|
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|
|
OT Gender pay gap
T i m wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:38:50 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/01/2018 11:08, Tim Streater wrote:
8
We shouldn't be giving currency to these non-words, even if lazy ****s
like T i m think they are able to produce references for them.
You shouldn't be posting here then as computers, usenet, etc. don't exist.
I wonder how you are going to describe say TV using words from say 1600
as you don't want any new words?
I think we don't need any silly, lazy and ignorant new words where there
are perfectly good ones already.
In general, I agree. However, not all of us are educated to the same
level or are interested (prioritisation of the spirit of the content
over anal attention to word usage) able (word blindness / dyslexia /
eyesight) and anyone with a reasonable EQ would know and accept that
unsaid. Not an attribute present with Mr Streater unfortunately with
his arrogant and pretentious attitude. Luckily for him, that all fits
in well with his 'Fine arts' degree (obtained before Media Studies was
an option for him). ;-)
Ironic he has so much to say about me but without the balls to say any
of it directly to me?
I agree it is a losing battle; but
if it amuses me to fight a rearguard action of gratuitous rudeness and
sarcasm against them then I shall continue to do so.
Thank you. ;-)
The *issue* was exactly that in this instance with someone I've never
spoken to (using that alias anyway) thinks he has the complete freedom
to comment on my use of a word in a sarcastic / patronising way that
would likely earned him a punch in the mouth, had he done so under
such circumstances face to face. Note how upset he got when I dared to
suggest his input may not be wholly correct. Left brainers do give
themselves away so easily. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
You seem a little upset, T i m , I do hope I haven't given offence.
--
No lollipop.
|