In response to the thread "Challenge the Round Earth Model"

So you're of the opinion that zarg should accept your support, even if it's faulty, because it supports his argument.

Not at all. How did you manage to reach such a faulty conclusion?

Also, one has yet to show why my support has been faulty. Do you suggest that reputable sources are not more applicable than sources that have been known for to contain false information for a long time now?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 21, 2012, 11:51:19 AM

So you're of the opinion that zarg should accept your support, even if it's faulty, because it supports his argument.

Not at all. How did you manage to reach such a faulty conclusion?

Also, one has yet to show why my support has been faulty. Do you suggest that reputable sources are not more applicable than sources that have been known for to contain false information for a long time now?

1) You said: "Of course, had you read my post in context, you would notice that I said this in support of your argument. However, you're too busy trying to attack everyone to even notice that you're attacking RE'ers' own argument."

2) Both irrelevant and NTS fallacy.

Out of interest, do any of the RE'ers doubt that the patch's red and white stripes, with the stars next to them, represent the American flag? After all, it's significantly deformed and doesn't contain the same number of stars or stripes. I'd be interested to know if/why they are sure it is indeed the American flag in the image.

Quote from: zarg on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 PM

All I see here is an effective search function. You look up "paradoxal" and you get directed to "paradox". Or did you not bother to look at the page beyond its URL and title?

Ah, how delightful! You accuse me of not having read the page, having not read it yourself!

Quote

Related forms
par·a·dox·i·cal, par·a·dox·al, adjective

Quote from: zarg on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 PM

The only words defined on that page are paradox and paradoxical.

Incorrect. "Paradoxal", a non-existent word, is proposed as an alternative form of "paradoxical". You managed to notice it yourself, yet you contradict it here.

Quote from: zarg on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 PM

The only link to the rare spelling is "Sometimes, par·a·dox·al" in the latter definition. I don't see any claim that this is correct.

Perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of what a dictionary is. Non-existent words have no place in a reputable dictionary, based on the virtue that a dictionary is a collection of words.

Quote from: zarg on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 PM

Do you have anything at all to add to this discussion?

Indeed. I have already added it. Here's a reminder for you:

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 20, 2012, 10:59:58 PM

Please do not use dictionaries known to contain non-existent words in debates.

Of course, had you read my post in context, you would notice that I said this in support of your argument. However, you're too busy trying to attack everyone to even notice that you're attacking RE'ers' own argument.

Any self-respecting dictionary will include alternative spellings of words if they are used. A dictionary does not tell you what words exist it tells you which words are currently used (to say a word doesn't exist is verging on the pointless). It's like the way a dictionary doesn't tell you what a word means; it tells you the current use(s) of the word. This, of course, says nothing about paradoxal; I have no idea how much this word is used, but in principle any word that gets used can be put in a dictionary. If paradoxal is used, there's no problem with it being listed in a dictionary. As was pointed out, the most commonly used spelling of paradoxical is listed as the main entry for the adjectival form. Paradoxal is listed as "sometimes", which appears plausible based on Google results. There are even a few websites called Paradoxal. "Incorrect" spelling? Perhaps for now. In future it may become a perfectly acceptable alternative.

(All this is why, for example, pointing to dictionaries in definition arguments is pointless and both parties should always simply agree on a definition for the sake of argument)

[/off-topic]

Quote from: zarg on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 PM

All I see here is an effective search function. You look up "paradoxal" and you get directed to "paradox". Or did you not bother to look at the page beyond its URL and title?

Ah, how delightful! You accuse me of not having read the page, having not read it yourself!

Quote

Related forms
par·a·dox·i·cal, par·a·dox·al, adjective

First of all, I didn't accuse you of not reading the page, I asked if you had.

Second, if you'd read my whole post first before diving in to quote the first sentence, you'd have known that I acknowledged the fact that it lists "paradoxal" as an alternate spelling; my point was that it was not claiming that it was the correct spelling and it doesn't have its own entry. The only entries on the page are paradox and paradoxical.

Perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of what a dictionary is. Non-existent words have no place in a reputable dictionary, based on the virtue that a dictionary is a collection of words.

Interesting. Tell me, what would you consider the most reputable dictionary? I expect that this dictionary will not mention any "sometimes" or slang usages under any of its main definitions, as per your personal values of what a dictionary ought to be.

However, you're too busy trying to attack everyone to even notice that you're attacking RE'ers' own argument.

This is actually quite revealing of your own dishonest biases, I think.  Apparently, you expect me to base my attacks only against faulty reasoning exclusive to my opponents, and excuse any faults of those on "my side".  Is this what you do?

Out of interest, do any of the RE'ers doubt that the patch's red and white stripes, with the stars next to them, represent the American flag? After all, it's significantly deformed and doesn't contain the same number of stars or stripes. I'd be interested to know if/why they are sure it is indeed the American flag in the image.

Make your point, please.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 21, 2012, 04:13:48 PM

Out of interest, do any of the RE'ers doubt that the patch's red and white stripes, with the stars next to them, represent the American flag? After all, it's significantly deformed and doesn't contain the same number of stars or stripes. I'd be interested to know if/why they are sure it is indeed the American flag in the image.

Make your point, please.

The point is obvious; please stop asking me to write out everything a second time just for you.


www.rif.org

Out of interest, do any of the RE'ers doubt that the patch's red and white stripes, with the stars next to them, represent the American flag? After all, it's significantly deformed and doesn't contain the same number of stars or stripes. I'd be interested to know if/why they are sure it is indeed the American flag in the image.

I hope you'll get back to the topic, but to sate your interest.

As an REer, I doubt the image in the background of Tom Bishop's profile picture is a photograph of the Flag of the USA because:
1) It seems too perfect to be a photograph and animated like so many other gifs.
2) Tom lies as documented in the falsification of his Monterey Bay experiment.
3) Given that not all of the Flag appears, I deem it is possible that it's a photograph of an incomplete or partial Flag.

Oh and you made no point, let alone an obvious one.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 21, 2012, 04:13:48 PM

Out of interest, do any of the RE'ers doubt that the patch's red and white stripes, with the stars next to them, represent the American flag? After all, it's significantly deformed and doesn't contain the same number of stars or stripes. I'd be interested to know if/why they are sure it is indeed the American flag in the image.

I hope you'll get back to the topic, but to sate your interest.

As an REer, I doubt the image in the background of Tom Bishop's profile picture is a photograph of the Flag of the USA because:
1) It seems too perfect to be a photograph and animated like so many other gifs.
2) Tom lies as documented in the falsification of his Monterey Bay experiment.
3) Given that not all of the Flag appears, I deem it is possible that it's a photograph of an incomplete or partial Flag.

Oh and you made no point, let alone an obvious one.

I did not ask about your beliefs concerning Tom's avatar. I asked whether you think the red and white stripes along with the stars represent the American flag, and if so, why. It's a simple question.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 21, 2012, 06:02:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 21, 2012, 04:13:48 PM

Out of interest, do any of the RE'ers doubt that the patch's red and white stripes, with the stars next to them, represent the American flag? After all, it's significantly deformed and doesn't contain the same number of stars or stripes. I'd be interested to know if/why they are sure it is indeed the American flag in the image.

I hope you'll get back to the topic, but to sate your interest.

As an REer, I doubt the image in the background of Tom Bishop's profile picture is a photograph of the Flag of the USA because:
1) It seems too perfect to be a photograph and animated like so many other gifs.
2) Tom lies as documented in the falsification of his Monterey Bay experiment.
3) Given that not all of the Flag appears, I deem it is possible that it's a photograph of an incomplete or partial Flag.

Oh and you made no point, let alone an obvious one.

I did not ask about your beliefs concerning Tom's avatar. I asked whether you think the red and white stripes along with the stars represent the American flag, and if so, why. It's a simple question.

I do wish you'd do a better job at quoting...

That said, the same answer applies.

I do wish you'd do a better job at quoting...

In what way?

That said, the same answer applies.

In what way? Your answer does not refer to the patch in question at all.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 21, 2012, 06:09:50 PM

I do wish you'd do a better job at quoting...

In what way?

For example, you referred to "the patch's red and white stripes" without quoting the patch to which you're referring.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 21, 2012, 06:09:50 PM

That said, the same answer applies.

In what way? Your answer does not refer to the patch in question at all.

Which patch would that be? Why does my answer even have to refer to any patch? I did quote the question I was answering.

The only entries on the page are paradox and paradoxical.

So you're saying that not giving a word a separate entry but still upholding that it's correct makes it less upholding that it's correct? I hope you're not. I'll assume you're not until you provide an explanation.

Interesting. Tell me, what would you consider the most reputable dictionary? I expect that this dictionary will not mention any "sometimes" or slang usages under any of its main definitions, as per your personal values of what a dictionary ought to be.

I really like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. It does contain slang definitions, and makes it very clear when a definition is part of a slang and not the actual language (they put the word INFORMAL or SLANG before such a definition, with the latter being even less formal than the former; example); furthermore, since CALD is intended to act as a guidance to what people actually say, it contains some definitions clearly marked as NOT STANDARD.

You see, you misunderstand (or misrepresent; is this intentional?) my values by saying that I expect no slang in a dictionary. I expect it to be clearly marked when a word doesn't belong to the formal language. Either way, common misconceptions about the language have no place in CALD. You won't find "paradoxal", "irregardless", "alright", and any other nonsense words denoted as standard English; and that's the point.

Another great value of CALD is its awareness of alternative spellings that happen to be regional, yet not necessarily wrong. For example, "manoeuvre" is sometimes spelled "maneuver", chiefly in the United States. As you can see, the US spelling has been properly denoted.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 21, 2012, 11:20:37 AM

However, you're too busy trying to attack everyone to even notice that you're attacking RE'ers' own argument.

This is actually quite revealing of your own dishonest biases, I think.  Apparently, you expect me to base my attacks only against faulty reasoning exclusive to my opponents, and excuse any faults of those on "my side".  Is this what you do?

ClockTower made the same accusation, and I have already told him he's wrong. Please make sure to read threads before posting in them.
What I was trying to point out that it doesn't matter what I say - RE'ers will attack me because I'm an FE'er. Even when it's something as simple as defending your claims with a valid argument, your kind will jump out of their skins to make it look invalid, unsubstantiated, and stupid.

My claim is that using reputable sources is better than using sources which are known to be wrong. Your response to it is: "You're wrong. Show me a good dictionary. You have double standards. You're terrible." Not only is it not on topic, it's also pretty delusional.

In other words, I was revealing your dishonest biases; and I have succeeded.

Quote from: zarg on January 21, 2012, 05:27:42 PM

The only entries on the page are paradox and paradoxical.

So you're saying that not giving a word a separate entry but still upholding that it's correct makes it less upholding that it's correct? I hope you're not. I'll assume you're not until you provide an explanation.

I explicitly said the opposite. It does not uphold that it's accurate, it lists it as an alternate form that is used sometimes.

I still think what happened here is that you looked at the auto-generated page title and assumed that the dictionary had given "paradoxal" its very own entry. You realize now that it's nothing but a side-note and the site merely put your search term at the top of the page, but instead of admitting your error you're desperately trying to save face.

Granted, it's an unfortunate page layout decision, but it doesn't make the dictionary disreputable.

You see, you misunderstand (or misrepresent; is this intentional?) my values by saying that I expect no slang in a dictionary. I expect it to be clearly marked when a word doesn't belong to the formal language.

If your (current) values are misrepresented, it's your fault for not keeping them consistent. Right now, apparently, you are fine with non-standard words being included as long as they are marked as such.  At the time I commented on your values, however, you were evidently not okay with it regardless of whether it is clearly marked, since your complaint was explicitly against the clearly-marked note "Sometimes, paradoxal":

Quote from: zarg on January 20, 2012, 11:31:52 PM

The only link to the rare spelling is "Sometimes, par·a·dox·al" in the latter definition. I don't see any claim that this is correct.

Perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of what a dictionary is. Non-existent words have no place in a reputable dictionary, based on the virtue that a dictionary is a collection of words.

"No place" does not mean "a place that is marked". It means no place. Maybe you should say what you mean. Or just admit that you're making it up as you go.

CALD is intended to act as a guidance to what people actually say

common misconceptions about the language have no place in CALD.

Having trouble making up your mind again, I see.

Here is an example of a definition that is included in CALD for a word that people actually say despite the fact that it's based on a common misconception about the language: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/workaholic (Hint: There is no such thing as workahol).

ClockTower made the same accusation, and I have already told him he's wrong. Please make sure to read threads before posting in them.

Telling him he is wrong doesn't make him wrong.

What I was trying to point out that it doesn't matter what I say - RE'ers will attack me because I'm an FE'er. Even when it's something as simple as defending your claims with a valid argument, your kind will jump out of their skins to make it look invalid, unsubstantiated, and stupid.

Or maybe it's because it's actually invalid, unsubstantiated, and/or stupid.

I still think it's funny that you think you were "defending my claims" just because you happened to be directing your silly attack on reference.com toward Tom Bishop. Nobody else but you claimed that reference.com was disreputable, so you were defending nobody.

Remember that I don't even believe that you are an FE'er.  I attack you based on the absurdity of your assertions, nothing more.

I explicitly said the opposite. It does not uphold that it's accurate, it lists it as an alternate form that is used sometimes.

Where does it list it as an alternate (alternative?) form? If it does say "alternate", we've got yet another case of dictionary.com using incorrect English, but I can't find the word there.
"Used sometimes" does not imply "incorrect". People sometimes say "I don't appreciate your wandering about" instead of "I don't appreciate you wandering about". Both forms are correct, but the first one is somewhat rare. It is used sometimes.

I still think what happened here is that you looked at the auto-generated page title and assumed that the dictionary had given "paradoxal" its very own entry.

You would be wrong. I have used the example of "paradoxal" to make numerous cases against dictionary.com* and thefreedictionary.com (the two least reputable dictionaries online).

* - dictionary.com and dictionary.reference.com are the same site

You realize now that it's nothing but a side-note and the site merely put your search term at the top of the page, but instead of admitting your error you're desperately trying to save face.

This is not the case. However, if it was, listing "paradoxal" as a form of "paradoxical" is still including a non-existent word without denoting it properly. My argument stands in its full force regardless of what you think about what happened.

Granted, it's an unfortunate page layout decision

Oh, please, don't get me started on their layout! I'm not done with content yet!

but it doesn't make the dictionary disreputable.

This on its own does not make it disreputable. However, the lack of an academic organisation behind its creation, poorly-referenced sources within the dictionary itself, and the presence of words that should not be present does make it so.

If your (current) values are misrepresented, it's your fault for not keeping them consistent.

No, but I'll give you a B+ for effort at making them appear so.

Right now, apparently, you are fine with non-standard words being included as long as they are marked as such.

And I always was. If the word "paradoxal" gets marked as non-standard, I will stop having issues with it being listed there.

At the time I commented on your values, however, you were evidently not okay with it regardless of whether it is clearly marked, since your complaint was explicitly against the clearly-marked note "Sometimes, paradoxal"

Once again, "sometimes" does not mean "non-standard". Here, have a look, they do it with some words: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

"No place" does not mean "a place that is marked". It means no place. Maybe you should say what you mean. Or just admit that you're making it up as you go.

Point taken. I will try to be clearer about what I mean, just because I like you so much.

However, saying that I'm making this up as I go calls for a "lurk moar". I've been this forum's (sometimes hypocritical, seeing how English is not my first language) grammar and dictionary "Nazi" for a long time. People usually called it "semantics trolling", but it had nothing to do with semantics. Trolling? I'd disagree, but each to their own.

Anyway, the point is that I've had discussion on pretty much identical topics in the past, and I'm merely recycling my old stance on the topic. I don't need to make it up.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 21, 2012, 11:20:37 AM

CALD is intended to act as a guidance to what people actually say

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 21, 2012, 11:20:37 AM

common misconceptions about the language have no place in CALD.

Having trouble making up your mind again, I see.

Not at all. A common misconception and a slang word are two different things. A common misconception is mistaking "your" for "you're" or thinking that "paradoxal" is a word. Because CALD does not list common misconceptions, you will not find the word "paradoxal" in it, even marked as non-standard. Instead, you will see a (potentially helpful) list of suggestions for words that actually exist: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=paradoxal

Here is an example of a definition that is included in CALD for a word that people actually say despite the fact that it's based on a common misconception about the language: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/workaholic (Hint: There is no such thing as workahol).

It's not a misconception, it's a word that used to be neologism, which has since been incorporated by the language. It's not even an informal word anymore - it made it to the actual formal language.

You're absolutely correct in saying that its etymology is dodgy, and I do dislike the word, but the word itself is just a name for a phenomenon that hadn't had a name before. If, out of the blue, I start calling a computer a komputer (by copying the word from Polish), that's a misconception. If I create a hybrid of a zebra and a donkey and humanity decides that from now on it shall be known as a zedonk, then zedonk will be its name. If someone starts calling it a zebdonk after it's already been named (and the name has settled in. Let's give it 20 years to settle in), then that's a misspelling, or, more generally, a misconception.

Long story short: You're either accusing me of opposing the evolution of language or opposing the evolution of language yourself. If it's the former, you're wrong. If it's the latter, I can't hold you against it, but most authorities on English (I mostly mean academia here) will disagree with you.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 21, 2012, 10:54:32 PM

ClockTower made the same accusation, and I have already told him he's wrong. Please make sure to read threads before posting in them.

Telling him he is wrong doesn't make him wrong.

I'm sure the same goes for him, doesn't it?

Or maybe it's because it's actually invalid, unsubstantiated, and/or stupid.

You have yet to present a single counter-argument to my case. Remember, the argument is "using reputable sources is better than using sources which are known to be wrong".

Nobody else but you claimed that reference.com was disreputable, so you were defending nobody.

Quite the opposite. Markjo used a definition of a Crucifix from Wikipedia (which, in turn, contains two reputable sources for the word's definition), thus setting the RE'ers' case in the direction it's heading now. Tom Bishop, then, tried to counter it with a contradicting definition from a poorly-chosen source. His faulty argument would have passed, thus impeding the RE'ers' case, were it not for my defence.

Remember that I don't even believe that you are an FE'er.

Ah, so you attack me because you think I'm a troll. Even worse.

I attack you based on the absurdity of your assertions, nothing more.

You have yet to make a single argument that shows my "assertions" to be "absurd". Allow me to remind you: the claim you consider absurd is that reputable sources are better than disreputable sources in a debate. You seem to agree with it when you say:

Telling him he is wrong doesn't make him wrong.

You dismiss me as a source of information, because I'm not a reputable authority on who's right and who's wrong. Had I linked a source where someone more reputable than myself claims that disreputable sources are, well, disreputable, you would have a much easier time believing me.

I see your argument ultimately boils down to this weak postulation:

"sometimes" does not mean "non-standard".

Incorrect.

It's not a misconception, it's a word that used to be neologism, which has since been incorporated by the language. It's not even an informal word anymore - it made it to the actual formal language.

If you are going to label "paradoxal" a language misconception, then "workaholic" is also a similar misconception. In the former, the misconception is that "-al" is a valid suffix to paradox, and in the latter, the misconception is that "-aholic" is the suffix in alcoholic. It's a misconception that has since been incorporated into the language, yes.  Just like "paradoxal" is a rarely used form which may or may not make it into the language proper, so for the time being including it as a footnote as opposed to a distinct entry is a reasonable choice.

You have yet to present a single counter-argument to my case. Remember, the argument is "using reputable sources is better than using sources which are known to be wrong".

No, that is not the argument. The argument is "reference.com is known to be wrong".  There is a difference. I agree with the former statement, not the latter; and yes, I have presented valid arguments for that.

most authorities on English (I mostly mean academia here) will disagree with you.

Yeeaaaah, no. You're the one who's disagreeing with the authorities. See here: http://content.dictionary.com/about/products

In addition to our team of experienced lexicographers, our content is licensed from over 15 trusted and established sources including Random House and Harper Collins.

If you accuse professional lexicographers and time-honored sources of being disreputable, you're going to need to do a much better job than just stating as fact that your dictionary of choice is the definitive one.


Incidentally, the zedonk is my favorite animal.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 22, 2012, 01:02:23 AM

"sometimes" does not mean "non-standard".

Incorrect.

Please provide a source for this claim.

If you are going to label "paradoxal" a language misconception, then "workaholic" is also a similar misconception. In the former, the misconception is that "-al" is a valid suffix to paradox, and in the latter, the misconception is that "-aholic" is the suffix in alcoholic. It's a misconception that has since been incorporated into the language, yes.  Just like "paradoxal" is a rarely used form which may or may not make it into the language proper, so for the time being including it as a footnote as opposed to a distinct entry is a reasonable choice.

No, the fact that it has been incorporated into the language(s) makes it stop being a misconception. It used to be one, and "paradoxal" might in the future stop being one. Such a speculation in no way justifies its mention in a dictionary.

No, that is not the argument.

Oh, well, if you're telling me that my argument is not my argument, then we might as well stop talking.

Yeeaaaah, no. You're the one who's disagreeing with the authorities. See here: http://content.dictionary.com/about/products

Quote

In addition to our team of experienced lexicographers, our content is licensed from over 15 trusted and established sources including Random House and Harper Collins.

If you accuse professional lexicographers and time-honored sources of being disreputable, you're going to need to do a much better job than just stating as fact that your dictionary of choice is the definitive one.

I am not accusing them, primarily because I do not know who they are. As I said, a list of references is nowhere to be found (or perhaps I just happen to fail at finding it). It's kind of like with toothpaste ads. "10 out of 9 dentists recommend our toothpaste!"

The two sources that have been named are publishing companies. Like I've said before, by "authorities on language" I mostly mean academia. Publishing companies are not academia.

And no, I'm not saying that my dictionary of choice is a definitive one. You've asked me for an example of a good dictionary, so I gave you my favourite one. If you'd rather refer to Oxford, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Collins, or one of many other dictionaries with some reputation, feel free to. I'm just strongly opposed to using a dictionary made by "experts" who won't even reveal their names, owned and managed by a corporation that mainly deals with humour and dating sites rather than an academic/professional organisation, and that contains words it shouldn't contain. Why take risks when so many good sources are available online at no charge?

Quote from: zerg on January 22, 2012, 03:22:09 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 22, 2012, 01:02:23 AM

"sometimes" does not mean "non-standard".

Incorrect.

Please provide a source for this claim.

Okay, how about your favorite source, CALD.

standard - usual and not special
usual - normal and happening most often
sometimes - on some occasions but not always or often

Now connect the dots.  Standard = usual = often;  sometimes = not often;  therefore, sometimes = not standard.

Isn't learning fun?

Moderately interesting and slightly relevant to this latest derailment:
http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/nonstandterm.htm

nonstandard English
Definition:
    (1) Any dialect of English other than Standard English.
    (2) A term used disapprovingly by some non-linguists to describe "bad" or "incorrect" English.