Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: GMAN on 12 Apr 2010 22:09 In article <2010041214011616708-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-04-12 05:44:07 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > >> In message <da26s5l32315t27s0oc9ntlov95qegmia8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>> >>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>> >>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>> Ambiguous? Vague? >> >> More in denial and refusing to address the huge problem of the Catholic >> church supporting pedophiles. > >Well it seems Ratzinger is planing to take pedophilia head on, so to speak. >< >http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-vows-to-get-church-pedophilia-down-to-acc >epta,17201/ >> > > Acceptable levels???? That would be NO pedophilia!!!!
From: Savageduck on 12 Apr 2010 22:16 On 2010-04-12 19:09:59 -0700, Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org (GMAN) said: > In article <2010041214011616708-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-04-12 05:44:07 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <da26s5l32315t27s0oc9ntlov95qegmia8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >>>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>>> >>>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>>> >>>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>>> Ambiguous? Vague? >>> >>> More in denial and refusing to address the huge problem of the Catholic >>> church supporting pedophiles. >> >> Well it seems Ratzinger is planing to take pedophilia head on, so to speak. >> < >> http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-vows-to-get-church-pedophilia-down-to-accepta,17201 >> > >> >> > Acceptable levels???? That would be NO pedophilia!!!! Did you read beyond the headline? -- Regards, Savageduck
From: tony cooper on 12 Apr 2010 22:47 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:12:49 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >There's not much that can do about abating the problem with the >church, but my comments might prompt you to use a proofreader for that >technical paper you are allegedly writing. I would hope that you >wouldn't want to look the fool by your associates. I need a proofreader. The first sentence should have been "There's not much that I can do...". -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 12 Apr 2010 22:50 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:09:59 GMT, Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org (GMAN) wrote: >In article <2010041214011616708-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>On 2010-04-12 05:44:07 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <da26s5l32315t27s0oc9ntlov95qegmia8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >>>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>>> >>>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>>> >>>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>>> Ambiguous? Vague? >>> >>> More in denial and refusing to address the huge problem of the Catholic >>> church supporting pedophiles. >> >>Well it seems Ratzinger is planing to take pedophilia head on, so to speak. >>< >>http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-vows-to-get-church-pedophilia-down-to-accepta,17201/ >>> >> >> >Acceptable levels???? That would be NO pedophilia!!!! You didn't notice that this article appears in "The Onion", or is that you just don't know what "The Onion" is? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Pete on 13 Apr 2010 04:53
On 2010-04-13 02:43:36 +0100, tony cooper said: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:09:05 +0100, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2010-04-12 12:58:10 +0100, tony cooper said: >> >>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>> >>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>> >>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>> Ambiguous? Vague? >> >> Excessive. > > That's an ambiguous answer, Pete. My reply had multiple meanings - go figure... > Excessive in evasiveness or > excessive in quantity? Multiple choice doesn't work very well when the correct answer isn't in the list. Your failure to address salient points (even snipping some out - cool) is not being evasive, it is deflection - a totally inappropriate coping strategy considering the enormity of the issue being discussed. Was that unambiguous enough? No, it wasn't. Here are some facts: Deflection, along with asking closed questions, are two primary factors causing victims of abuse to feel they must endure it rather than report it. The abused becomes a life-long victim instead of a survivor, leaving them open to the many forms of abuse. This in itself is a tragedy, but it gets worse. Humans are attracted far more by what is familiar than what is good for them, leading the abused to unwittingly seek abusers as friends, bosses, and partners - all at a subconscious level. Despite what is offered by therapists there is no cure, the damage is permanent. Therapy, for those fortunate enough to eventually receive it, offers only coping mechanisms. Spelling and grammar correction therapy would be appropriate for victims who actively seek to make their condition worse. It works by invalidation via belittling (more abuse), as I stated in a previous post. I find it inconsiderate and offensive to highlight spelling and grammar while discussing child abuse. The only time I think it would be appropriate is during the preparation of a legal or technical document. -- Pete |