True or false?

[Tuco]

With the globalization and blurring of international borders, some languages are disapearing (BBC).

True or false then:

The world will eventually end up speaking one language (assuming our brilliant leaders dont blow it up first).

If true, which language will prevail?

If false, why?

Tuco.

[Wake up CALL]

False, some stubborn prick like Cyrus will always be around and refuse to conform. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Steele]

It does not follow logically that because SOME languages are disapearing all but one will disapear although that is not ruled out.

D.

[Cyrus]

[MMMMMM]

If that happens it will very likely be English.

Not only does English have a large head start but it is also the most flexible and descriptive language on Earth. Now watch the PC-correct folks jump all over this but I'll bet John Cole would agree.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only does English have a large head start but it is also the most flexible and descriptive language on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about MMM. How the hell can you say that English is the most descriptive and and flexible language on Earth? How do you measure descriptive? How do you measure flexible? If you could measure flexibility and descriptiveness in a language, why do you think the most flexible and descriptive language would become the dominant world language? I know the Vietnamese kept French for legal and contractual matters specifically becuase the language is very unflexible, at least in terms of sentence structure, and that this unflexibility leads to a clarity of meaning.

I agree that if there were to be a dominant world language it would probably be English. But I think that's the result of US prominence in the world economy and popular culture. A long time ago there was a vote on what would be the official US language. I think German lost by a small margin to English. If the US spoke German today then German would probably be the dominant world language. If you go back even further there was a time when France ruled England for a bit. During that time French was the official language of the Court and and many French workds crept into the English language. In more recent times the tide has turned and you have an instance where the official keepers of the French language have banned certain english words in the lexicon. This simply reflects the fact that English speaking cultures are more dominant today than back in the days when the French could actually win a war.

[nicky g]

English does have an important structural advantage in that its grammar is relatively simple compared to major competitors. Obviously I can't compare it to the entire world but compared to other European languages, its vastly simpler. In both Germanic and Latinate languages, you have to decline each verb depending on it subject. In English, they're almost all the same (I will, you will, he will, they will etc), apart from in the present tense where the third person is different (I jump, but he jumps). Words don't change according to their grammatical case the way they do in German or Latin either. Its spelling is a disaster zone but that's less of a problem when initially learning a language. Obviously languages that are based around thousands of characters rather than basic alphabets (eg Japanese) are at a disadvantage for this kind of thing.

[Boris]

I agree that verb conjugation is easier in English and that initially it makes it easier to learn. But do you think ease of adoption is the driving force hehind English becoming the common denominator language? I've heard Swahili is pretty easy to learn but I don't see it becoming a defacto standard. I wonder what's happening in South and East Asia where the Chinese diaspora dominates the business world. There we have a dominant culture (at least in the economic realm) and language that is difficult to learn and maybe even impossible for non native speaket to learn well.

[Al Mirpuri]

English became the official language of the USA by one vote over German.

Apparently, the truth is the there was a one vote triumph of English over German but it was to do with some state legislature (Virginia?) and even then it was to do with German being used as a second official language.

One day there may well be more Spanish speakers in the USA than English - Spanish being the second most widely spoken language in the USA as of the time of writing. Spanish is one of the four world languages that has over three hundred million speakers: Mandarin Chinese, English and Hindustani being the other three.


If English is the most descriptive and flexible language in the world it would have to be its extensive vocabulary which has been repeatedly enriched with words from cultures with which English speaking colonisers came into contact.

[Al Mirpuri]

It is power - political, social, economic, etc that leads to the widespread acceptance of a language. Why is the rest of the world trying to learn English? It is not because of any inherent beauty in the English languge or ease of learning it is to do with one's standing in the world pecking order.

[Al Mirpuri]

True, the world's languages are disappearing.

Within a century, fifty percent of the current languages spoken on this green earth of ours will disappear. Some of these languages have only a few hundred speakers. Many of them are on the island of Papua New Guinea a place so difficult to traverse that each valley developed its own separate language.

English will maintain its dominant position in the world. The best hand in is usually the best hand out.

[Boris]

damn public school system.

[MMMMMM]

"If English is the most descriptive and flexible language in the world it would have to be its extensive vocabulary which has been repeatedly enriched with words from cultures..."

Obviously English is richer because it has assimilated a great deal from other languages. Yet we have hardheads like Boris taking offense at statements of fact like this.

[MMMMMM]

Boris: "How the hell can you say that English is the most descriptive and and flexible language on Earth?"

Because it is, Boris, because it is.

English has a larger vocabulary and more possible nuances of meaning than any other language (as far as I know). Perhaps John Cole could add to this or correct me if I am wrong. Of course, as Al Mirpuri pointed out, if this is so, it is in part because English assimilated much from other languages. But that doesn't stop English from being more descriptive and versatile than other languages, nor, apparently, does it stop the hard-headed or ignorant from taking offense;-)

This is an example of how you take offense so readily: because you see certain statements as being bigoted or otherwise derogatory, when in reality, they are merely statements of fact.

All languages are not equal, just as all cultures are not equal, and some folks are taller, shorter, fatter or thinner than others. Calling the average American a fatty compared to the Mexicans or the French or the Japanese is not bigotry or prejudice: it's just a damn fact.

Now English is not, IMO, the most beautiful language, although "beautiful" is a more subjective description than "descriptive" or "versatile." Of the languages I've encountered, my vote would go to Brasilian Portuguese for the most beautiful language (while Portuguese from Portugal is rather harsh and a bit ugly IMO).

So when I say that on average Arab cultures are more backwards than Western cultures, there is no need for you to take offense or consider it bigotry...for all you know, it might very well be true.

[brad]

'Of the languages I've encountered, my vote would go to Brasilian Portuguese for the most beautiful language '

if you like gal costa then i take back everything bad ive ever said about you /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[brad]

its funny though that M has no concept of difference between fact and opinion.

he presents his opinion (which may be correct, btw) with no support whatsoever, either from facts themselves or even with an expert opinion.

interestingly a guest on a radio show remarked (he was some kind of college professor) that one concept he simply cannot get across to students of his is the concept of 'evidence'. evidently they simply cannot distinguiush betweeen their own opinion and any kind of objective facts which they can use to support their opinion.

[Boris]

Where did I say your statement was bigoted? I think your statement by itself is irrelevant. I don't think it's bigoted. I did perhaps read something into your post that wasn't there. My impression was that you believe English is becoming the dominanant world language (which I believe is true) because it is the "most descriptive and most flexible" language. But if I'm guilty of reading too much into your post then you are guilty of posting a pointless non-sequitor.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
English has a larger vocabulary and more possible nuances of meaning than any other language (as far as I know).

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be correct. Although I doubt thought that number of adjectives or even total number of words in the official lexicon of the world's major languages is a binding constraint for 99.99% of the people who speak those languages. That is, you or I could express ourselves equally well in English, Chinese, German, French, Japanese, Dutch, etc... if they were our native tongue. The tools are there. But this is more a reflection on our lack of eloquence.

One fact that I found to be a compelling case for English being a better language for expressing ideas than other major languages, is that Joseph Conrad chose to write in English. Conrad was born in Poland to native Russian speakers. Yet, he chose to write in English. Here we have a person with an incredible gift for writing and who most probably spoke at least 3 languages well. He chose English. Now, I don't know much about the guy so I don't know his reasons for choosing to write in English. It's possible he didn't find English to be that much better or worse as a medium of expression than other languages he could command and that he was simply following the money or maybe his peers preferred English. I don't know.

[clovenhoof]

...a group of German speakers in Virginia petitioned Congress to publish federal laws in German as well as English. The closest it came to a vote was "a vote to adjourn and sit again on the recommendation", ie. let's not let it die yet, let's reconsider it later, but that vote lost 42-41. Subsequent attempts at the same measure fared even worse.

It never got to a vote on the merits, and it wouldn't have made German an official language.

Courtesy of Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope Tells All".

'hoof

[andyfox]

English was indeed Conrad's third language. A native of Poland, he settled in Marseilles before eventually moving on to England.

Conrad was a high-strung, sensitive and passionate guy with a neurotic personality. One reason he may have chosen English, paradoxically, was the difficulty it caused him. He struggled with English all his life. He seemed to relish the struggle.

When he started to write, Conrad had been thinking in English for over ten years. He was committed to England so the natural choice was to write in English. Another factor may have been that English was the classical language of the sea-faring man.

[clovenhoof]

Languages are now, and have always been, disappearing, with and without globalization, whether they are native languages from New Guinea, the mountains of Bolivia, or the large number of North American Indian languages, from Dakota to Salish to Seminole. International borders, by the by, are probably more stable now than ever before in history. (Take a look at a map of Europe from 75 years ago... then 100 years ago... then 150 years ago....)

No language will ever "prevail". Language, by its very nature, is always changing. Slang, for example, arises in part to out of an effort to differentiate its speakers from the mainstream, whether its youth from adults, black from white, poor from rich, or what have you.

Consider three dialects of English -- that spoken in Northern Scotland, that spoken in India, and the so-called "Black English" spoken (not exclusively) in the inner cities of the U.S. They are not mutually intelligible, yet all are English. That is certainly not unique to English.

Anytime speakers of a language get separated, the language as they speak it develops separately; the older the split, the greater the difference, generally speaking. New inventions come along, new ideas emerge, and the new and old groups won't necessarily develop the same new words to describe the new thing or idea. (Some of the things or ideas may even be unique to either the new group or the old one.) The French in Quebec, for example, were almost certain to borrow from English when borrowing was required. Those in France, on the other hand, were as likely to borrow from Spanish, Italian, or German as English.

If, by some magic or miracle, overnight all languages were replaced by one language, spoken the same way by everybody, you would have dozens of different dialects within a generation. The Eskimos would retain the 52 words for 52 different kinds of snow that the new language would have, while everyone else would lose them. The Chinese would retain those words necessary to describe the really bad beats at Mah Jong, the Swahilis would lose the word that describes the little plastic thing at the ends of a shoelace, and the Americans would retain the 50 different words and phrases for a woman's breasts. Within 100 years or so, you'd once again have dozens of different languages the world over.

So says me, anyway.

'hoof

[clovenhoof]

[ QUOTE ]
Boris: "How the hell can you say that English is the most descriptive and and flexible language on Earth?"

Because it is, Boris, because it is.

English has a larger vocabulary and more possible nuances of meaning than any other language (as far as I know).

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of saying English is "more flexible", you're just plain wrong. The whole purpose of language is the communication of ideas between people. Any idea that can be conceived can be expressed. The more common, or important, an idea, the more likely it is to get a single word to describe it. All languages have the capacity to grow, to incorporate new ideas that need to be expressed. (The same goes for "nuances of meaning".) There is no limit on any highly developed language like English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Swedish, or Hindi to develop further and incorporate new ideas.

In terms of descriptiveness, one could well argue that English is "more descriptive" simply because English-speaking scientists have made the most inventions, innovations, and discoveries in fields of medicine and technology, and thus have claimed for the English language ownership of the new word or words, which generally get borrowed by other languages. (Some Russians insist that fotografia is a Russian word stolen by English, and many Hungarians feel the same way about "komputersk".) However, since the "new" words to English in the medical and technological fields are generally lifted directly from Latin or Greek, I have a real problem with the idea that English is so all-powerfully descriptive.

'hoof

[John Cole]

Boris,

BTW, Samuel Beckett chose to write in French.

[John Cole]

Eskimos, btw, don't have, or need, many words for snow; in fact, English speakers probably have more.

[John Cole]

M,

I agree that English, right now, has the most prestige, but that certainly does not imply that it's the most flexible or descriptive language spoken. I'm not sure how this could be ascertained. But I do know that even educated speakers of English use very few of the available words in everyday speech, somewhere around five hundred or so. A highly educated writer will draw from a reserve of less than five percent of the available vocabulary.

[Cyrus]

Good post.

Here's a gaze in my crystal ball :

The explosion in population numbers demonstrate Man's total supremacy over the environment and the fauna & flora of the planet. Peace is at hand, in the worldwide sense, even if flare-ups continue. (Soon as we put that Middle East anachronism behind us it'll be practically all over.)

We can only have a period of fun 'n games ahead, which would feedback to and from homogenization in culture. American culture is the natural candidate for world domination. With the English language all but overpowering everything else in due course. Not just because the U.S. is the sole superpower -- although this is the primary cause. It'll be also because American culture is ideally suited for fun 'n games (and I'm saying this in the most positive sense).

It's actually the first popular culture in History, the first one to elevate popular taste onto the podium of high art.

All this means a few happy decades of rollicking in extreme behavior (extreme in the sense of fun 'n games), followed by the sort of entropic conclusion guaranteed for ourt closed system, a few engineers dissenting. There is no way that life on this planet can be sustained at the current rate of population expansion and the concurrent depletion of resources which we engage in with incredible nonchalance.

[brad]

he was, of course, implying the converse of the sapir whorf hypothesis, which uses that example , even if it isnt true. (btw, im from a desert climate, but i cant think of even one other word for snow /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[nicky g]

"It is power - political, social, economic, etc that leads to the widespread acceptance of a language. Why is the rest of the world trying to learn English? It is not because of any inherent beauty in the English languge or ease of learning it is to do with one's standing in the world pecking order. "

Most probably. I was just pointing out that English is a relatively easy language to learn; I'd imagine that at least helps its spread. Like M, I certainly don't consider it the most beautiful language; I'd rather have any Latin language. I also quite like the sound of Arabic, and am thinking of trying to learn it (just to annoy M /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Actually I'm torn between trying to improve my Spanish, or learning Portuguese or Arabic from scratch. My worry about Portuguese is that it would totally confuse what's left of my once fluent Spanish (which has happened before when I spent a month in Italy and tried to pick up a few words; by the end of it I could get by reasonably, but my Spanish was in tatters. Now I can't remember either of them). The most sensible option would be to brush up on my Spanish but that wouldn't be as much fun, and I like Portugal better I think. What to do? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MMMMMM]

I don't think that the preeeminence of English implies it's greater flexibility or greater descriptive powers.

Maybe a comparison of the number of words in the most unabridged dictionaries of various languages would offer one means of comparison. For instance I would bet that English has more "synonyms," or "near synonyms," each with slightly different flavor and nuance, than most or all other languages.

[andyfox]

Conrad's English does have elements of French and Polish in it, such as the excessive use of adjectives, and the triple modifying clauses. So some of English's "expressiveness," at least in Conrad's case, has more to do with French and Polish than with English itself.

[andyfox]

On of my favorite poster, and yet I disagree with just about everything here.

"The explosion in population numbers demonstrate Man's total supremacy over the environment and the fauna & flora of the planet"

Not to me. It demonstrates temporary dominance because of a big brain. The environment had a bigger brain and will cast us off in due time like it's cast off all other pests.

"Peace is at hand, in the worldwide sense, even if flare-ups continue."

Each succeeding century has been bloodier than the preceeding one; the 20th century was magnitudinously more murderous than any other. The Middle East anachronism promises to produce a lot more blood. Big weapons, big idiots, big egos, big ideas = big mess.

"the U.S. is the sole superpower"

Lots of other superpowers in history have seen themselves astride the world; theirs were delusions of grandeur. This too shall pass.


"With the English language all but overpowering everything else in due course."

Population is increasing at a much faster rate in non-English speaking places than in English-speaking places. And with the major English-speaking places entering a new era of hubris and militarism, a policy that enjoys a wide consensus in both major parties in both major English-speaking countries, one can foresee disaster down the road and a concurrent antipathy towards everything associated with those countries, for example, their language.


"There is no way that life on this planet can be sustained at the current rate of population expansion and the concurrent depletion of resources which we engage in with incredible nonchalance"

The world can sustain a much greater population than it's current one. What strains our resources are political arrangements, the "incredible nonchalance" to which you refer. I don't see an inevtiable entropic conclusion though. This too may pass.

[andyfox]

It's a pretty common thing for one to think that one's country is the greatest there is. How can one live in one country for, say, thirty years, and live in no other ever and say this? Yet I hear many commentators in the media say this all the time.

And so it is with language. Since our country is the greatest, it's language must also be so.

When Columbus wrote back to the Spanish sovereigns in 1492 he said he had taken some natives from the Indies in order to teach them "to speak." They must have been mute when he found them. The idea that he could simply take them went hand in hand with the idea that they needed to learn to speak.

[MMMMMM]

I hope that is not your argument against.

English is one of the hardest languages, and likely the very hardest, due to its complexity and irregularity.

If you judge the merits of a language by ease of learning, English is probably the worst. If you judge the merits of a language by the richness/depth of its capacity for varied expression, English is probably the best. And those assessments have ZERO to do with whether or not it is my home language.

[MMMMMM]

"The statistics of English are astonishing. Of all the world's languages (which now number some 2,700), it is arguably the richest in vocabulary. The compendious Oxford English Dictionary lists about 500,000 words; and a further half-million technical and scientific terms remain uncatalogued[/i]. According to traditional estimates, neighboring German has a vocabulary of about 185,000 and French fewer than 100,000, including such Franglais as le snacque-barre and le hit-parade."

source: Robert McCrum, William Cran, & Robert MacNeil. The Story of English. New York: Penguin, 1992: 1

(excerpt)"The number of words in English has grown from 50,000 to 60,000 words in Old English to about a million today. There are a number of ways in which the English vocabulary increases. The principal way in which it grows is by borrowing words from other languages. About 80% of the entries in any English dictionary are borrowed, mainly from Latin. Another way is by combining words into one word such as housewife, greenhouse, and overdue. The addition of prefixes and suffixes to words also increases the immense vocabulary of the English language."(excerpt)

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JohnnyLing.shtml

andy, you have a well-meant but unfortunate tendency (along with many other posters here;-)) to baselessly presume relative equalities between persons or cultures or things. This is a case in point. You have a good and fair heart and I truly appreciate your motivations, but baselessly presuming equalities frequently leads to erroneous thinking which in turn can lead to egregious blunders in selecting the proper plans or courses of action, as well as other errors. For instance your presumption that affinity for one's home language,...etc.

Facts Above All: the scientific approach is ultimately the only approach that holds water (Cyrus might like that one;-))

[MMMMMM]

"The world can sustain a much greater population than it's current one."

Yeah andy but just how much more damn crowded do you want to be?

[andyfox]

The supposed superiority of our own culture to others is just that: supposed. History is replete with examples, the Columbus one I cited being a very famous one. History's most egrgious blunders come from precisely such thinking: that one's culture and thinking are superior to others' because they are different. Columbus is of course a famous example; Osama Bin Laden and Hitler two infamous ones.

The fact that English has a lot of words means nothing. As John Cole pointed out, very few of those words are used.

But, in the interest of lightening things up, a George Carlin story. Carlin says his mother was always trying to push him not to be lazy, especially with his vocabulary. One day his mother was reading the newspaper and Carlin, being a smartass kid [and adult] asked her what she was doing. She replied, "I'm perusing the papers."

Perusing? Perusing? What was this word? So Carlin looked it up and then wanted to impress his mother with his anti-laziness. So the next time he saw her reading, he casually asked her, "Are you persuing those magazines?"

"No," she replied, "I'm just giving them a cursory glance."

*****

[Carlin, of course, has been cursoring ever since.]

And a Noah Webster story: Webster is working late one night on his magisterial English language dictionary. He has been flirting with his secretary and by and by she is sitting on his lap. Alas, at just this moment, in walks Mrs. Webster.

"Why, Noah," she exclaims, "I'm surprised."

"No," Webster replies, "You are astonished. It is we who are surprised."

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

A lot less crowded than I was at that damned Mirage poker table. But a lot more crowded than the area between Barstow and Las Vegas.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Boris]

Thanks for the info Andy. Interesting that you found Heart of Darkness to be his best work. My opinion favors Nostromo. I also enjoyed The Secret Agent more than HoD but probably only because Secret Agent is funny. Any by funny I mean that it made me laugh so much.

[andyfox]

I also like Almayer's Folly, but I can't quite put a finger on why. I think it may be his stilted English. (I think it was his first novel?) I'm not sure Heart of Darkness is his best work, but certainly his most famous and, to me, the most shocking, maybe because of its brevity.

Mayhaps I'm attracted to people who use the language so personally: Conrad, Twain, and Angelo are my three favorites.

[MMMMMM]

"The fact that English has a lot of words means nothing. As John Cole pointed out, very few of those words are used.

andy you are not conceptualizing this correctly. It does not mean nothing.

My original point was that English has greater complexity, nuance and descriptive potential. A much greater vocabulary enhances the potential for these things. Most adults could potentially write be more descriptively or accurately than most eight-year-olds. Whether one chooses to take advantage of this greater potential is another matter. A poet writing in English has more options than a poet writing in French or German.

You are very learned and I respect you for that along with your good heart, but if I may be so crude as to make a suggestion it would be to work on your powers of discernment. Incisiveness is a tool not a handicap. In the worlds of ideas, humans, and nature it is rare to find things that are equal. And inequality usually implies superiority or inferiority in certain aspects (and sometimes overall too, except perhaps in the eyes of God).

BTW that Noah Webster joke is one of my favorites;-)

[MMMMMM]

So if you were to put up a few poker tables between the Mirage and Barstow that might provide you with a happy medium;-)

[ACPlayer]

andy, you have a well-meant but unfortunate tendency (along with many other posters here;-)) to baselessly presume relative equalities between persons or cultures or things

Wonder which is more dangerous - presuming equality or presuming superiority.

It would be far better to presume difference than to constantly apply judgements. It is one of the beef's I have with the Rush/Fox group that they are always presuming that a path is superior. That in turn leads to advocacy rather than debate. Which IMO leads to more

Typically one prefers what is familar to be the better choice. A chinese will tend to prefer chinese customs (even if they have lived elsewhere for a long time) and an American will prefer American.

I have had the opportunity to live for multiple years on three continents and am willing to state that in times of need I turn to what was familar as a child (not in the US). I also find that each of the three countries brought different good things and bad things into my life.

Culturally and language- wise I prefer what I grew up with. Though am most comfortable in English which is what I have spoken and written in the most.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer: "Wonder which is more dangerous - presuming equality or presuming superiority.

Both are dangerous, and therefore we must look deeper than the surface and dig up the facts. Then we must be willing to apply the scientific process to make a determination if possible.

Allowing preconceptions to overrule scientific evidence is dangerous. So the answer is that we should always keep an open mind and pay attention to both historical and newly discovered facts.

[John Cole]

M,

Here's a brief account on the difficulties of translating Chinese poetry into English. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1989/v34/n2/003510ar.pdf

(You'll need Adobe.)

Also, you might get a kick out of reading some of the translations of the Anglo-Saxon poem "The Seafarer."

Ezra Pound's translation, although containing a number of "mistakes," might be among the best at capturing the alliterative tradition.

[MMMMMM]

I'll have to get Adobe;-)

I had a very nice book on Chinese Poetry--that might even have been the title. Some of the poems were very good and the book discussed typical progressions of mood/setting and stanza in many Chinese poems. I really wish I still had the book;-)

Well, at least I still have most of my Haiku books:

The Path of Flowering Thorn, the life and poetry of Yosa Buson by Makuo Ueda, Stanford University Press 1998

Basho's Narrow Road, Spring and Autumn Passages, Narrow Road To The Interior and the renga sequence A Farewell Gift to Sora translated by Hiroaki Sato, 1996 Stone Bridge Press

A Net Of Fireflies, an anthology of 320 Japanese Haiku translated into English verse by Harold Stewart, with 33 full-color haiku paintings 1960 Charles E. Tuttle Company

Endless Vow, the Zen path of Soen Nakagawa presented by Eido T. Shimano, 1984 Shambala Publications--while mainly a biographical, this book includes some of Soen's haikus. I actually feel his best haikus can perhaps compare with the best of Issa, Basho and Buson.


I also had a quite interesting paperback of haiku by, I believe, Shinkichi Takahashi, a more modern Japanese poet, but think I lost it on a trip to Vegas years ago;-)

Also had a collection of Haiku and Haiga, forget now the title...

Love haiku, love the compressed clarity, etc.,....I have perhaps been crazy to spend so much time arguing ideas and politics on this forum lately--it's just that wrong ideas almost offend me (but only in a similar sense that saying 2+2=5 would offend me, though of course it isn't always that clear cut)...maybe it was a stage I was going through, don't know...looking at these books now and feeling the tears well up at the beauty I have no desire to argue further here on any topics for at least a good while;-)...let me know if you ever feel like borrowing some good Haiku books...see you around...Mark

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Facts Above All: the scientific approach is ultimately the only approach that holds water

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had any idea at all about what constitutes a good scientific method you would'nt have made this statement.

[MMMMMM]

Well, a friend of mine told me that he heard that cool water will boil faster than warm water, so he uses water from the cold faucet when he wishes to boil water for coffee.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, a friend of mine told me that he heard that cool water will boil faster than warm water, so he uses water from the cold faucet when he wishes to boil water for coffee.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I am sure you knew your friend is incorrect.

The Myth (http://www.geocities.com/rick_clements/boilh2o.htm)

The Science (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8370/boil.htm)

[clovenhoof]

Saying they don't need different words for snow is like saying English speakers don't need different words for alcohol. But those who drink antifreeze, or try to fuel a lamp with Mike's Hard Lemonade would welcome a few more words to their vocabulary than "alcohol". Similarly, when a culture uses one kind of snow to build their shelter, and another kind to get their drinking water, it ain't exactly the height of linguistic decadence to come up with two different terms.

While some authors dismiss the idea that Eskimos have multiple words for snow -- the argument against generally rejects compounds as being "true" words -- any old English - Kalatdlisut dictionary (the Eskimo dialect spoken in Western Greenland) lists 49.

'hoof

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for the links, Wake Up CALL, and I enjoyed reading them!

Really, though, I was hoping Boris would go and try the experiment, and now you've ruined everything.

[Cyrus]

"One of my favorite posters, and yet I disagree with just about everything here."

(blush!) /images/graemlins/blush.gif

"[The explosion in population numbers] demonstrates [Man's] temporary dominance because of a big brain. The environment had a bigger brain and will cast us off in due time like it's cast off all other pests."

There is no grand design nor "brain" behind the Life Force, sorry. It deals with whatever is in front of it. Tactics instead of strategy. Here's the acid question : Is now Man in danger of his environment? I mean, are you afraid of stepping out to the world? The answer is, for all practical purposes, No. (The fact that the environment as a whole is indeed in danger does not affect, for the moment, Man's total supremacy over his environs.)

Whether our parasitic relationship with the whole of environment remains a healthy one, as most parasitic relationships in nature are, or deteriorates into a disaster, as some of them do, is mostly our choice.

However, the sheer numbers of us may soon take that choice away from us.

"Each succeeding century has been bloodier than the preceeding one; the 20th century was magnitudinously more murderous than any other. The Middle East anachronism promises to produce a lot more blood. Big weapons, big idiots, big egos, big ideas = big mess."

I don't see the Middle East conflict bothering us for more than a decade or so. And you have to admit that the possibility of a World War is now more distant than ever, in the (short) History of World Wars. So, although past performance assures us of more blood in the future, the future certainly can be relatively bloodless. check out, for instance, the EU's effect on European countries' nationalism.

"Lots of other superpowers [like the U.S.] in History have seen themselves astride the world; theirs were delusions of grandeur. This too shall pass."

No doubt about it.

Two things, however : (a) This doesn't change the fact that the United States is the world's sole superpower, which is what I stated and on which premise a case for relatively more world peace rests, and (b) every succceeding superpower in History, seeing as it relied on more experience and resources than the ones before it, lasted longer than its predecessors. This one too, shall last for a longer time than the British one -- unless it fucks things up. (Not improbable.)

"Population is increasing at a much faster rate in non-English speaking places than in English-speaking places."

Already the English language is the 2nd language practically everywhere, except for parts of the Middle East and Africa, where French is the 2nd language. In one generation or less, there too, things will change in favor of English. And when you have a single Esperanto, that is also the language of the superpower of the world, all the remaining languages will slowly but surely, become Englishized. It's already happening -- and fast.

The History of languages and dialects shows that contact between civilisations proceeds along those lines every time. With the aid of mass and instant media, the effect is quicker and more pronounced.

"The world can sustain a much greater population than it's current one. I don't see an inevtiable entropic conclusion though. This too may pass."

Forgive me for saying so but this is just simple optimism! Where are the figures? What is the limit of population that the planet can sustain? I see a new record breached every day and every hour. This is completely new territory as far as numbers are concerned. I see warnings from scientists who are usually conservative and careful sounding off alarms, warnings supported by facts and figures. (The extent of soil erosion and water sources' extinction is one such alarm sign. A hundred Saharas cannot be undone without paying an extremely serious price. ...Back to the environment argument!)

--Cyrus

[BruceZ]

On of my favorite poster

You have excedingly bad taste.

[Cyrus]

Reading, between mouthfuls of linguinis, books by linguists about world languages and dialects (not too different things, actually!), I could see the underlying rules 'n roots that make language-learning easy for anyone familiar with them and of average intelligence. (Biggest obstacle for me.) It's actually quite amazing; I mean after reading a chapter of that fellow's Babel book, and allowing him to take me by the 'and and guide me through the rhythms and the algorithms, I was able to understand a paragraph of a completely alien language!

I wish I was just starting out to learn languages. Too late for me now.

[andyfox]

The fact that English has more words does not necessarily mean that it has greater complexity, nuance and descriptive potential. There are words in other languages (metis, chutzpah, samlichkeit, and manitou, to cite a few) that have great subtlety and complexity of meaning that have no real equivalent words in the English language.

If there are indeed more words in the English language than in French, than a poet writing in English has more options in terms of words to choose from, but I don't know whether he more options in terms of overall meaning or expression. And I suspect that you don't either. The English language may have more words that mean approximately what chutzpah does, but none that come close to its meaning.

As for powers of discernment, superiority and inferiority are sometimes in the eye of the beholder. As Ghandi said when asked what he thought of Western civilization, it sounds like a good idea, it should be tried.

Thank you for your compliments (though "learned" is slanderous), as well as your criticisms.

I stole the Noah Webster joke from William Safire. Some consevatives are not just unintentionally funny. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[andyfox]

Presumption of superiority has led to the Crusades, antisemitism, slavery, Hitler and Bin Laden, to give just a few egregious examples. Presumption of equality has led to girl's football teams. Seems to me presumption of superiority has been worse.

[Cyrus]

"English has a larger vocabulary and more possible nuances of meaning than any other language (as far as I know)."

How many languages do you know?

Do you even watch foreign language movies?

Have you perhaps encountered more difficulties in translating English to language X than vice versa?

Are you able to actually compare in depth 2 languages (let alone ALL the languages) with the English language, as far as "flexibility" and "descriptiveness" are concerned? Not to mention "depth of vocabulary".

Could you even define English for us??

... I submit that, with all the respect in the world, and without meaning to insult you, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. This too is a subject best approached with utter humility and an open mind.

And not with the arrogant frame of mind that a few self-styled experts on this forum adopt when addressing any issue. The thread is already host to one such. Don't catch the bug.

[andyfox]

"you have to admit that the possibility of a World War is now more distant than ever, in the (short) History of World Wars."

I'll admit nothing of the sort, sir. The world is a good deal messier than it was at the height of the Cold War. Such examplary citizens of the world community as North Korea, Iran (apparently), and Pakistan have nuclear weapons or will soon. The United States itself raised the possibility of using "tactical" nuclear weaponry in its invasion of Iraq. It is currently prosecuting a worldwide war on terror from which, according to our president, it will not pull back until it is defeated everywhere. A battle to the finish between good and evil. Russia is controlled by gangsters of every conceivable variety. China by good old-fashionied gangsters (And I mean old.)

A very small portion of the earth's surface is populated. My recent Las Vegas trip, aside from reminding me of the ignorant nonchalance as you so felicitously referred to it, also reminded me that where there's money and power (to steal a phrase from Denton and Morris's astonishing book on Las Vegas), the earth's seemingly most inhospitable places can be populated (and, yes, defiled.) Political and social arrangements are often at the root of problems blamed on overpopulation.

And your blush notwithstanding, your response confirms my favoritism.

-Andy

[andyfox]

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

[andyfox]

[Cyrus]

I will define World War as a major war that involves in both sides at least one major power. I will also include in the category of 'major powers' the United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan and I don't know if I forgot anyone. Oh yes, the United States too.

Now if you accept the above, I will further submit that a war between any of those major powers is an extremely distant possibility, for the foreseeable future. (The bigger probability is perhaps for a war involving China / Russia / India, in any combination, but even this probability is a relatively small one.)

So I honestly cannot foresee a World War breaking out any time soon.

What I can accept as possibly happening are "accidental events" that involve terrorists and/or nukes, local wars even if they involve local powers, eg Turkey vs Armenia, and major skirmishes such as Israel vs any-Arab-nation, which skirmishes however cannot threaten world peace due to the dominance of a single superpower over the conflict.

"The world is a good deal messier than it was at the height of the Cold War."

I agree. But "messier" does not necessarily mean "in more daner of being destroyed". Although we may see more wars, we will see, in my opinion, less damage than before. (You suggested that using nukes as tactical weapons is a possibility, especially by the U.S. I would speculate that only in the case of direct threat to the United States itself and not to its general "interests", would the option of nukes be considered.)

To claim that the world is messier now than at the height of the Cold War is accurate. To claim that the world is in more danger now (of being destroyed) than in the height of the Cold War is false.

[Cyrus]

In ships, there are many ropes, only they are not called as such by the ship's workers. "There is no rope on a ship". Not in the ships of my neck of the woods...

[MMMMMM]

andy the point I am trying to make is that presumption of either is wrong and that what is best is to make rational objective comparative assessments.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I'm really not being arrogant here. As the link I posted elsewhere in this thread shows, English has a vocabulary at least several times greater than German or French.

Since you ask, I am reasonably conversant in Portuguese and somewhat less conversant in Spanish. I used to occasionally read and write poetry in Spanish. I find written language easier than spoken language (in English too;)). My knowledge of German and Greek is extremely limited. One of my favorite movies is The King Of Hearts (even if it is French;-)).

What you see may see as arrogance was more a knee-jerk response to Boris' indignant, presumptive, reactionary question "How the hell...etc." coming on the heels of several crude attacks he has launched at me.

I've also had some good teachers over the years, and from more than one I've heard that English is the most complex and hardest language on Earth. Maybe that's just an urban legend, but I doubt it.

So andyfox may be right, that a larger vocabulary doesn't necessarily imply greater potential flexibility...but a vocabulary several times greater very likely does.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case Andy allow me to compliment you as well. Stating that Cyrus is one of your favorite posters is akin to saying that Billy the Kid was one of your favorite cowboys. Neither seem to have much of an education and both enjoy stirring up trouble. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

Rational objective assessments are based on the life experiences of the "rational objective" assesor and are not absolutes.

Until you walk a mile in the other persons shoes you dont know why he thinks he is right (rationally and objectively assessed).

It is best not to try and make absolute comparisons just absorb what you can of other viewpoints and then make you may learn what is right for you. The real problem arises when people insist on absorbing only those viewpoints that match their own and are dismissive and judgemental of that of the others. Living in this world is a form of displacement -- trying to find approval (love) for your opinion in the company of like minded people.

For example BruceZ's comment about bad taste on the part of a poster in this thread is an example of one person's rational objective assessment being different than that of another's rational objective assessment and they are both correct!!

Unfortunately, Bruce's simply shared an opinion but did not back it up with any facts. Rather pointless in my opinion.

[John Cole]

Then English, given that criteria, will contain perhaps many more "words" for "snow." Among these may be "powder," "packed powder," granular powder," "slush," "crusty snow," "wet snow," "loose powder," and so on.

[MMMMMM]

"Rational objective assessments are based on the life experiences of the "rational objective" assesor and are not absolutes."

With some things, yes. With other things, this approach is a mere excuse for not researching and working out the problem. For example, in poker problems, saying "it depends" is often wrong and a cop-out (there are frequently clear-cut right or wrong answers). In other poker problems, it really "does depend." So too can certain other things be objectively assessed while others cannot.

As long as one is cautious about the things you mention, practicing the art and science of making "rational objective comparative assessments" is a good thing and is helpful in developing greater powers of analysis and discernment.

Making comparisons and judgments is not itself the problem. It is a necessary component of life, decisions and critical thinking. The problem is making such judgments with little or no basis, or being unwilling to change one's mind when confronted with contradictory evidence.

[BruceZ]

Unfortunately, Bruce's simply shared an opinion but did not back it up with any facts. Rather pointless in my opinion.

That's not true, I have elaborated on this point in great detail, and even proved it mathematically on several occasions. I can do it again if you like, I don't find it necessary to beat a dead horse. My assessment on this matter is backed by more observations, analysis, and careful thought than has been undertaken by anyone else on this forum. My conclusion is objective and correct. It is not an opinion, but a fact. The poster in question has been throroughly discredited on every forum on which he posts, and not only by me, but my Mason and others.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Bruce's simply shared an opinion but did not back it up with any facts. Rather pointless in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some facts are self evident, anyone who has read more than 3 posts by Cyrus would understand, anyone who has not would not necessarily care.

[andyfox]

Cyrus's post titles themselves are worth more than many posts here. I find his posts both entertaining and trenchant.

[andyfox]

I would indeed like to see mathematical or other objective proof that I have exceedingly bad taste.

[BruceZ]

No no, not you, I was talking about the other poster. You were only mathematically proven to be biased. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus's post titles themselves are worth more than many posts here. I find his posts both entertaining and trenchant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus is articulate and sharp? LOL About as sharp as your favorite Republican President. I do agree he is caustic and sharply penetrating, sort of like heartburn or appendicitis.

[John Cole]

Andy,

Can you try to approximate "chutzpah" in English?

[MMMMMM]

It's very easy to approximate "chutzpah" in English. The appropriate colloquialism is "balls";-) Not an absolutely perfect match but pretty darn close. "Cajones" en Espanol;-)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Andy,

Can you try to approximate "chutzpah" in English?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about temerity?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Then English, given that criteria, will contain perhaps many more "words" for "snow." Among these may be "powder," "packed powder," granular powder," "slush," "crusty snow," "wet snow," "loose powder," and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these words for snow, or just descriptions of snow? Is there a difference?

[John Cole]

M,

"Balls" is my default translation, yet given Andy's post, I'm sure it fails to capture the true spirit of the original.

John

[John Cole]

It's pretty much the same as the Eskimos do.

Although Greenland Eskimos might have more compound words for snow, it does not mean they have more separate words for snow.

Compound words in English begin as two separate words, for example, "base ball," then use a hyphen, "base-ball," before codifying into the final form, "baseball." I believe (although I may be wrong) the same type of compound word formation would extend to other languages.

[MMMMMM]

Well, chutzpah is not even reminiscent of gender-specifics (unless I am ignorant on this, and I could be). It also lacks as much potential to offend, and can be equally applied to little boys and girls without seeming incongruous. So perhaps andy might concede that chutzpah is superior to balls. Of course, chutzpah doesn't quite have the 'oomph' that balls has (though it's close), but the advantages should more than outweigh this minor drawback in all circumstances but those wanting extreme emphasis.

So how about it andy, would you agree that 'chutzpah' is more flexible, useful, and overall superior to 'balls' when used in the colloquial, not-purely-anatomical sense?;-)

[andyfox]

Cajones and balls imply a machismo that is not part of chutzpah. Chutzpah is a type of brazen effrontery that stems more from a sense of weakness than strength, a willingness to be audacious in the face of a situation that doesn't call for it. Balls implies courage which implies character; chutzpah has a sense of lack of character about it.

[MMMMMM]

Excellent explanation andy, and I learned something today.

[andyfox]

Well, I remember how my grandmother and my great-aunts and uncles used the word chutzpah. These were people born in the old country in the 1880s and 1890s. There was a sense of the little guy (or woman) asserting his (or her) place in the world where he (or she) didn't really have one. An assertion of self-importance that wasn't really there. A character flaw, whereas balls seems to me to imply strength of character.

Perhaps my understanding of cajones would be different had I grown up in an Hispanic environment.

[John Cole]

Andy,

Is chutzpah then a good or a bad thing? It seems to me you're indicating chutzpah implies the assertation of rights and privileges where none exist, the declaration of a place in the world despite the lack of a foothold. This kind of assertion came be both laughable and heartbreaking given the context and the person. Think Leopold Bloom.

John

[John Cole]

M,

As usual, you have the ability to insist upon your ideas with real fervor and step back and laugh at yourself at the same time. All of us should learn so well.

John

[MMMMMM]

Well, I posed the question before I read your excellent (I presume) definition of chutzpah. Anyway, now I wonder what wrong impressions I might have of goyim, oy vay and oy guvalt(sp?).

[MMMMMM]

Thanks John, but I don't know, it just seemed like basic analysis to me. Anyway now that andy has explained that I really didn't know what chutzpah meant in the first place I'll have to rethink my position.

[BruceZ]

Cyrus's post titles themselves are worth more than many posts here. I find his posts both entertaining and trenchant.

The mere fact that you caused me to look up the meaning of "trenchant" makes your post worth more than all of his combined.

You have confused style with content, sir.

[nicky g]

Style is valuable too.

[BruceZ]

Style is valuable too.

When it is used dishonestly to conceal faulty logic, it has a very large negative value.

I'll bump the red dawn post back on top now.

[brad]

think of a merchant who is haggling , suddenly things change and he has absolutely no bargaining power whatsoever (ie, he realizes it but the other party doesnt yet, say what he is trading just became worthless or something) and yet he continues to inisist on a better deal than is being offered and even complains that he's practically being robbed by the current offer !

[brad]

actually the root of this is probably a mixture of hot water filled ice trays

and

not using hot water for drinking in older buildings (lead content being the reason, especially with baby formula)

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you try to approximate "chutzpah" in English?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah John that's easy

H U E V O S /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BruceZ]

I agree with the general thrust of this post.

[BruceZ]

He isn't trenchant, but he is truculent.

[andyfox]

goyim: gentiles, often with a negative connotation

oy vay: oh, no

oy gevalt: oh, [censored]

[andyfox]

Well I would associate chutzpah more with Max Bialystock than with Bloom /images/graemlins/wink.gif. (I wonder if Mel Brooks has read Joyce.) Leo Bloom showed some cojones in taking a chance after a lifetime of playing it safe, but Bialystock's entire existence is one long episode of chutzpah.

Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. My feeling is that jews will often have grudging admiration for jews who exhibit chutzpah, but contempt for non-jews. At least this is the way it was (and is) with my family.

[MMMMMM]

Now all we need is a poll from brad on this.

[ACPlayer]

You may get accused of being a liberal. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

Whoop-di-doop

<A Bunker of Howser Street>

[ACPlayer]

The problem with an opinion is that in general it is worthless, as my opinion is always better than yours. <<instantiate mine and yours with any two other objects of type person>>

The opinion is always from the opiners perspectives.

[Cyrus]

"Facts Above All: The scientific approach is ultimately the only approach that holds water."

I'm not sure what you mean by 'scientific approach'. If you mean rigorous analysis and verification, fine. If you mean presumptiousness and 'the arrogance of numbers', no go.

"As the link (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JohnnyLing.shtml) I posted elsewhere in this thread shows, English has a vocabulary at least several times greater than German or French."

As I have also posted elsewhere, English is fast becoming the dominant language on the planet, in fact so dominant as to be the de facto esperanto of the world. I foresee most languages becoming Englishized, to the extent that an English-speaking person will be able to understand to a certain extent what is spoken in any other language. Not soon but relatively soon enough.

However!

This does not make the English language (at least not yet, not by a long shot) the one with "more possible nuances of meaning than any other language", as you claimed. We still use German and Greek for almost all complex philosophical terms.

Yes, the English language is quickly absorbing and adopting terms from other languages, with particular emphasis on Hebrew and Spanish, for obvious reasons. But it is not yet ata point, at last according to most serious students of world languages, whereby it is the language which can express the most. If anything, the popular use of the language, renders most nuances and differences in meaning null and void. This means that if the official/theoretical compendium includes a million words, the regular usage of English-speaking peoples (particularly Americans!) involves no more than a very small percentage of that. A very, very small percentage. And language, above all, as a 'living' and evolving entity is what is actually used. Not just what is entered into the ledgers of Oxford.

The more the English language becomes the international language of preference, the new esperanto, the more it will become less of a language and more like an "international dialect" (my term).

"I am somewhat less conversant in Spanish. I used to occasionally write poetry in Spanish."

Can't wait for an offering. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"I've also had some good teachers over the years, and from more than one I've heard that English is the most complex and hardest language on Earth. Maybe that's just an urban legend, but I doubt it."

This is false. The Urban Legends website doesn't mention it, though, so you still have hope! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

A simple example : When you refer to a person as the object in English, say "woman" (no pun intended), the word does not change according to what is done with/to the object. But in many other languages, the word denoting the object changes according to the circumstances! And you have to learn that too, on top of everything else.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

It flatters me that I have Bruce stalking me. Although it may seem pathetic to third parties that he won't do his stalking directly under my posts, that to me shows that he is too shy to look his object of fascination in the eye. /images/graemlins/cool.gif (Could also mean that he is a closet bottom.)

But it's August, still. A good time to have the occasional airing of dirty linen:

I have no grudge or disrespect against the Bruce. On the contrary, I find his educational and instructional efforts on the Probability Page worthy of applause, even if he overstates the value of his "discoveries" a little bit. (Case in point, a post, highlighted by him with an Idea Lightbulb, proclaiming that something in Feller's footnotes was actually never before been "discovered" aywhere. And stating that he was after that problem for "a year", when actually the first time he posted an exact formula -- which he soon admited was an approximation -- was around the beginning of 2003.) Neveretheless, the trouble with Bruce lies not there, nor with his hoisting up the flag as a last refuge for argument. (Never trust someone who comes on holding a flag of any kind, the old man said.)

The trouble with the Bruce is this (and here is what will never allow him to be the terrific scientist he assumes he is and secretly hopes he will be widely accepted as) : his totally un-scientific arrogance.

In my very first contact with the Bruce, when I disagreed with something "patriotic" that he hoisted up, I wrote as a post-script that "The word 'terroristic' doesn't exist". I thought the word to be a construct of the Cold War and not a "proper word", plus, it denoted to me something akin to terrorist, rather than terrorist by itself (eg copasetic!). Turned out I was wrong and the word did "exist". After refusing to believe that such an ugly word was actually legit, I accepted I was wrong, but get this (and this is an extremely illuminating piece of text about the mindset of BruceZ and most self-styled experts that roam the internet). Get Bruce's response to my saying that the word "didn't exist" the first time : He didn't refer me to a dictionary; he didn't invoke a text with the word in it; he didn't retort in any kind of acceptable manner of discussion. What he said was (get ready for a flash-back to your least favorite high-school teacher!) was

[/i]---"Why would you think I'd use such a word if it didn't exist?"[/i]

Get a load of that. Why? Because you can be wrong, dear man. Because you are fallible. Because you can make mistakes. Because you are allowed to be absent-minded. Because you are allowed to make up words even. Because you are human. Attributes we all share, whether we like it or not.

No scientist in the honorable sense of the word (and god knows we are up to our necks with all other kinds) would ever/say write such hybris. Imagine any famous scientist in History that comes to your mind and then try to imagine him being doubted about something brilliant he discovered and him responding
"Why do you think I'd claim that if it wasn't true?"

I must confess that this little exchange pricked the baloon of the Bruce-ness for me and henceforth I treated him without gloves. Subsequently I somewhat regretted the harshness towards him (and other folks did let me know of a few things as well), so I posted my regrets, as I said. But the image of a self-styled expert impotently trying to thrust himself towards popular acclaim hasn't changed. And Bruce with his posturing and his unbending arrogance has done nothing to change that image.

Naturally, since twoplustwo.com is full of posters that agree with Bruce on most of his political, ideological or other views, it is easy for Bruce to feel popular. He may even mistake this for being right in everything he posts, which isn't a bad kick as kicks go. But it is not for me to feel any different than how I'd feel if things were reversed, to be honest. And it doesn't change in the slightest my own positions in those fields (not before I am shown some serious arguments!) nor does it change my view of Bruce's troubles.

To think we could have been such good friends if it wasn't for the terrorists. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

"I have elaborated on this point in great detail, and even proved it mathematically on several occasions."

Again you are keen on bringing up Math in the non-Math page! What you have shown is a perfect and living example of equivocation. And it boggles the mind, as well as demonstrating the hollowness of your arguments, when you claim with a straight face that you can prove "mathematically" that someone "has no taste".

"My assessment on this matter is backed by more observations, analysis, and careful thought than has been undertaken by anyone else on this forum.
My conclusion is objective and correct.
It is not an opinion, but a fact."

About the arrogance exhibited in the above paragraph, I have already elaborated elsewhere. But thanks, dear man, for adding more evidence to the file.

Nonetheless, I must point out for the umpteenth time that you are mistaking quantity for quality. Instead of retorts, you have invited "other patriots to join in" and defend you; Instead of evidence, you have offered arbitrary claims, never backed up and never sourced; instead of sources, you whined that "Don Schlesinger respects you"; instead of arguments, you hoisted up an American flag.

"The poster in question [Cyrus] has been throroughly discredited on every forum on which he posts..."

If that is so, I would be delighted to find out where & when that happened. I hereby kindly invite you (or challenge you, if you prefer) to put up links to the websites where that momentous event happened. Amuse us.

(As a matter of record, I have posted as Cyrus in Snyder's (http://www.bjfonline.com/frame.cfm?frame=board), Wong's (http://www.bj21.com/frames/main.html), Dalton's (http://www.bjrnet.com/board_posts.htm), Nacht's (http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi), and Reid's (http://www.bjmath.com/forums.htm), all Blackjack-related. Sue me if I forgot one.)

"... and not only by me, but my Mason and others."

Terrific slip.

[brad]

'To think we could have been such good friends if it wasn't for the terrorists. '

oh cyrus i went whole way!

terroristicnessers,terroristicositynesstioners, ...

p.s. agree with u hell w/dictionary on terroristic /images/graemlins/smile.gif