dsp128 wrote: "You're obviously blind if you didn't see my answers"
"Education" is not an answer to "what's your source for the claim that "diaper" means "diamond-shape" in French?" It's a dodge.
Is a dodge all that you have? Have you no actual answer?
----------
dsp128 wrote: "Education - yes I have an MSc. Is that good enough for you?"
If my question had been anything like 'do you have any higher education at all', then that would be a 'good enough' answer.
But that was NOT my question.
Since my actual question was "what's your source for the claim that "diaper" means "diamond-shape" in French?"----then, NO. It is NOT good enough.
Again: have you an answer to the actual question that was asked? If so, post it.
---------
dsp128 wrote: "No, I wasn't making a case for megalomania relating to language - it was an aside relating to the power the USA had that is now slipping away in the world economy."
Your actual post was: "Yanks just love to invent their own terminolgy when as English-speakers, words already exist (its meglomania really and it seems to pervade their continent).
For instance, why do Yanks use the word 'diaper'? It's a French word meaning diamond-shape. How did that get into the American language? Why not use the English word 'nappiy' (a diminutive form of the word napkin) that already exists in their tongue? Same goes for 'sidewalk', 'trunk' (car), and way too many to mention here...
Flame away."
That is your post in its entirety.
So this back-pedaling, attempt-to-change-the-reality-of-what-you-posted remark "no, I wasn't making a case for megalomania relating to language" is contradicted by, well, reality.
reply
share
15 years ago
[deleted]
Gheelnory
15 years ago
This thread had veered, quite legitimately according to the IMDb message board rules, from a discussion of the cast changes over the course of the show "Chef" into a discussion of the terminology for that course (namely, "series" versus "season" as the designation for one year's worth of shows).
Then, out of the blue, we have someone making a wildly egregious connection between language changes and 'meglomania' [sic]---but only for ONE national group. Language changes observed in other national groups geographically distant from the country of that language origins are in some unexplained way NOT evidence of 'meglomania' [sic].
That post contains no reference to the show "Chef". Neither does it contain any reference to the tangent about "series" versus "season".
And not only do we have this wildly egregious characterization of one nation, we have the phrase "Flame away."
Yet---inexplicably---nothing about that post, which arguably DOES violate the rules of these message boards, activates your 'policing the IMDb' stance.
Why not?
And what in any of my posts (which have apparently offended you with their erudition) constitutes grounds for a call to 'take this to Private Message'?
Only insults and flaming are legitimately grounds for such a call.
Where, in any of my posts here, do you find such grounds?
Please list a) the personal insults, and b) the flames.
reply
share
15 years ago
[deleted]
Gheelnory
15 years ago
What works for IMDb is NOT an attempt to bypass rules against posting profanity by using a 'vowels removed' tactic.
Yes, many people of limited maturity post on the Internet (as you have demonstrated). It's to be hoped that, with time and experience, some personal growth will occur.
In the meantime: A discussion of the terminology ("season" versus "series") is admittedly a tangent from discussion of the show "Chef" itself. But if IMDb is to be enjoyable for all, it would be ridiculous to say that such questions can't be asked or discussed.
The further tangent represented by the October 5 post that ends "Flame away" is less defensible. Personally I believe there's a good argument for removing that post, but on the other hand maybe it's not worth the time of IMDb staff. Your attempt to subvert the rules, however, probably IS worth their time. Your tactic sets a bad precedent.
But, that dealt with, back to the show:
I still enjoy watching the reruns (though the tapes the local public station play are so deteriorated that it's getting close to being unwatchable). But the show isn't as enjoyable as it could have been if the cast had been more stable.
Think of the top-rated British sit-coms--most had pretty stable casts. "Fawlty Towers", for instance, would have remained an amazingly well-written show even if there had been four different Spanish waiters in succession, and three different Pollys. But...I bet the show wouldn't have reached the level of popularity that it has.
reply
share