Subject:
|
Re: What's worse--being a moron or being corrupt?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 May 2003 02:41:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
224 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> I am going to say that being called corrupt is worse. If one is a moron that
> usually represents a natural born deficiency, someone who is a moron is not
> simply unlearned, or unwise, but possessing a level of retardation. To say
> someone is corrupt calls into question their integrity, and suggests that a
> person willfully acted in a dishonest manor.
>
> Now to the tizzy caused in Canada, this aide made an inappropriate public
> remark, and got fired over it, I would call that a moronic act. Either way
> it just illustrates the tendency that those on the left have of attacking an
> individual, and calling them names rather than address the argument. Problem
> with that is it negates any argument you have irregardless
I am sorry to make you a scapegoat Scott, but this is one nit I have to pick.
Irregardless is not a word, it is a double negative. What you actually mean is
'regardless' which means 'without regard to'. If 'irregardless' was a word it
would mean 'not without regard to' which is the oppos ite of its intended
meaning.
> of its merits. In
> general it is naïve to assume that a person who disagrees with you does so
> simply based on lack of intellect or understanding.
>
> Scott C.
As for everything else I agree with you all the way.
-Mike Petrucelli (who will forever be on a failing mission to destroy
the non-word 'irregardless')
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
