People you've met you wish you hadn't

Stuart* · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.38

Have you ever considered actually answering a question, Sput?

Sput · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.40

Yes.

There we are! You're the one avoiding the point though. What I did just now was to lay a trap to get you to berate me for not backing up my assertion with any evidence, when that's exactly what you'd done before it.

Stuart* · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.43

Sput wrote:Yes.
There we are! You're the one avoiding the point though. What I did just now was to lay a trap to get you to berate me for not backing up my assertion with any evidence, when that's exactly what you'd done before it.

I know you thought I wasn't stupid enough to fall into it the first time, but you didn't come up with anything very intelligent as the second bait. I thought I'd bite 'just for fun'. I was bored for a moment

Sput · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.46

I just think you've got absolutely no grasp of debate,and nothing I've seen so far gives me reason to think otherwise. I still want to know why these two parts of English are totally separate. I'm interested. Do tell.

Ebeneezer Scrooge · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.54

It's quite simple sput, Stu has suggested that it's ok for the spoken word to evolve, but not the written language. For example, Stu would say "I'm going to the shop", but he'd write "Please do excuse me sire, for I am going to the shoppe".

Where's the confusion?

Sput · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.58

Nope, he said that one thing has evolved totally separately to another thing that it looks very closely related to. That's surely the kind of statement that needs a bit of evidence to back it up, no? That's the point I'm making by saying "no it's not". It's materially equivalent to what he said.

Oh and scrooge: in that example, you'd still have to explain why when people say "shop" but no longer spell it with the extra letters. Is it because of the way it's pronounced or some other reason? It seems at least reasonably possible it's the first of those and so that would kill plymouth's argument completely.

Stuart* · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12.59

Sput wrote:I just think you've got absolutely no grasp of debate,and nothing I've seen so far gives me reason to think otherwise. I still want to know why these two parts of English are totally separate. I'm interested. Do tell.

I would gladly write a paper on the separate development of writing and language within the romano-celtic-anglo-saxon people of the UK during the last 2,000 years if you would like to offer me a grant to do so.

iSon · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 13.03

StuartPlymouth wrote:
Sput wrote:I just think you've got absolutely no grasp of debate,and nothing I've seen so far gives me reason to think otherwise. I still want to know why these two parts of English are totally separate. I'm interested. Do tell.
I would gladly write a paper on the separate development of writing and language within the romano-celtic-anglo-saxon people of the UK during the last 2,000 years if you would like to offer me a grant to do so.

Jesus, what a boring idiot you are.

I have no intellectual put downs or comments to make, so I'll just respond with this...

WORST POST EVER

Sput · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 13.10

I once saw ison on a train (I think). I regretted that.

Ebeneezer Scrooge · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 13.16

Sput wrote: It seems at least reasonably possible it's the first of those and so that would kill plymouth's argument completely.

(That's my point)

Sput · Tue 21 Oct, 2008 13.28

Oh scroogey, you've made a fool of me!