Re: The "prison IS university" metaphor - a review

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:00:44 +0000 (GMT), David
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>In article <d650u31fn5dmi40ucav90al66rvpd6quh9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:27:34 +0000 (GMT), David
>> <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >In article <lagvt3l773uugkm7mo60uu35d3r9u5db2k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
>> ><tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is not at all difficult to cast your net in Google and find any
>> >> number of instances of people using words and terms where they
>> >> should be using another word or term.  For all I know, someone -
>> >> at this very moment - is writing "The Democrat Party has a clear
>> >> record when it comes to taxes".  It could even be our President.
>> >
>> >You're not clear but I assume you mean that it should be "clean
>> >record"? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>> You are wrong.  The word is, and should be, "clear".  That's not the
>> error in the sentence. 
>
>Sheesh! If you don't want folk to misunderstand you then perhaps you
>should make it clear what you're on about.
>
>Anyhow, I'll have another stab: is it "Democrat Party" that ought to be
>"Democratic Party"? If so, then perhaps you'd like to have a go at
>explaining how that differs in essence from, say, calling the
>Conservative Party the "Tory Party"?

You're new here, aren't you?  The Democrat/Democratic Party thing was
a thread topic.  President Bush often calls them the "Democrat Party",
and many people feel this is a deliberate slur.  Not just in this
group, but many Americans.  See:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

I'm not going to have a go at it because it was well-covered here
earlier.  

As far as folk understanding me, I suspect that 90% of the people who
read my post understood exactly what I meant and knew the reference.
Most of your countrymen who read the post understood because they are
good at retaining points covered here.  

>> You see, you don't understand what my point was in that sentence was
>> because you don't understand the terms we use and why "different" is
>> a misuse.  If you address us as "Yankee", it's a misuse in that we
>> think that you think we are something other than what we are.
>
>Not the same thing at all, old chap. If we use the word correctly from
>our point of view, the fact that you would give it any degree of
>difference of meaning can never make our use of the word in any way,
>shape, or form, wrong.

Let me be gentle, here...your "we" is you and some others.  There are
many "we" who learn and adjust.  These are people who feel that
language and usage work best when we iron out those differences and
use mutually understandable terms.  A great deal of what is posted to
aue is done to exactly that end.  We - Americans - learn to use the
terms that you approve, and you - the elseplace people - learn to use
the terms we approve.    

If you don't choose to learn and adapt, that's your prerogative.  But,
if not, why bother participating in this group?

>> Since you don't understand this, I suggest you stick with "septic" or
>> "merkin".  At least, with these terms, we understand that you are
>> using terms you understand correctly.
>
>We understand "Yank" and "Yankee" correctly; it might be a different
>understanding to yours but that doesn't make it wrong. Sheesh! Next
>you'll be telling me I didn't ought to have biscuits with my afternoon
>cuppa 'cos Americans won't understand what I'm eating.

I suggest a McVities digestive.  Also, consider not trying to be too
clever until you get a feel of the group.  

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida