Things that drive me nutz ...

[jwocky]

@FL2070 ... okay missed that one. Sorry!

[Lydiot]

Now ... Lydiot ...

But go back to your very first post and read the definitions you chose of "surrender" and "peace". Heck, just consider the words right now without doing so: "Surrender" is a verb, and "peace" is a noun!

You may want to consider, that you started with a term, "make peace". "Make" was lst time I looked a verb and "make st." is also a verb. So what are you trying here, ripping your own term to pieces?

I didn't start with that term, you did. I addressed the fact that you started with "to make peace" and then continued to argue against its usage by extracting "peace" and parsing it by itself. "Peace" by itself is a noun, and "Surrender" is a verb. "To make" is a verb, and "to make peace" is an idiom. As you point out, it functions as a verb here. So that's why I'm saying you should compare verbs with verbs, not verbs with nouns. Do you really not see the categorical mistake you're making?

So, you can achieve peace by someone surrendering. And achieving peace is what some people think of when they say "make peace" - in some contexts. Therefore you can make peace by surrendering. Surrender creates peace. The words aren't the same and you can't say that all people all of the time really mean "surrender" when they use "make peace", because that's simply not the case.

You want to stop twist my words like a career politician. I never said "make peace is always surrender" I said, people use "making peace" too often when they actually mean surrender.

And I agreed that if people mean "surrender" then they shouldn't say "make peace", and I agreed that words and phrases are often misused. Here's the thing though:

Following your logic, we should burn FGMEMBERS, TerraGIT,

See, you're taking a discussion about language and turning it into something personal. It probably was personal to begin with. There's no logic I promote that leads to anything even close to what you're suggesting. Saying that "making peace" and "surrender" aren't mutually exclusive isn't advocating either.

We could of course implement Shariah law in the US and all become Muslims ... to "make peace".

It's interesting to follow where your mind tends to wander.....

And that leads again to the categorical error you're committing by extracting one word from an idiom and then taking that word literally. It's exactly the same thing as extracting "raining" and "dogs" from the idiom and then analyzing both literally and objecting to the meaning of the idiom ("It's raining cats and dogs"). It simply makes zero sense to do that.

See, "raining cats and dogs" is a commonly used term and it expresses pretty clearly what is meant. Even it doesn't rain any kind of animals literally. But you knew that. So, you are intentionally try to find one working term to claim, all thoughts about wrong used terms are wrong.

You're entirely wrong. Here's what I said which affirmed my agreement with you on several points:

"I agree that some of the above is poorly defined and sometimes for political reasons. I don't think it's racist to point that out."
"I absolutely agree." (that "in many other case, this mindless use of language is dangerous. ")
" I will agree with you however that "fallen" is a far softer expression than "dead", so in that sense I agree with you, it does tend to mitigate the nasty reality of war."

and, in a nutshell:

"Yes, honesty and correct use of language is important, as is speaking the truth and correctly describing reality. I agree with all of that. [b]I just don't think your examples are that great to be honest.[/b]"

Now, if you just accepted that people could have different views on whether or not you're correct or are using good examples to make points of yours with which they agree rather than throw a hissy fit then you'd be making progress.....

Lets try something:

"All persons with full beards are men" ... does that mean all men have full beards

I didn't even imply such faulty logic, let alone state it.

Now, people grinned, of course not all men have full beards, right? But ...

I'm guessing I'd need therapy if I followed the trail your browser cache left behind it. Heck, I shudder at the thought of what I might find on your hard drive.......

pulled together, "make peace" becomes also a political correct idiom for "surrender" in many cases.

Fair enough. But the problem isn't that the two are mutually exclusive, which is what you implied, but instead that one person means one thing and says another. And I have to say that while I agree with you - again - that one should say what one means, the interesting thing here isn't the occasional misuse of "making peace" but rather the individual cases in which the idiom is misused. Those are the interesting points because they need to be discussed. Clearly people have different opinions about a lot of conflicts, so in a lot of cases people will taint their language so that it conforms with their views on whatever issue they're talking about. But I really don't think "making peace with" is particularly frequently misused.

So, when you quote the definition of "honor" and then said, the use D-Echo made of it was not twisted, you lost me entirely. Lets have a look ...

honoredhonoring play \ˈä-nə-riŋ, ˈän-riŋ\

transitive verb

1
a : to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor b : to give special recognition to : to confer honor on

2
a : to live up to or fulfill the terms of <honor a commitment> b : to accept as payment <honor a credit card>

3
: to salute with a bow in square dancing

So, ad 1 ... to bow to a bully, thief and license scammer is surely a sign of admiration ... but only if you amdire his skills as criminal. I can at this point see nothing in the actual case about Thorsten's Space Shuttle that would cause admiration or respect.

Maybe you mea definition 2? There was never a commitment to accept Thorsten's license scams and his surreal claims and his attempts to change history all the time as it fits him. Nobody ever signed "we support your criminal activities". Therefore, there is no commitment to honor to begin with.

He didn't say there was. As I quoted: "developers should mutually honor their wishes". The premise was a situation where there was collaboration. He even stated pretty clearly that that wasn't the case, but ideally should be. Quite frankly I'd fucking hate working with you if you're completely against giving anything ever as long as you think you're right. That's just a terrible recipe for collaboration, especially in a creative field. So, in other words I agree with Hooray that to an extent people should honor each others wishes when collaborating.

The way "to honor" was used in that case (D-ECHO on FGMEMBERS) was used as a nice looking wording for "let the bully have his will" in another attempt "to make peace with" the bully by "surrendering".

I can tell you're emotional. I still think you're nevertheless wrong about this particular comment of his.

Even if you look at Hooray's use of "to honor", it is the same problem. He says "mutually honor their wishes" ... See, that is exactly the problem. Opposite to you, I did a lot of plane work, nobody honors my wishes and there is no need to. Why because it is GPL. If I would have wanted something else, I could have used something else. Even more, if I use another author's work as base and this base is GPL, Ihave to honor this. Means, I can't change the license which means, my work, I add is either GPL or I have to put it in an extra package. Simply that. I can't just add some lines and claim those are not GPL and therefore the whole package isn't GPL anymore, like Thorsten did. I have to honor the wishes of all the authors before me, as clearly expressed by their use of GPL licenses.
Now, here comes 2.) from your definition in. When I as author decide to publish my work under GPL, I commit to that. I can't just say next week and because a guy I don't like flies thatplane, I change now retroactively the license. I have to honor the commitment, I made.
So, while Hooray talks about "honoring wishes", he actually means "the wishes of certain, but by far not all authors, as it is politically convenient". That has nothing to do with "honor", that is just a political ploy. In the context, it means, Hooray said "we all have to honor Thorsten's wishes even if that means, to disrepect the wihes of all other authors who contributed to the whole." This logic goes even further if you look at the "owner" concept favored over there. Because it means, since Thorsten declared himself the owner (of works of HerbyW, Wibrag, Israel, the data that came from NASA and God knows who else), his wishes are strong enough to break even definition 2 and the commitment those authors made by using the GPL license. So, how twisted is that? Are you going to explain to the NASA, their data, published for free use, is not free anymore because Thorsten is not their owner?

I don't see any cases of actual "collaboration" above. So it just seems entirely beside the point.

Of course, those are facts, so your only way out, as usually will be now the "emotional" line. As in "you think, against all facts and proof, that it is okay" and that I am "way too emotional to think clear". Which is another typical example for language use by career politicians. You can't beat the facts, just declare the other guy as too emotional ... you don't want to do that on this forum. You won't get banned, you will get called out for this kind of "smart lies"

Do you pick your favorite words on a monthly basis or do you wing it?

Here is another one,

I wrote ...

Her is another one of my "hate terms". Soldiers fall in wars. What, do the stumble, why don't they get up again? Did someone push them? Maybe someone should help them to get up again?
But nobody can. Because "to fall" is used to cover up the nasty reality of being shot, getting the head blown off, drowning, stabbed to death, strangled, beaten to death or blown to pieces.

and you responded ...

I think "covering up" is the wrong term to use to describe it, it's just a blanket term that means "dying". It's simply trying to convey that people died, not the specifics of it. But I will agree with you however that "fallen" is a far softer expression than "dead", so in that sense I agree with you, it does tend to mitigate the nasty reality of war. But my objection to it isn't so much about the literal definition of "falling" as it is about the word being somewhat softer (which is something you can achieve by using other words with the same literal meaning anyway).

You are wrong. "falling" can't be a blanket term for "dying" because there are obviously people who don't fall and still die (think about from old age or from diseases, those are not covered by "have fallen") and even people who actually fall and still don fall under the idiomatic scope of "fallen soldiers" (9/11 and raining men).

Oh for fucks sake man.... how long are your arms???!!! You're really reaching now. You out of all people should have understood that the context was military / duty. It's in the text of yours that I quoted! Jesus.....

Sooooo, at the end of your post, you have defended intentional wrong language use for the purpose of political correctness as defined by the one or other faction twice, made a nice case for surrendering to all bullies because it's so nice "to make peace", have tried some stupid politician's rhetoric on my with your "emotional" line and thus effectively demonstrated why this slopps use of language when it swings into the intentional is dangerous, butI am so happy that you agree with me about that ... oh wait ... you agreed and then you tried to put exactly those examples on the sidetrack because you "honestly" think, they are not so great. See, I love it when your little tricks backfire so badly. You think ... well, actually you have an opinion ... and you use "honestly" to make the impression, your opinion is an absolute truth. See, you can always claim that you didn't know, this expressing an opinion in connection with honestly and without proving the fact isn't one of the oldest trick in the books. I will, honestly, never be able to prove you knew and did it intentional because I have of course no backup copy of your memory.

You must be a fucking riot at parties......

[jwocky]

no, you don't do that intentionally, you do it only intentionally ...

I didn't start with that term, you did. I addressed the fact that you started with "to make peace" and then continued to argue against its usage by extracting "peace" and parsing it by itself. "Peace" by itself is a noun, and "Surrender" is a verb. "To make" is a verb, and "to make peace" is an idiom. As you point out, it functions as a verb here. So that's why I'm saying you should compare verbs with verbs, not verbs with nouns. Do you really not see the categorical mistake you're making?

So, you complain, I don't like the way, the term "making peace" is used all too often. Then, running out of arguments, you play the old "formal categories card". I compared sense, you claim I can't compare a verb "surrender" with an idiom "make peace" even the use of "make peace in grammatical terms is that of a verb as characterized by the use of "make" in the idiom and the usually following up of a preposition calling for a dative. As in "make peace with so". So actually, it is no "categorical mistake" I made but lakc of knowledge on your end ... or a desperate attempt to build another fog wall away from the point in question.

Lydiot wrote:

So, you can achieve peace by someone surrendering. And achieving peace is what some people think of when they say "make peace" - in some contexts. Therefore you can make peace by surrendering. Surrender creates peace. The words aren't the same and you can't say that all people all of the time really mean "surrender" when they use "make peace", because that's simply not the case.

Actually, above quote was from your post, I quoted you. Why did you put it on me?

JWocky wrote:
You want to stop twist my words like a career politician. I never said "make peace is always surrender" I said, people use "making peace" too often when they actually mean surrender.

And I agreed that if people mean "surrender" then they shouldn't say "make peace", and I agreed that words and phrases are often misused. Here's the thing though:

The problem here is, you wrote in other parts of your posts, I can't even compare those terms. Still, people use one instead of the other.

jwocky wrote:
Following your logic, we should burn FGMEMBERS, TerraGIT,

Well, yes, it was an example for "making peace" as the term is currently used by some in connection with what we do in the FG world.

See, you're taking a discussion about language and turning it into something personal. It probably was personal to begin with. There's no logic I promote that leads to anything even close to what you're suggesting. Saying that "making peace" and "surrender" aren't mutually exclusive isn't advocating either.

You have to get down from your high horse, not everything is about you. People used lately terms like "make peace" and "honor" in this way, so, since I assumed you were probably familiar with the situation, it would be a good, even extreme example. According to your language logic, it would be correct to burn down all we built "to make peace", but in reality, it would be "surrender" (ooops, now I used "surrender" as noun ... which is grammatically correct, but breaks your smoke wall from the first paragraph).
The point in this example is not personal. It is, to show, by the extremity of what needs to be done to satisfy an enemy, that the use of "making peace" in such a case would be nothing but to paint a surrender nicer ... just like "fallen" paints people with their heads blown off nicer in terms of language.
Thus, if you really want to lead this discussion, stay with the content please and stop to use your rethorical tricks like painting me as too stupid to know the difference between verbs and nouns (as you did in paragraph 1) and too emotionally involved (as you did in this one). You waste way too much time for such tricks and they leave a too good documentation who tries to hit under the belt here.

Okay, lets skip that "raining cats and dogs". Actually, my mind didn't wander, And I didn't had a hissy fit as you call it ... you go actually pretty personal there ... is it even possible to have a discussion about language with you without you getting all riled up and personal?
See, the point was "raining cats and dogs" is as idiom quite free of problems. Because it rarely rains actually any form of animals. It is hard to misunderstand. Other idioms are, often intentionally, more dangerous because they are worded along a certain line, to make a certain impression or avoid a too real impression. This is about meaning.
So you took one clear idiom and used it to claim, that all idioms are hapless. That is why you got the bearded lady, to show your failure in the logic.

I'm guessing I'd need therapy if I followed the trail your browser cache left behind it. Heck, I shudder at the thought of what I might find on your hard drive.......

Hummm, nice personal attack. Declaring the opponent as insane and sick, that's a good old tradition, isn't it? And I really don't know whether you would shudder less, if you would know what is on my hard disks. I run by all means a serial killer and terrorist database. I have case files of open cases in the hundreds including photos, I have novels and novel fragments on them ... and of course, dozens of planes I work on at one time or the other. Some few games and a lot of history research.
So, yes, maybe you want to stamp me sick for working in my rare spare time on planes? Or for developing better methods to find killers on my own time and dime? I admit, I think, if you could see some of the stuff on my hard disks, you would probably puke, then run away screaming and you maybe would need a therapist but see, it is there, not because I am sick but because sick people do out there sick things and to catch them and get them off the streets is hard because all too often, people try to cover up what they can't stomach with nice idioms and don't even think about the real world problems behind those idioms. I don't do that in regular life (I did it in novels when certain characters have this kind of mindset). However, I don't feel, that the fact that I don't lie about hoe nasty some things are, doesn't make me a sick person as you try to imply.

Fair enough. But the problem isn't that the two are mutually exclusive, which is what you implied, but instead that one person means one thing and says another. And I have to say that while I agree with you - again - that one should say what one means, the interesting thing here isn't the occasional misuse of "making peace" but rather the individual cases in which the idiom is misused. Those are the interesting points because they need to be discussed. Clearly people have different opinions about a lot of conflicts, so in a lot of cases people will taint their language so that it conforms with their views on whatever issue they're talking about. But I really don't think "making peace with" is particularly frequently misused.

Especially "making peace" is one of the most abused idioms of the last decade. Think about "making peace with Iran" ... well, the special brand if Islam propagated there by the ruling mullahs is in its basic perception apocalyptic. Now, before you interprete that term wrong, it means, they believe in an end of the world scenario in the near future forcing them to make a maximum of sympathy points with the otherworldy power they believe in. There is nothing wrong with belief. However, if people go out and kill infidels to gain the sympathy of a deity for right after the apocalypse next week or next month or ... well, in any way soon ... then everything is wrong with it.
The point is, you can't negotiate with anyone who beliefs the world and ends soon and nothing in this life has too much meaning anymore. For two reasons:
1.) Any need for the beyond will top any agreement they make in this life.
2.) They may have a tendency to cause an apocalypse if their deity won't send one fast enough.
Which is why you can't really negotiate with such people or, if they negotiate for a temporary advantage, you can't rely on them to keep their part of the bargain. Simply because they don't give too much about this life. So, regardless what the propaganda says, you can't actually "make peace" with them.

Or think about "making peace" with Russia. Hilary clinton claimes, she pressed the reset button. Another nice idiom, isn't it? Well, Russia is back on the stage. Since Putin is back in the saddle, they got territories from two other former soviet republics, modernized their ICBM arsenal and their boomer fleet. But "to make peace", we reduced till we don't have enough material for an effective deterrent.

Een right around us. I hear the word "peace" in connection with things, we should do to "make peace" way too often lately. But lets be honest, at least for a short moment. There will be no peace with the "official" FlightGear group. We threaten their level of control and therefore, the only thing, they can accept, for psychological reasons (Thorsten, Bugman) or simply from the fear of losing face (Curtis), is total and unconditional surrender. But we have the freedom of course, to call it by a nicer term, like "making peace". Only, that's the only freedom we would keep.

So, especially "make peace" with all it's derivatives is a quite frequently abused term. My original post was supposed to draw a little bit of attention to it. But instead of the content discussion, I got a fog wall about word categories and attempts to declare me sick ... which well, one can't take it too serious, it's just the way, people abuse language nowadays, isn't it?

He didn't say there was. As I quoted: "developers should mutually honor their wishes". The premise was a situation where there was collaboration. He even stated pretty clearly that that wasn't the case, but ideally should be. Quite frankly I'd fucking hate working with you if you're completely against giving anything ever as long as you think you're right. That's just a terrible recipe for collaboration, especially in a creative field. So, in other words I agree with Hooray that to an extent people should honor each others wishes when collaborating.

Well, then we are both lucky. We don't have to collaborate in FG because I do mostly work on aircraft, which is not where you put work in (and with those people who do, I collaborate well with some, not wo well with others). I especially don't collaborate well with people who quote one person and say, it was another one, like you just did. E-Echo wrote on FGMEMBERS as a comment on the Space Shuttle, we should delete it from the repository "to honor" TR's wishes. The "developers should mutually honor their wishes" is not from D-Echo but from Hooray. D-Echo may have quoted it somewhere. However, you ripped that one also out of context, just to construct another personal attack.
We also don't have to collaborate in other fields outside of FG. I try to catch killer, you try, as shown in other discussions, tolimit the possibilities to do so driven by a misunderstood and racial agenda. And since you do there the same thing as in this discussion (rhetorical tricks instead of facts), there is no bridge to begin with.
So, I guess, we are lucky ... you are not really nowhere near the fields, I work in.

And, to give you cases in which I obviously collaborated with others, just to get your little stupid accusation out of the way: Victor (with SkyBoat, Ray, Israel mostly, Cain was in there too, I think), KingAir-350 (ISrael, SHM, Josh), 707s (Mostly Cain), Poem helicopter work (those were mostly Cain's and Firefly's, I only helped alittlw with a bit programing skills there), Jumbolino (Israel, Lego did some instruments), C-5 (Israel), 767s (again Israel, Falcon helped to figure out some 787 cockpit specifics). There are more, but you get the gist, so, as usual, your baseless accusation was wrong, as usual. I will admit to one thing though, building planes has a specific order of things. I can't make an FDM without having a model, so Israel or SHM are on the timeline usually a little bit ahead of me and then they again need an FDM before they can build cockpits. But that'S merely dictated by the technics. I thought, I explain it better to you since you were to my knowledge never involved in any plane building collaboration.

However, the license problem stretches far wider than an actual at the same time collaboration. Someone made a plane, lets say in 1995. Then he left, the plane is still there and still needs oem TLC. So, someone else takes it and does improvements on it. Does that give him the right to change the license of the old parts? No it doesn't. He has to honor the license of the original work, which alos means, he has to make his improvements inside the restrictions of this license. In GPL, this is namely copyleft. So, you may don't have the knowledge to see what Hooray did there, but he replaced the legal provisions by some soft-law of his own making to give Thorsten a right to break the license law. So the point is not moot, It is an example for how people use intentionally language to cover up the reality.

Do you pick your favorite words on a monthly basis or do you wing it?

LMAO!!!! That was pretty aggressive for someone who accused me a few lines ago to be "emotional". You shouldn't do it, it shows too clearly, who here is the angry kid stomping with his feet.

Oh for fucks sake man.... how long are your arms???!!! You're really reaching now. You out of all people should have understood that the context was military / duty. It's in the text of yours that I quoted! Jesus.....

Well, the military term is KIA, short for "killed in action". "Fallen" is a term used by propaganda people to cover up the nasty reality. You said, it is not that way but "fallen" is nothing but a generic term for "dying". I pointed out your logic failure to you, so look who now went all aggressive and emotional ... hey, it's Lydiot.

You must be a fucking riot at parties......

Oh don't worry, I doubt, you go to the same parties as I do. I will admit though, some of my Karaoke numbers are a little bit infamous. Maybe I should cut back on Rock 'n Roll Mercenaries? But then, duets are fun!

[Lydiot]

You started by saying "Okay, my English is not perfect, I will admit at first to that. ", but you appear to be completely against improving it. I don't really think it has anything to do with the language in particular or language in general, I just think you hate to not be revered and lauded, let alone questioned.

If this was a discussion I had started about the German language and you corrected me then I'd probably take your word for it, because my German isn't very good. Well guess what, I often have to re-read what you write to understand what you're attempting to say. You can live and survive just fine in the US, and many have worse English skills than you do, but I'm surely not one of them. My English isn't flawless, or eloquent, or poetic, but if you can't see that it's generally better than yours then I don't know what to say. If you can, then perhaps you should consider that maybe I'm right about this because I'm better at this language than you are. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

[jwocky]

I think, you crossed now really a border... I mean, I know, you are bad at profiling and your whole knowledge about anything seems to be second hand ... but still, even a narcissistic malignant wannabe like you should know when you are total off the track. What I do has nothing to do with "being revered". Actually, most things I do give me the unmitigated hate of stupid narcissistic bastards like you. Honestly, I give a shit! I am not the one who needs to care whether some little uneducated wreck like you likes me or not, sorry, you overestimate your importance.
But see, you are upset. I claimed your self-proclaimed Atheism is just another religion, I proved my point with facts. You have mebarrassed yourself, again, and I lost count how often that happened now. So you leash out like an angry little kid. If you don't get revered, if others don't bow to your unproven claims, it has to be because they have a fault. Like want to be revered on a pathological level. Yeah, right. So you embarrass yourself by being uneducated in the subjects you like to discuss and that has of course to be my fault. And because this fiasco hit your little ego so hard, you have to go for it on four threads. And then this claim "you are better" and "sorry if that hurts my feelings?" Well, after not even beginning to understand what the meaning of words is about beyond the point of parroting "political correct" euphemisms, what is that? Your head start in your next self-embarassment? Do you have a hang to masochism or are you so delusional that ou think, you do anything else but showing off that you have no idea what you are talking about?

[Lydiot]

"you leash out like an angry little kid"

You should read your own post. The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Projection and Dunning-Kruger and so forth....

[Lydiot]

By the way, your usage of the comma is atrocious.

[Lydiot]

Oh, and a "tenement" is something people live in, as opposed to a "tenet".

[jwocky]

oh yes, sorry, you foudn one wrong used word. Did you climax?

[Lydiot]

"one"?