Hi res photo hosting site?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Dallas, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. [/QUOTE]
    To the contrary, my dear Watson, it's "haha, only serious".

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 25, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dallas

    Savageduck Guest


    Nope! The Whoosh! reverberates as it makes a second pass.

    I believe English as a second language for you, has led you to miss the
    fairly obvious joke, and your attempt to respond seriously just
    highlighted that fact.

    My comment had nothing to do with "copyright" but the terriblely,
    misspelt "pronographic" and the use of a non-word "racistic".
     
    Savageduck, Nov 26, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. [/QUOTE]
    So you get off of misspellings, but not on logic problems?
    Are you sure you were a cop, and not a defense lawyer?

    BTW, "pronographic" is a neologism in some circles, not a
    spelling error. And a country that uses "to burgularize" when
    there's a perfectly sane (and shorter) "to burgle" is calling
    the kettle black over 'racistic'. Which --- according to a
    google --- seems to be a neologism, too.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Racistic

    But feel free to mockingize over the spellingtization of a
    couple wordings, if that floatizes your sailorization.
    I keep trying to look behind the words and grasp the meaning.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 30, 2012
    #23
  4. Dallas

    Savageduck Guest

    Not exactly a scholarly source is it?

    "neologism", usually a term for coining a new word, but in your usage,
    legitimizing use of non-words, and justifying typos.
    ....and "pronographic" is a non-word. It has never existed outside of
    that poorly drafted "Terms of Use". You calling it a "neologism in some
    circles" is laughable. Which "circles" are those exactly? The
    Lower-Slobovian Pronographic Society perhaps?

    Boy! Do you ever miss the point sometimes?
    If you read the responses of all those who commented after I commented
    on "pronographic" you will note that they certainly got it.

    So, once more for your benefit; Whoosh!...
     
    Savageduck, Dec 1, 2012
    #24
  5. Did that make a "Whoosh!!" or didn't it --- due to the lack
    of athmosphere that far up?
    is EXACTLY the meaning I used.
    Google says you're wrong.

    [Typical teenage dissing stuff outside their experience deleted]

    Well, isn't there a savage duck, putting others in their place,
    that is, below the duck ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 4, 2012
    #25
  6. Dallas

    Savageduck Guest

    Exactly, however, the only places it seems to be used is in that TOS,
    your mind, and in the Urban Dictionary, which noted the stupidity of
    the usage.
    Then you are not looking closely. All the Google search results for
    "pronographic" are all misspellings of "pornographic". The two words
    one correct and one a non-word are not interchangeable. The Urban
    dictionary reference is as that fine site always is, a tongue-in-cheek
    humorous entry and hardly an OED defined word.

    To rephrase a great cinematic quip; "Frankly my dear, I don't give a quack!"
     
    Savageduck, Dec 6, 2012
    #26
  7. [/QUOTE]
    How *can* a pensioned member of the police forces believe in "If
    I don't see/know it, it doesn't exist, no need to look around"?

    So you claim you have checked every single one?
    Would your answer be the identical if you were asked in court
    as a witness?

    Additionally, IF the "pronographic" in the TOS is --- as you
    claim --- a misspelling, then:
    a) either does not exist in the TOS (which is contrary to
    your claim that "t has never existed *outside* that
    [...] "Terms of Use")
    or
    b) it exists as a misspelling in the TOS --- and in all the
    other places Google finds. And we all know (or should know)
    that Google only sees a small part of the net.

    Now, how are you going to jump after painting yourself so
    well into that corner?

    Most any 2 words are not interchangeable. Tell news.

    So you basically say that no real word exists unless it's
    defined in the OED. How many words in police jargon are not
    in the OED, and therefore are non-words and do not exist?

    Does the police use radio codes? All VERBOTEN, cause they're
    not real words from the OED.

    Of course you don't, as long as you're the biggest quack on
    the hill.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 10, 2012
    #27
  8. Dallas

    Savageduck Guest

    The OED is a pretty good starting point for the majority of English
    words. For French, Spanish, German, Hindi, Mandarin and others, you are
    probably going to have to look elsewhere.
    Strangely enough, in California at least, there is an active effort to
    exclude jargon from official reports, in other that direct quotes, or
    transcript of spoken testimony. So much so that part of ongoing
    "Inservice Training" in many Law enforcement agencies includes
    continuous review of report writing skills. The same is applied to
    training for Courtroom testimony, where the use of jargon is
    counterproductive.
    A little disingenuous of you, as various radio codes serve a practical
    purpose providing clear, unambiguous communication under stressful
    circumstances.
    There is also a trend toward the use of "plain talk" with limited "Code" use.
     
    Savageduck, Dec 10, 2012
    #28
  9. Dallas

    tony cooper Guest

    I'm with the Duck, here. A neologism is a newly coined word that is
    entering the mainstream of common speech. It isn't in the mainstream
    yet, but it's showing signs of being adopted in the mainstream.

    A word that is newly coined, but has very isolated use, is not
    considered to be a neologism. An entry in the Urban Dictionary,
    considering the entry requirements, is not a qualification.

    A recurring typo, or misspelling, is not a neologism. It's a mistake.

    Up above, the word "burglarize" has been misspelled as "burgularize".
    Just because that word has now appeared in a newsgroup, it's not a
    neologism. You can enter it in the Urban Dictionary - there are no
    restrictions on entering any damn combination of letters there - and
    it's still not a neologism.

    Some misspellings or typos have entered the mainstream of written use
    and are considered neologisms. An example is "teh" for "the". It's
    caught on. "Pronographic" hasn't.
     
    tony cooper, Dec 11, 2012
    #29
  10. Which is what we were talking about, wasn't it?

    In other words, people use jargon outside official communication.
    And the jargon use is so pervasive that extraordinary steps
    are taken to reduce it's amount in official communication to
    a usable amount.
    Worse, the jargon is hard to understand by outsiders.

    And guess what, it's not in the OED.


    I was, btw, *not* talking about official communication.
    Which you knew perfectly well. Which makes your reply ---
    *centering* on it, ah ... disingenuous.
    That's one of the possible functions of jargon.
    Medical jargon has a similar function.

    So why should it be disingenuous to point out a jargon ---
    however useful it may be --- is not in the OED? Weren't you
    the one who insisted that a single word of jargon didn't exist
    (not even as a jargon word) because it wasn't in the OED?

    Surely only because "code" isn't in the OED. People listening
    in to the police radio should, after all, have no problems
    understanding what is said, even if they have no experience
    at all with the stuff. Otherwise criminals would need some
    smarts and that might stop a few ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 15, 2012
    #30
  11. Dallas

    Savageduck Guest

    In many instances. However, some of that jargon (sometimes used
    incoorectly and out of context by the entertainment media has found its
    way into general use. That does not in anyway make it correct English.
    Actually sometimes it is, and there is usually a perfectly correct word
    or phrase which should be used in place of the jargon.
    Why? You were the one who brought up jargon. I acknowledged that it was
    in general use by the rank and file, but is discouraged for official
    communications, That doesn't mean that it isn't imbedded in the Law
    enforcement culture, with some jargon limited to narrow use in some
    agencies and sometimes within departments within agencies.
    "Code Blue" is a very specific use of medical jargon, and anybody who
    needs to know understand what it means and what is expected of them if
    they hear it called. The same is true in Law enforcement when "Code 3"
    is heard.
    Many of the words used as police jargon are found in the OED, but
    sometimes it is tough to find what they mean in the law enforcement
    context. I give you the word "deuce" the OED is going to give all sorts
    of definitions, but not the one commonly understood in US law
    enforcement circles. I will give you a clue, it has to do with motor
    vehicles and alcohol.
    "Hot" has its own special meaning depending on the context a cop might
    use it. Then "nickel" also has several uses none of which are defined
    in the OED, but the words are there.
    ....and one last word found in the OED, for you to ponder on its
    possible law enforcement jargon usage, "scratch".
    As I have said somewhere in this thread the old "10 codes" are dying
    and "plain talk" is replacing it. So yesterday in Connecticut the old
    "10-32" would have been replaced with "Man with gun".
     
    Savageduck, Dec 16, 2012
    #31
  12. [/QUOTE]
    Sometimes. Examples?
    The correct phrase for "Morbus Bechterew" sort of *starts* with
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spondylitis_ankylosans
    and then runs several books long, quite a bot of it to avoid
    more jargon. Yep, that sort of phrase should always be used
    when communicating in medical circles.

    You were the one who said what's not in the OED does not
    exist, not even as jargon.
    That's how jargon works. Even if it's not in the OED.

    Does either exist in the OED?

    List some.
    Tennis, cards, emphasis --- nope, deuce is *not* in the OED
    with any meaning that could match.

    Hot also has a special meaning depending on the context an
    ordinary person might use it.
    Ah, now I get it. Inventing words bad, inventing completely
    new meanings for words good.

    "A rainbow clone is fire high rumble." I just invented
    the meanings. But that is fine. (In fact, it means exactly
    whatever I want it to mean, changing every time.)

    "The heisenbug turning half the blinkenlights into SED
    was caused by a scanno regarding how to cons up the control
    circuits" however is evil, cause there's stuff not in the OED.
    Never mind that it's meaning is well defined: There was a bug
    that altered behaviour when probed (due to interaction with
    the probing). The bug broke half the pretty front light
    emitting diodes. The reason for the bug was misreading a
    document telling you how to build the proper control circuits
    for the light emitting diode.

    Please reread.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    #32
  13. Dallas

    Savageduck Guest

    See below.
    Oh! I guess you did, but neglected to edit your presumptuous question.
    Which brings us back to "pronography" which is not found in the OED as
    it is a misspelling, not jargon, or as you claimed a neologism.
    ....and even then it is not correct use of English (or any other language).
    Not in the context of common usage. Also, there is little consistency
    with hospital emergency codes beyond a handful which have become
    globally standardized and used in the English speaking world.
    ....and "Code 3" means something different to law enforcement and
    emergency services in the USA, and those in Australia and the UK.
    See below - again.
    Oh! I guess you did, but neglected to edit your presumptuous question - again.
    My point exactly. The term is pure jargon when used by law enforcement
    in the USA and has not moved out of the "police culture" to the
    mainstream, as of yet, not even TV or Hollywood.
    Yup! but you didn't find a defined law enforcement usage in the OED,
    which qualifies it as jargon in that culture.
    No! Misspelling words and believing the misspelt word to be correct in
    the face of a perfectly acceptable correctly spelt word, and claiming
    that the misspelt word is a neologism, is bad.

    New meanings and altered meanings in a particular context happens all
    the time. Check on "semantics".
    SEMANTICS:
    the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a
    number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal
    semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense,
    reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which
    studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics,
    which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
    the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text
    Aah! I see that you are a fan of the Monty Pythonesque absurd.
    No need. No matter how much I reread, "pronographic" will remain a non-word.
     
    Savageduck, Dec 16, 2012
    #33
  14. [/QUOTE]
    A word that passes a spell checker based on the OED spelling
    is not "in the OED" when the meaning is not recorded in the
    OED. A portrait where the background is in focus instead of
    the face wouldn't be called 'in focus' either, now, would it?
    And your proof of that is ... because you said so!
    Even the OED adds words and phrases that started as --- obviously ---
    "not correct use of English", which at some point *become*
    "correct use of English". Otherwise you'd read this:
    Unferð maþelode, Ecglafes bearn,
    þe æt fotum sæt frean Scyldinga,
    onband beadurune (wæs him Beowulfes sið,
    modges merefaran, micel æfþunca,
    forþon þe he ne uþe þæt ænig oðer man
    æfre mærða þon ma middangeardes
    gehedde under heofenum þonne he sylfa):
    "Eart þu se Beowulf, se þe wið Brecan wunne,
    on sidne sæ ymb sund flite,
    ðær git for wlence wada cunnedon
    ond for dolgilpe on deop wæter
    aldrum neþdon?
    just as plainly as you read Shakespeare or your local papers.
    And it would be a very correct use of English to write and
    speak in this way today.

    Now, having agreed that English changes over time, you must
    now say where *you* see the authority which makes some word
    "correct" or "not correct use of English". Then you need to
    point out why English as spoken in a group must be measured
    by *your* measuring stick of English, when the USA and has so
    many dialects of English --- never mind Great Britain, never
    mind all the other English speaking nations ... see for example
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_English
    --- what parts of that are "correct" and which aren't, and
    how do you decide?

    Now, once you've got an authoritative answer to that question
    (and have at least most authorities agree to your answer),
    you can *try* to devise a test how to determine whether a
    certain word or phrase or use is "correct" in the context of
    a group. Just look at the lingo rappers or young people of
    colour use *amongst themselves* and see what *they*, as the
    sole intended recipients, think of your 'correct' or 'not
    correct' classification.
    So it is not a "correct use of English" to use anything but
    BBC English? Or maybe OED-English?

    See above. Spellchecker != "is in the OED". Otherwise I could
    call someone "a damn asshole and a pain in the posterior" and
    --- provided I used the OED spelling --- declare that that meant
    "you're OK, I like you".
    And it's not in the OED. QED.

    And qualifies the word as not being in the OED when used as
    jargon.

    So what's up with your "it's in the OED" examples?
    Please go see the French. They have a government agency for
    the purity of their language, looking out for anglicisms and
    "pointing out" the perfectly acceptable correctly spelled
    *French* word. To the point that official speech must not
    use the anglicism. You'll like them.

    On the other hand you have not grasped that a misspelled
    word --- let's take one you can easily look up: "filk" (a
    misspelling of "folk") --- can get a meaning quite different
    from what it's 'correctly' spelled word implies. According to
    you, that is bad. According to the real world, it simply is
    that way, and nobody's asking *you* what you think about it.

    So as long as you plaster a new meaning on a word that's
    written in the OED, you're fine, but if you use a word that
    Savageduck thinks is misspelled for that same thing, it's bad.

    How comes?

    It's interesting when I use a (defined) jargon close to me,
    it's pythonesque, but when you use one like "Code 3" it's
    serious.

    Please reread the part starting with "There is also a trend"
    and ending with "that might stop a few ..."

    BTW, do you read goat entrails or do you prefer a horoscope
    to predict all of the future of the English language?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 18, 2012
    #34
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.