to find out who "we" are. Clearly, you have not given >> it your best effort.
> I assume you are suggesting that "she" refers to Jessica and her > boat.
No. I urge you to read her blog.
> So how, pray tell, does a boat have a good night sleep, or have > breakfast etc etc. Do you ever think AT ALL before replying?
Please provide quotes from the blog where Jessica indicates that her boat, or any entity other than Jessica, enjoyed breakfast or was served scrambled eggs or had a good night's sleep.
> Coach wrote: > > On Nov 5, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >> Coach wrote: > >>> On Nov 4, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >>>> annily wrote: > >>>>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I > >>>>> assume Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
> >>> She does? Why does she constantly say "we"? "We had a pretty good > >>> day", "We had scrambled eggs for lunch". "We had a good night sleep > >>> last night" etc etc. Wasn't this supposed to be a failed attempt at > >>> a SOLO trip around the world? So how many others are on the boat?
> >> Just as you sometimes recommend that aus.tv posters read your blog > >> to get the facts on one subject or another , I suggest that you read > >> Jessica's blog to find out who "we" are. Clearly, you have not given > >> it your best effort.
> > I assume you are suggesting that "she" refers to Jessica and her > > boat.
> No. I urge you to read her blog.
> > So how, pray tell, does a boat have a good night sleep, or have > > breakfast etc etc. Do you ever think AT ALL before replying?
> Please provide quotes from the blog where Jessica indicates that her boat, or > any entity other than Jessica, enjoyed breakfast or was served scrambled eggs or > had a good night's sleep.
She says it nearly every day - "We enjoyed powdered eggs for breakfast. I was, like, yummy" etc etc
Coach wrote: > On Nov 5, 10:22 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> Coach wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>> Coach wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>>>> annily wrote: >>>>>>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I >>>>>>> assume Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing?
>>>>> She does? Why does she constantly say "we"? "We had a pretty good >>>>> day", "We had scrambled eggs for lunch". "We had a good night >>>>> sleep last night" etc etc. Wasn't this supposed to be a failed >>>>> attempt at a SOLO trip around the world? So how many others are >>>>> on the boat?
>>>> Just as you sometimes recommend that aus.tv posters read your blog >>>> to get the facts on one subject or another , I suggest that you >>>> read Jessica's blog to find out who "we" are. Clearly, you have >>>> not given it your best effort.
>>> I assume you are suggesting that "she" refers to Jessica and her >>> boat.
>> No. I urge you to read her blog.
>>> So how, pray tell, does a boat have a good night sleep, or have >>> breakfast etc etc. Do you ever think AT ALL before replying?
>> Please provide quotes from the blog where Jessica indicates that her >> boat, or any entity other than Jessica, enjoyed breakfast or was >> served scrambled eggs or had a good night's sleep.
> She says it nearly every day - "We enjoyed powdered eggs for > breakfast. I was, like, yummy" etc etc
That's not a quote from the blog. She refers only once to eating powdered eggs: "To cheer myself up I had scrambled eggs for lunch, made with powdered eggs and cream, really yummy! So I'll have to have them more often."
You couldn't even get the meal right, let alone the pronoun.
I hope you are finding this one of your more successful trolling efforts so far.
Coach wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:48 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> annily wrote: >>> Due to a lack of Jessica Watson posts since last night, can I assume >>> Jessica Watson is still alive and sailing? >> She now has a progress map up:http://www.jessicawatson.com.au/the-voyage
> I just hope that she perishes sooner rather than later. This poor > girl needs to be put out of her misery.
I must admit that she doesn't look very happy in her videos, but that may have something to do with the stress of lone sailing and the way she sleeps (in short bursts, apparently).
-- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
|
