Things that drive me nutz ...

[jwocky]

lol, you are jerking off since 8 hours now, how do you feel?

[Lydiot]

lol, you are jerking off since 8 hours now, how do you feel?

"lol, you have been jerking off for 8 hours now, how do you feel?"

"lol, you have been jerking off since 8 am now, how do you feel?"

"lol, you are jerking off since [meaning 'because'] 8 hours of watching beach volleyball made you horny, how do you feel?"



There you go. Three alternatives to your profound statement, alternatives that actually work linguistically, as opposed to your word-soup.

You're welcome.

[jwocky]

Actually, you embarrassed yourself again ... see, the ing-form with present tense auxiliary verb expresses an action that started in the past and is not done yet. I assume, you are STILL JERKING ... which makes you still a jerk?

[Lydiot]

"You are eating lunch since 10 minutes now."

Sounds like a child speaking.

I do appreciate learning about your newest obsession; your obsession with me masturbating.

[KL-666]

I do not know if the phenomenon i am about to describe is well known already, yet i a am going to do it now.

A discussion on the internet can never end at the 100% mark. That is because the resistance in wanting to understand the opponents arguments increases exponentially towards the end. The first 90% of argument exchange seems easy, but the last 10% becomes a never ending story.

That is the reason why i mostly decide to leave a discussion at the 90% mark. Everything that needs to be said has been said, so i leave it to the reader which boxer has won on points. It may feel silly to leave the discussion and the opponent may make a nasty remark about it, but trying to reach the impossible 100% mark will look endlessly more silly.

Edit:
To stay in boxing terms: A knock-out does not exist on the internet. You may strongly feel at times that you are almost there, but it is really not going to happen.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Actually, it is a derivative of the Pareto Principle which defines those numbers rather as 80/20%, but yes, it's well known in a lot of things, not only Internet discussions.
However, we left the realm of "discussion" in this thread a long time ago. Lydiot the Jerk tries to prove, he is better in English, embarrassing himself by missing some of the most basic English grammatical structures and getting off on every little typo because in terms of content, he has as usual, nothing to add. So, he tries the mindless insult strategy, it works in politics, so why, he thinks shouldn't it work in linguistics? So he has to claim, the use of -ing forms (there are several) would sound like a child is speaking. And therefore, I think, we should let anothe child come to word, Herman Melville (well actually no child but one of the greatest authors in English language):

Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off – then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.

Educated people may recognize this as a little part of the first chapter of "Moby Dick". I don't know about Lydiot though, but I guess he will us tell anyway, Melville did everything wrong, because Lydiot, in his delusions of Grandeur knows better than everybody, of course.
You see here a number of -ing forms. Look at "I find myself involuntarily pausing" ... he used a present tense full-verb instead of an auxiliary form of to be, but otherwise, it's the same construct. So, according to Lydiot, Melville's English has to be bad, he sounds like a kid is speaking, right?
"to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street" ... that's a nice one because here, the full verb "to prevent" is actually the predicate of the sentence while "stepping", the -ing form of "to step" is used as accusative object. Melville adds of course one level more and adds another part with an -ing form " ..., and methodically knocking people's hats off". He had to use the -ing form, he is still in the accusative object.
So, there are obviously far more uses for -ing forms than Lydiot's mind, restricted by limited knowledge, WOULD BE DREAMING of. Yep, that's another one, a conditional form in fact. It uses als an -ing form following the would/could and form of to be.

EdgarAllen Poe, another author who, according to Lydiot'Slogic sounds like a child wrote in "The purloined Letter":

At Paris, just after dark one gusty evening in the autumn of 18-, I was enjoying the twofold luxury of meditation and a meerschaum, in company with my friend C. Auguste Dupin,

"I was enjoying" ... now, what could that be? It is the simple past tense of "to be" in the first person singular, but obviously, since Poe is about to tell a story that already has happened, the -ing form can't describe here an act that lasts on into the presence. But, time is an iffiy thing in language, is decribes an act that started before the begin of the narration and was still ongoing at the point in time where the narrator starts. But then, what would Edgar Allen Poe know about English ... compared to Lydiot the Great?

Now, I admit, it is not everybody's taste, but let us have a look at Alfred Lord Tennyson. Who obviously wrote mostly poems and who obviously, if we believe Lydiot also had not the faintest idea about good English ...

I stood upon the Mountain which o'erlooks
The narrow seas, whose rapid interval
Parts Afric from green Europe, when the Sun
Had fall'n below th' Atlantick, and above
The silent Heavens were blench'd with faery light,
Uncertain whether faery light or cloud,
Flowing Southward, and the chasms of deep, deep blue
Slumber'd unfathomable, and the stars
Were flooded over with clear glory and pale.
I gaz'd upon the sheeny coast beyond,
There where the Giant of old Time infixed
The limits of his prowess, pillars high
Long time eras'd from Earth: even as the sea
When weary of wild inroad buildeth up
Huge mounds whereby to stay his yeasty waves.
And much I mus'd on legends quaint and old
Which whilome won the hearts of all on Earth
Toward their brightness, ev'n as flame draws air;
But had their being in the heart of Man
As air is th' life of flame: and thou wert then
A center'd glory-circled Memory,
Divinest Atalantis, whom the waves
Have buried deep, and thou of later name
Imperial Eldorado root'd with gold:
Shadows to which, despite all shocks of Change,
All on-set of capricious Accident,
Men clung with yearning Hope which would not die.
As when in some great City where the walls
Shake, and the streets with ghastly faces throng'd
Do utter forth a subterranean voice,
Among the inner columns far retir'd
At midnight, in the lone Acropolis.
Before the awful Genius of the place
Kneels the pale Priestess in deep faith, the while
Above her head the weak lamp dips and winks
Unto the fearful summoning without:
Nathless she ever clasps the marble knees,
Bathes the cold hand with tears, and gazeth on
Those eyes which wear no light but that wherewith
Her phantasy informs them.

This is the first strpphe of "Timbuctoo" and we see of course a lot of free formed terms ... I like "Atlantick" in line 4. Of course, Lydiot the Great noticed alreack, that the word is spelled in good English "Atlantic". One big red mark from Lydiot the Great, English teacher of the Gods to Alfred Lord Tennyson, one of the great poets of English language! Really this freaking Tennyson, he writes English like a child, doesn't he?
But okay, back to ing forms ... line 7 "Flowing Southward, and the chasms of deep, deep blue"
Of course, the Lydiot will notice, this refers to the "silent Heavens" in line 5. Heavens can't flow, but Tennyson spoke such a bad English anyway. And "Flowing". Shouldn't that be, in the immutable judgment of Lydiot the Great be "flow" (since heavens is third person plural? Well, actually, it is the same construct we saw with Poe (another one of those bad English speakers, right, Lydiot?). Actually, the heavens are still flowing at the time, the poem starts but have started to do so long before. So, it was, from the time point of the start of the peom a thing that begun in the past and was still going on. An entirely correct use of an ing form, in prose, we would have seen here probably also a simple past tense form of "to be".

'T was brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought.
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through, and through,
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh, frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Okay, I will admit, I could not resist, but it's "Jabberwocky" from Lewis Carrol, another fellow bad English speaker ... well, we won't take this too serious, won't we. So I go galumping back to the ing forms in strophes 4 and 5. In 4, we find "Game whiffling through the fulgey wood,"
Why "whiffling" and not "whiffs"? Because the game does so all the time. It did so before the poem starts in time and it does so now and it does so most likely in the future. So, this is actually a classic ing form, an action that begun in the past and still lasts on. Of course, since it's a poem, he can spare the explicit writing down of a simple past tense form of "to be" here. So, after our hero ensured to have used an entirely correct grammatical form (even Lydiot the Great probably disagrees, he things forms of "to be" and ing are like children speaking), he went on galumping into strophe 5 ... ouch, now that one sounds as if Carrol had here some fun with grammar nazis ... the term Nazi was of course not known in his days, but the type of people was and is still well-known to every author in history up till today.
So, "went galumping"? What kind of ing form is this? Well actually "went" is the predicate, "galumping" is in this construct not even a verb but a definition with what our hero "went on". "Galumping" is of course a mushed and twisted fun form of "galloping". So, full berv plus an ing form, but this time as clearer definition how the hero went on. It looks like forms we have seen earlier with Poe and Melville, but the context makes the difference. That happens sometimes in language. Language is not just a formal serialization of words, it has flo, it has a purpose, the purpose to express thoughts and emotions, facts and fiction. That is why the abuse of words is such a dangerous thing, a simple word can be the sole determining factor of how to interpret a sentence. If you work with translations, that is a perpetual problem. Because words have, additional to their mere dictionary meaning often an extra baggage of how we feel about them.
Here is an example, I encountered many years ago, in my school days already. Our English teacher gave us a text about the woman's lib movement to translateto German. One line, entirely out of context was

The women's lib movement was more devastating than any other movement ...

Oh well, you know me. I was young, I was male, I was in my first relationship back then, and I was as easily scared as today ... so I ended up with a few remarks about women and movement in the sense of motion first ... you know, I am all for it if it's rhythmic ... but in the end, I had to do some translation work nevertheless. So "devastating" can translate in German formally into several different words:

verheerend (devastating, disastrous, fatal, ruinous, truculent, wasteful, ...)
verwüstend (devastating, lay waste on st., depredating, harrying,..)
umwerfend (devastating, arresting, dazzling, stunning, ...)
umwälzend (devastating, cataclysmic, all-changing, ...)
absolut katastrophal (devastating, catastrophic, abysmal, cataclysmic, ...)
zerstörerisch (devastating, destructive, ruinous, ...)

and of course vice versa, each of these words and idioms (absolut katastrophal is an idiom) could be translated back to English using choices from long lists of possible translations. I wrote some examples behind the German words. So, I picked my choice of translation, admittedly based out of context on this one line, because the rest of the text was very sympathetic with the women's lib. But this one line ...
"Die Frauenbewegung war zerstörerischer als jede andere Bewegung", which would translate back of course more into "The women'slib was more cataclysmic, more destructive ..."
Well yeah, we ended up at the dean's office. He was a guy like Lydiot, no language feeling all formal. And the translation, I picked was in the dictionary. So it was formally correct. I got away with it. But honestly, I shouldn't. Because while formally correct as a mindless serialization of word,s language is supposed to express thought, feeling, and fact. My translation was intentionally malignant twist, it didn't express the gist of the context. So yes, I was not an easy student and I had my bad moments. However, and I was back then already aware what I was doing. I am honest enough to admit to it.
The point is, language is more than just lining up words. So, there is always a degree of freedom in it and the expression has priority before the formalism. You can say in English "He went already earlier to the shop". You don't need to use something like "He has been gone to the shop already". Which btw, sounds kind of "cringeworthy". We have, and I hope the poems, I linked prove the point, some freedom there as long as we don't twist the meaning of the words with malignant intention or by pure and unmitigated sloppyness.

So, now Lydiot will go and pick all the typos, I guess, there are some, I wrote lately a lot, my hands are not good. And he will accuse me of having (another interesting ing form) every personality disorder of the DSM, and he will, as usual, fail to understand the gist of the content. So ... I am perfectly well in the spiritual company of other bad English writers of the rank of Poe, Carrol, Melville, Tennyson and a lot of others ... I mean, who the heck is Lydiot?

[IAHM-COL]

Thing that are driving me nutz

@JWocky and @Lydiot.

This is the thing.

I already acted in moderator tone asking lydiot to keep it corteous to JWocky. As natural, and in response, Lydiot criticized me for being biased, and not having the same posture towards JWocky. I tacitly agreed and tried to move on. It is indeed "ad hoc" going personal on both sides. Less than 24 hours later I find JWocky qualifying Lydiot as "The Jerk", and such stand makes a little hilarious that I sit on the bench looking at Edinburgh, after calling lydiot to reconsider about calling JWocky "the Psycopath".

In my seat it is quite a delicate situation indeed. Specifically, when one of the major criticism from our administrative board in this independent FlightGear forum towards Curtis's FlightGear forum, is the fact that moderation, when applied is applied biasedly. This creates quite a situation, I say, because I either moderate you guys both, or have to step down in my request to Lydiot of considering a courteous treatment likewise.

On the other hand is the problem that your fight is kind of becoming painful to watch (or read). [at least certainly for me, and I wont be surprise also for many others trying to frequent this forum to learn more about FlightGear... and yes I get this is the Unrelated nonsense area, so the Warn is placed].
But the painful of the situation is not only about you guys going totally ad-hominem, like WWII dog-fighters, but really because the actual premise of both threads was initially rather interesting to me. Firstly, Is there a God? or have we as humanity deluded ourselves for centuries, for one or many reasons? Intirguing and exciting question (unsolvable, I think, but a question nonetheless). Furthermore, D-ECHO's intention was not necessarily to reach a conclussion, which is fair. The second really amazing thread dealt with ethics and law. "Common sense". If I got KL666 and the subsequent initial reactions correctly, the main issue was whether following the law is always the ethical thing to do: Or whether the law was an epistemological fundamental in human life.

Those two fascinating threads so far has the following conclusions:
1. By applying JWocky's method of though, JWocky is a psycopath (Lydiot proposes), or JWocky method of though ought to be faulty
2. Lydiot is a jerk (JWocky assess)
3. IH-COL has to be as biased as Curtis to manage the Other Flightgear Campground.

So, this is my thing.

I am going to clean myself out of #3. You guys can go at each other throats if that is exactly what you want. And unless one party stops the "personal comfrontation and commits to it" I wont intercede requesting the other party to take it in a non-personal way. So far, it seems to me you both are rather more comfortable insulting each other that what I am comfortable watching it happen.

In other words, at this point, instead of being biasedly moderating this cockfight *oh I used a bad word*, I preffer to establish a betting ring.

Have fun guys,
IAHM-COL

[SHM]

it seems to me you both are rather more comfortable insulting each other that what I am comfortable watching it happen.
Have fun guys,
IAHM-COL

HAHA

[Lydiot]

Lydiot the Jerk

Thanks for the insult.

tries to prove, he is better in English,

A movie can be better in English, meaning that it's recorded with English voices, or it can be better in another language. I don't think you've heard or read me "in" another language, so most likely what you mean is "he is better AT English".

"better in" means the object is better in and by itself given certain contexts, whereas "better at" means the object is better at doing something compared to some other object. Better at skiing for example.

Of course that makes the following all the more funny:

embarrassing himself by missing some of the most basic English grammatical structures

You should look up irony.

and getting off on every little typo because in terms of content, he has as usual, nothing to add.

First of all, these aren't typos. A typo is when you're trying to write "castle", and you end up writing "castke". You typed on the wrong key. A typo. What you're doing is using the wrong prepositions etc, which does not qualify as typos, they qualify as deficiencies at a language. Again, I don't really care about that, and you're infinitely better at German than I am. The point being that you started all of this talking about language, and you seem to have misunderstood something, yet you completely fail to humbly acknowledge that your English isn't that great AND that you therefore could be wrong about this. I don't give a rats ass about being better at English than you (I clearly am), I just don't think it's healthy for you to lash out the way you do rather than humbly considering that maybe because you're not perfect at speaking this language you could learn something from other people.

The rest of your post is just a textbook example of the ramblings of what seems to be a lunatic mind. I don't have the energy to read it.

[Lydiot]

Thing that are driving me nutz

@JWocky and @Lydiot.

This is the thing.

I already acted in moderator tone asking lydiot to keep it corteous to JWocky. As natural, and in response, Lydiot criticized me for being biased, and not having the same posture towards JWocky. I tacitly agreed and tried to move on. It is indeed "ad hoc" going personal on both sides. Less than 24 hours later I find JWocky qualifying Lydiot as "The Jerk", and such stand makes a little hilarious that I sit on the bench looking at Edinburgh, after calling lydiot to reconsider about calling JWocky "the Psycopath".

If you want to act as a moderator, then don't quote me as having called him "the Psychopath", because I didn't.

Secondly, I asked you to re-read the part you refer to because I'm actually NOT calling him a psychopath. Do you want me to explain that to you or not?

Those two fascinating threads so far has the following conclusions:
1. JWocky is a psycopath (Lydiot proposes)

The post you talked about earlier means the exact opposite and thereby invalidates JWocky's logic. I told you that already.