I saw Brokeback Mountain tonight.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Some of us of course dont agree with Humpty Dumpty, but look to actual usage.

So do I.

Some of us also choose to take a sequential approach to events that's actually geared to the order in which they occurred, rather than smearing them all together in a big bran tub.

look to actual usage.

Interesting, 'cos you don't seem too sure:

AFAIK.

and again:

AFAIK.

and:

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts

aah:

And though I dont have a text handy

Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.

It speaks to usage, good sir. Thats what determines what a word "means"

Oh, good grief, how can what a Society did or didn't do in the 18th Century have to do with whether or not John Winthrop and his like were Anglicans in the first half of the 17th Century ?

I think I've already shown by copious quotation and demonstration of 'usage' what the word 'Puritan' means and meant, and more importantly, what it meant to the colonists of Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plimouth Plantation in the first part of the 17th Century.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Now, how could a cowboy movie not be gay?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I don't bet- I find accurate research and attention to iriginal texts so much more rewarding than gambling.

unfortunately none of your research refers to how the word is used. I dont know how a 17th century document can tell you about 21st century English usage.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Now if you are more concerned to display your own cleverness and erudition then to communicate, I suppose your approach to the usage of language is appropriate.

I would recommend S I Hayakawas "Language in Thought and Action"

I'd recommend not trying to patronize me when you can't even grasp that the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts Bay Colony were of the Anglican confession.

I recommend for your perusal : The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

So do I.

Some of us also choose to take a sequential approach to events that's actually geared to the order in which they occurred, rather than smearing them all together in a big bran tub.

But the word as its used today, DOES smear them together. You can wage a war on current usage, but thats not relevant to the fact that i was following current usage.

Interesting, 'cos you don't seem too sure:


and again:


and:


aah:

Im always open to the possibility that there is other info. Certainly I cant prove the universality of the usage I claim.

Oh, good grief, how can what a Society did or didn't do in the 18th Century have to do with whether or not John Winthrop and his like were Anglicans in the first half of the 17th Century ?

It shows how 20th and 21st century specialists in the history of New England religion use the words in question.

I think I've already shown by copious quotation and demonstration of 'usage' what the word 'Puritan' means and meant, and more importantly, what it meant to the colonists of Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plimouth Plantation in the first part of the 17th Century.

Excellent. then I suggest you correct any 17th century individuals you find who misuse the word. Being an English speaker whos life has been spent int the 20th and 21st centuries, I suggest if you wish to correct my usage, you find examples from those centuries.

BTW, the word at issue is NOT Puritan, (i said the massachusetts settlers were Puritans, and you did not disagree) the word at issue is ANGLICAN.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


unfortunately none of your research refers to how the word is used. I dont know how a 17th century document can tell you about 21st century English usage.

21st Century usage (or abusage) of the term is irrelevant as to whether or not the Puritans were or were not Anglicans.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I'd recommend not trying to patronize me when you can't even grasp that the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts Bay Colony were of the Anglican confession.

I recommend for your perusal : The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

I can grasp many things that are not relevant to the question of usage, and this is one of them. Whatever confession they were of, the 17th c settler of Mass are NOT referred to as Anglicans.

Though it wouldnt speak directly to 21st c usage, id be curious to see any cites where a 17th c writer referred to them COLLECTIVELy as Anglicans. IE - "the Anglicans who live in Boston" or something like that, NOT a reference to their beleifs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


21st Century usage (or abusage) of the term is irrelevant as to whether or not the Puritans were or were not Anglicans.

Absurd.

I do hope you dont refer discuss history that occurred "BC"
Or ever refer to the Byzantine Empire. Or to the history of philosophy (unless you mean to include natural science) for the period prior to the 18th c or so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I'd recommend not trying to patronize me when you can't even grasp that the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts Bay Colony were of the Anglican confession.

I recommend for your perusal : The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

do they have a definition of pedant?

Is it similar to the following:
A pedant is a person who is a formalist or precisionist in teaching or scholarship. The term comes from the Latin paedagogare, "to teach", derived from Greek terms for "child" and "to lead". The term is typically used in a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutia and detail.

Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.

Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.

Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
(and didnt feature men kissing - the main characters boyfriend was never on stage)

What's wrong with two men kissing?

[Winston]

Originally posted by MrFun
What's wrong with two men kissing?

Not enough girls.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Winston


Not enough girls.

I'm gay, but when I'm watching a movie that I enjoy, I have no problem seeing a man and a woman kissing -- or two women kissing even though I'm not aroused by either.


So I'm not sure why LOTM has a problem?

[Winston]

Well, I'm actually the opposite, at least when it comes to deep kissing. I think it's disgusting to watch no matter who's involved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun



What's wrong with two men kissing?

Good catch

Each to his own taste, I suppose. Er, no, that doesnt sound right. Whatever.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Good catch

Each to his own taste, I suppose. Er, no, that doesnt sound right. Whatever.

That's not a satisfactory answer. I'm going to have to set up an independent, investigative committee, I suppose.