Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

Your trolls only highlight your ignorance and nothing else.

"Routinely used" is a process that happens over time. You asked for a separate element altogether - a transition - and now the definitions have been given to you and once again you have been shown to be wrong, you shift and shuffle to keep on trolling!

Congratulations - you have shown Admin to have been correct in banning you for trolling.

[erolz66]

Your trolls only highlight your ignorance and nothing else.

"Routinely used" is a process that happens over time. You asked for a separate element altogether - a transition - and now the definitions have been given to you and once again you have been shown to be wrong, you shift and shuffle to keep on trolling!

Congratulations - you have shown Admin to have been correct in banning you for trolling.

You make a statement as an example in a discussion about the changing meaning and usage of words over time. You mention two states - 'routinely used' in the past tense (was) and 'taboo' in the current tense (now) and you put a time frame between them. Now you are trying to argue that the time frame was NOT a time frame between which usage and meaning of the word changed from one state to the other and that the two states are independent and separate from each other and the time frame refers only to the second state. This after when you were first challenged arguing that there was 'no evidence' that the change in these two states did not occur in the period you stated.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Your trolls only highlight your ignorance and nothing else.

"Routinely used" is a process that happens over time. You asked for a separate element altogether - a transition - and now the definitions have been given to you and once again you have been shown to be wrong, you shift and shuffle to keep on trolling!

Congratulations - you have shown Admin to have been correct in banning you for trolling.

You make a statement as an example in a discussion about the changing meaning and usage of words over time. You mention two states - 'routinely used' in the past tense (was) and 'taboo' in the current tense (now) and you put a time frame between them. Now you are trying to argue that the time frame was NOT a time frame between which usage and meaning of the word changed from one state to the other and that the two states are independent and separate from each other and the time frame refers only to the second state. This after when you were first challenged arguing that there was 'no evidence' that the change in these two states did not occur in the period you stated.

Again it's down to your basic command of English.

I didn't state, the N word was "used" and now it's "not used". Those would have been two states and you could then ask "when did the transition occur?".

I had said, it was "routinely used".

In English that would be understood as it was used more frequently (i.e routinely) and now it's use is less so (not routinely used but say, occasionally used). Therefore its use hasn't undergone a defined transition within the time frame for which it was phasing out to which I was a party to - as observer not a participant in its use.

As for "taboo", again you have regressed. You are failing to treat in your brain the two different clauses (demonstrated for you a few pages back - but a lifetime ago! ) which do not need repeating.

These problems you have with comprehension, co-associating with an obsessive nature, plus a huge dose of ego and self-belief in your abilities is a dangerous mix ...

[erolz66]

Your trolls only highlight your ignorance and nothing else.

"Routinely used" is a process that happens over time. You asked for a separate element altogether - a transition - and now the definitions have been given to you and once again you have been shown to be wrong, you shift and shuffle to keep on trolling!

Congratulations - you have shown Admin to have been correct in banning you for trolling.

You make a statement as an example in a discussion about the changing meaning and usage of words over time. You mention two states - 'routinely used' in the past tense (was) and 'taboo' in the current tense (now) and you put a time frame between them. Now you are trying to argue that the time frame was NOT a time frame between which usage and meaning of the word changed from one state to the other and that the two states are independent and separate from each other and the time frame refers only to the second state. This after when you were first challenged arguing that there was 'no evidence' that the change in these two states did not occur in the period you stated.

Again it's down to your basic command of English.

I didn't state, the N word was "used" and now it's "not used". Those would have been two states and you could then ask "when did the transition occur?".

I had said, it was "routinely used".

In English that would be understood as it was used more frequently (i.e routinely) and now it's use is less so (not routinely used but say, occasionally used). Therefore its use hasn't undergone a defined transition within the time frame for which it was phasing out to which I was a party to - as observer not a participant in its use.

As for "taboo", again you have regressed. You are failing to treat in your brain the two different clauses (demonstrated for you a few pages back - but a lifetime ago! ) which do not need repeating.

These problems you have with comprehension, co-associating with an obsessive nature, plus a huge dose of ego and self-belief in your abilities is a dangerous mix ...

The only problem with comprehension is in keeping up with your constant shifting claims about what it is you meant despite what you actually wrote.

So now you are saying that in the context of a wider discussion about changing meaning and usage of words over time you used as an example , not the massive fundamental change that occurred between 1960 and 1970 as indicated by both Wikipedia article and the hard google ngram data, but instead used a different and later change that is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article and is near imperceptible in the google ngram data and just happened to throw in that now it is 'taboo' as well , though not as a changed state from 'routinely used'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

It's usage and its taboo status are two different and independent qualities as has already been explained to you by myself - and I think Sotos tried to explain it to you too.

You are now sounding like a madman hanging on to some blabbing incomprehensible confusions generated by your own "evidence".

[erolz66]

It's usage and its taboo status are two different and independent qualities as has already been explained to you by myself - and I think Sotos tried to explain it to you too.

You are now sounding like a madman hanging on to some blabbing incomprehensible confusions generated by your own "evidence".

No I am trying to get my head round why someone would use as an example of changing usage of words over time an example where they ignore the massive fundamental shift in a words usage at one point in time and instead refer to what is at best a near imperceptible change in usage and worst a non existent one in a time period 20-25 years later and expect that to be 'self evident'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Perhaps you should stop listening to the voices in your head which reinforce your preconceptions rather than reading what is stated!

Life might be simpler if you do not "seek" only to destroy ..... and armed with the wrong tools ...

[erolz66]

Perhaps you should stop listening to the voices in your head which reinforce your preconceptions rather than reading what is stated!

Life might be simpler if you do not "seek" only to destroy ..... and armed with the wrong tools ...

Imagine someone said

for example cooking was done in the home and traditional methods were still routinely used less than 20 years ago in Cyprus and now it is all fast food and takeaways.

Lets then imagine someone challenged them on the basis that the transition from 'cooking in the home' to 'fast food and takeaways' happened significantly earlier than less than 20 years ago and presented hard data to show it did indeed occurr much earlier.

Then imagine the person who made the original post replied 'your lack of understanding is the problem. I was not talking about a transition from cooking in the home with traditional methods to fast food and takeaways that occurred in the period mentioned at all. I was talking about two entirely separate things and the period of 'less than 20 years ago' onwards was only in reference to the period in which there was a slow, almost imperceptible decline in cooking at home with traditional methods from then until now and which is separate from fast food and takeaways now and despite that fact that in a period 20 years earlier than the one I mentioned there was a massively greater decline in cooking at home with traditional methods.'

This is exactly your current 'argument' GiG.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Imagine someone said

for example cooking was done in the home and traditional methods were still routinely used less than 20 years ago in Cyprus and now it is all fast food and takeaways.

Lets then imagine someone challenged them on the basis that the transition from 'cooking in the home' to 'fast food and takeaways' happened significantly earlier than less than 20 years ago and presented hard data to show it did indeed occurr much earlier.

Then imagine the person who made the original post replied 'your lack of understanding is the problem. I was not talking about a transition from cooking in the home with traditional methods to fast food and takeaways that occurred in the period mentioned at all. I was talking about two entirely separate things and the period of 'less than 20 years ago' onwards was only in reference to the period in which there was a slow, almost imperceptible decline in cooking at home with traditional methods from then until now and which is separate from fast food and takeaways now and despite that fact that in a period 20 years earlier than the one I mentioned there was a massively greater decline in cooking at home with traditional methods.'

This is exactly your current 'argument' GiG.

Is it really?

You see, you still don't get that a "taboo" and the "use" of the N word are separable and both can exist at the same time nor do you understand the difference between a 'transition' and a 'phase out' and this is now becoming a forum factoid.

I think your analogy needs a little more food for thought ....

[erolz66]

You see, you still don't get that a "taboo" and the "use" of the N word are separable and both can exist at the same time nor do you understand the difference between a 'transition' and a 'phase out' and this is now becoming a forum factoid.

I think your analogy needs a little more food for thought ....

I see that 'taboo' and 'use of the n word' could be 'separable' [sic] and both exist at the same time, EXACTLY as in my example 'cooking in the home using traditional methods' and 'fast food and takeaways' could be separable and exist at the same time.

What I find incredulous is your seeming belief that you can now realistically hope to convince anyone that the above was your intended meaning all along and that meaning was clear when you wrote the original statement, even more so given all the previous attempts you made to justify the accuracy of your statement along with the totally out of context quotes from Wikipedia, repeated calls to 'show you the evidence' , ad hominem attacks and attempts to make out that I was said it was ok to call a dog nigger and all the rest. That I find incredulous.