Language does not appear to be your strong point!
Try writing a statement about Israel which actually makes sense.
Britain to start terrorism survival course
- Thread starter Path Finder
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
Language does not appear to be your strong point!
Try writing a statement about Israel which actually makes sense.
Mate, that's a bit harsh. You have no idea if they have any form of dyslexia or indeed anything else. I'd guess, and it is only an educated guess, that ScarletPimpernel perhaps meant "significantly".
Nag.
Not intended as harsh.
I responded only to what was actually written, not what I may assume that the writer intended to write, or meant.
When I read a statement I do not assume that the writer may or may not have a learning difficulty, it would be offensive and arrogant to assume such a thing.
I responded only to what was actually written, not what I may assume that the writer intended to write, or meant.
When I read a statement I do not assume that the writer may or may not have a learning difficulty, it would be offensive and arrogant to assume such a thing.
Are we talking about the words used?? 'Cos "signally" means "conspicuously", as in "it was a conspicuous failure".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/signally
You may disagree with the sentiment, but ScarletPimpernel shouldn't have to adjust his/her language because you're unable to understand standard english.
I think you owe ScarletPimpernel an apology!
This makes a lot of sense. Isnt the wtc attcaks and other similar criminal acts part of a strategy to get attention? Isnt that always a major part of terrorist activity any way, "to claim responsibility", get media coverage etc. The IRA always did that as I recall. Actually thinking about it, you are wrong spamel
, the terrorists are being handed a major victory when they see, in the media, how "terrified" everyone is as a result of their criminal efforts. Every tyrant knows full well, to rule with a rod of iron you have to instil and maintain a state of perpetual fear, a reign of terror etc, so that people are traumatized to the point of incoherence and are unable to function rationally, and are easily led, susceptible to whatever is suggested or ordered. Its the people behind the patriot act and the civil contingencies bill that worry me far more than el Quaida, and the western media seems to be conspicuously silent when it comes to talking about those people .Well noone can say this thread isn't educational, can they So my thanks to ScarletPimpernel for using such a word used in such a way that I seldom encounter, to Wallenstein to showing me the meaning of the word and to helixpteron for bringing it to my intention Please, this is just meant as a light hearted comment not an attack on anyone. Goes to show sometimes that we don't always know as much as we think we do. If we were all the same, acted the same and thought the same the world would indeed be a boring place. I suppose it also shows how easy it is to misunderstand someone, through essentially no ill intent or purpose. I wonder if this is how some terrorists are created? They see something they do not or cannot understand and react in the manner they normally do, however because the risks are higher that reaction is also proportionally higher, things get past the so called point of no return and then it's all a bit pear shaped? I don't know, that's just a random thought.
It would have been an easy affair for this thread to deteriorate into a hostile conflict of personalities, egos or view points, but it hasn't. My hat off to everyone for not lowering the ambience here.
Nag.
So my thanks to ScarletPimpernel for using such a word used in such a way that I seldom encounter, to Wallenstein to showing me the meaning of the word and to helixpteron for bringing it to my intention Please, this is just meant as a light hearted comment not an attack on anyone. Goes to show sometimes that we don't always know as much as we think we do. If we were all the same, acted the same and thought the same the world would indeed be a boring place. I suppose it also shows how easy it is to misunderstand someone, through essentially no ill intent or purpose. I wonder if this is how some terrorists are created? They see something they do not or cannot understand and react in the manner they normally do, however because the risks are higher that reaction is also proportionally higher, things get past the so called point of no return and then it's all a bit pear shaped? I don't know, that's just a random thought. It would have been an easy affair for this thread to deteriorate into a hostile conflict of personalities, egos or view points, but it hasn't. My hat off to everyone for not lowering the ambience here.
Nag.
to win a terrorist war you have to be as brutal as the terrorist and society holds us back which is why we cant truly win.
As Ghandi said An eye for an eye will only make the world go blind.
Al Qaeda were created by the American Government as a means to justify their present foreign policy.Its just not really known by the masses. The real people behind 9/11 were Israel the Americans knew about it before hand and let it happen and used it as a reason to go into the middle east to fight Israels wars for them. Its Israel that wants to destroy Iran not America but bush warned them off until he was out of office.
Colin Powell and a few others recently warned that there would be a major international incident on the 21st 22nd January THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT which you probably know is the day after Obama takes office.So if they don't know about it how can they give a date??????? Something to watch out for.
Guys, I think that this thread has gone way off from where it started, most of you, if not all of you know that we don't talk about most of this on bcuk, I'm sure that there are plenty of other places to go and converse about differences in terrorism around the world and the British ability as a nation and individuals of living in it. Not here though thanks
Oh well why didn't you say. I'll get on the phone to the whitehouse right now and tell them to pack it in....
Oh my life.......
"Signally" is perfectly valid usage in that context. Perhaps slightly archaic, but perfectly valid.
Interesteing, I've not heard it used in that context, but my google-fu agrees with you.
Please take note of Tony's request.
Guys, I think that this thread has gone way off from where it started, most of you, if not all of you know that we don't talk about most of this on bcuk, I'm sure that there are plenty of other places to go and converse about differences in terrorism around the world and the British ability as a nation and individuals of living in it. Not here though thanks
Toddy
Guys, I think that this thread has gone way off from where it started, most of you, if not all of you know that we don't talk about most of this on bcuk, I'm sure that there are plenty of other places to go and converse about differences in terrorism around the world and the British ability as a nation and individuals of living in it. Not here though thanks
Toddy
Are we talking about the words used?? 'Cos "signally" means "conspicuously", as in "it was a conspicuous failure".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/signally
You may disagree with the sentiment, but ScarletPimpernel shouldn't have to adjust his/her language because you're unable to understand standard english.
I think you owe ScarletPimpernel an apology!
Wallenstein,
The three paragraphs (below) which I wrote at 04:40 are self explanatory:
Not intended as harsh.
I responded only to what was actually written, not what I may assume that the writer intended to write, or meant.
When I read a statement I do not assume that the writer may or may not have a learning difficulty, it would be offensive and arrogant to assume such a thing.
Your entire post is based on your utterly false assumption that I am "unable to understand standard english".
Despite my confirmation at 04:40 that I was responding to what was actually written, your post states as 'fact' your utterly false assumption regarding my ability to understand standard english.
With unintended irony, you actually arrive at the basis of my original post when you say "You may disagree with the sentiment".
My critique was that the writer's statement about Israel did not actually make sense. Unlike you, I did not make arrogant, baseless assumptions about the writers ability to understand standard english!
I respect that a writer will know the meaning of the words which they use, as do I!
I did not insult the writer, nor would I, and consequently I do not believe that I have to apologise.
I do believe that the only apology owed is by you, wallenstein.
Regards,
helixpteron.
Please read my post of 14:32.
At no time have I insulted you, nor would I, I do regret that you appear to feel insulted.
Thank you for quoting my earlier response to the 'purse' insult, albeit out of context!
Final post from me in this thread!
Clearly some crossed wires!
If you wanted to disagree with the sentiment, why pick on the choice of language??
You said "language does not appear to be your strong point!", but the statement made perfect sense... it's just that you disagreed with it!
Which isn't a language problem at all.
It's not hard to see why I (and several other posters) assumed you were having a pop at ScarletPimpernal's choice of phrase.
Clearly that wasn't your intent, and I'm happy to apologise for the misinterpretation, but I would hope you can see why a statement like "language does not appear to be your strong point!" is not only rather rude, but also meaningless if your intent was to highlight a flaw in the reasoning behind the post (because, as mentioned, there was nothing wrong at all with the choice of language, as we all understood the intention of the post).
Clearly some crossed wires!
If you wanted to disagree with the sentiment, why pick on the choice of language??
You said "language does not appear to be your strong point!", but the statement made perfect sense... it's just that you disagreed with it!
Which isn't a language problem at all.
It's not hard to see why I (and several other posters) assumed you were having a pop at ScarletPimpernal's choice of phrase.
Clearly that wasn't your intent, and I'm happy to apologise for the misinterpretation, but I would hope you can see why a statement like "language does not appear to be your strong point!" is not only rather rude, but also meaningless if your intent was to highlight a flaw in the reasoning behind the post (because, as mentioned, there was nothing wrong at all with the choice of language, as we all understood the intention of the post).
- Status
Similar threads
