Originally posted by kirksey957You pick one scripture passage and I will pick the other.
Ivanhoe, I challenge you to a preach-off. A brief sermon that will fit into a RHP post. It will be judged on clarity, inspiration, theological integrity and creativity. We will let the recs determine the winner. What say ye?
You may be at a disadvantage, there, Cap'n Kirk. Anyone who is of the belief that there are only two passages of Scripture likely will not be able to glean much from any of them.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI find it very unfair that well...
This should be a very simple question to resolve.
Suppose I am in some debate and have a very large number of related points to make and defend. Suppose that the number of characters I require to do this exceeds RHP's post length threshold several times over. Suppose that accordingly, I perforate my points into numerous (say, 5) segments, enter ...[text shortened]... ne post per day, and I enter these five segments in one sitting, have I violated our agreement?
Nope. Sorry. Can't care.
------------
But, okay.
You shouldn't be punished for being long winded. So I'd say that it counts as one post.
I was going to write something witty, but try as I might, it's just not gonna happen.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI didn't see Jesus being at a disadvantage with the sermon on the mount. I simply felt that the format of the limits of the RHP post would be sufficient for a devotional thought. Ivanhoe has lots to argue with about me and I was interested in his pastoral wisdom that revealed a little of his thoughts and theology.
[b]You pick one scripture passage and I will pick the other.
You may be at a disadvantage, there, Cap'n Kirk. Anyone who is of the belief that there are only two passages of Scripture likely will not be able to glean much from any of them.[/b]
Originally posted by kirksey957You missed his 'joke.' You wrote 'You pick one, I'll pick the other,' as if there
I didn't see Jesus being at a disadvantage with the sermon on the mount. I simply felt that the format of the limits of the RHP post would be sufficient for a devotional thought. Ivanhoe has lots to argue with about me and I was interested in his pastoral wisdom that revealed a little of his thoughts and theology.
were only two. It was something that everyone who read the post knew what you
intended to write, but all of us had enough self-esteem to not poke at a grammatical
error, knowing that making fun of such a slip doesn't demonstrate our superiority or
make us feel any better.
Of course, Freaky could stand to look up the proper singular-plural for criterion/criteria,
if he really wanted to improve himself, but I suspect that he would just prefer to slam
other people in an effort to be 'alpha male' in the group.
Nemesio
Originally posted by telerionIf an official debate is structured, then there are necessarily arbitrary limits. Because
I think restricting posts to fit within one box would not do the topic justice. Really if this is going to be 6 one-box posts, then what's the point of all the theatrics with judges, official debate announcements, and peanut galleries? I thought one of the main purposes for having judges is that we would actually bother to read 3 page posts carefully.
debates are oral, those limits are not on the number of words, but on the time spent saying
them. Those limits are inherent to the process: a debate is, by construct, the ability to
communicate a complicated point of view in a concise, precise, and organized manner.
Now, as I said in the private correspondence, I don't care what those limits are, but they
need to be agreed upon by the participants in question. The original format indicated 'one
post' and I think that it is clear what that means. Now, if the participants want to agree
to a modified format, given that 'one post' is certainly on the light side, I think that would
be a good idea.
But, without some sort of restriction, there is nothing to say that 4000 pages worth
wouldn't be 'one post' either. Since the term 'one post' seems pretty clear to me, I'd say
that the Doctor's example constitutes five posts.
I really think that there should be a meeting point on this issue, even if it entails extending
the deadline to allow for modification.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhen you say 'done that lots, too' I'm assuming that's in response to
don;t worry mate - done that lots too! Just couldn't resist the hook!
'Stop masturbating to internet porn and try your charms on a real woman.'
If not, you might want to clear up precisely what you mean................
😲😲😲😲😲😲
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf every post, but the last is ended by TBC, then that chain of posts constitute one post, IMO.
This should be a very simple question to resolve.
Suppose I am in some debate and have a very large number of related points to make and defend. Suppose that the number of characters I require to do this exceeds RHP's post length threshold several times over. Suppose that accordingly, I perforate my points into numerous (say, 5) segments, enter ...[text shortened]... ne post per day, and I enter these five segments in one sitting, have I violated our agreement?
For example, I consider my 5 posts here as 1 post. Thread 32573 They were split up not because of too many characters, but because of site constraints, where only 1 fen board is allowed in each post.
D
Shameless Plugs Inc.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioOf course, Freaky could stand to look up the proper singular-plural for criterion/criteria, if he really wanted to improve himself
Always eager-beaver for self-improvement, I second, third and fourth-guessed myself on the use of criteria/criterion. Correct me if I am wrong, but the plural of criteria is criterion.
In our ongoing discussion which involved 'areas to be considered,' Nemesio called the areas suggested 'criteria.'
My rejoining posts, if I am reading them correctly, all use the plural criterion when speaking of the areas being considered during the discussion.
I may be mistaken, of course.
Definition
criterion, not standard criteria
noun [C]
a condition or fact used as a standard by which something can be judged or considered
The use of criteria as a singular noun is common, esp. in speech.
(from Cambridge Dictionary of American English)
7 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Always eager-beaver for self-improvement, I second, third and fourth-guessed myself on the use of criteria/criterion. Correct me if I am wrong, but the plural of criteria is criterion.
You are wrong. 'Criterion' is the singular; 'criteria' is the plural.
Criterion comes from Kriterion, from Krinein meaning to judge.
Note your own entry, by the way:
criterion, not standard criteria
What you are confusing is the abominble practice of using 'criteria' as a singular (e.g.,
'the first criteria [sic] is blah blah blah'😉. You've taken it a step futher by assuming
that because common usage has more or less accepted 'criteria' as singular, that
criterion is, in fact, the original plural. A casual study of the first chapter of Greek
declensions will show you that this is not the case.
While you can argue the colloquial usage of criteria as the singular (although, for a
person of your rigorous grammatical standards, I would wager that such a concession
would not be acceptable), the usage of criterion as the plural is just downright ignorant.
My opinion is: stop posturing with your grammatical crusade on a website which is for
fun and debate and save the self-stroking for academia where it is often relished.
Nemesio
P.S., If you know Latin better than Greek, you'll find that 'data' has already suffered
the same fate that 'criteria' has (that is, it is improperly used as the singular), such
as 'This data says...' rather than 'This datum says...;' or 'The data shows...'
rather than 'The data show...'😉.
P.P.S., You might be amused to know that graffiti is plural (the singular is 'graffito'😉,
but I think I'm the only person who bothers with that one.
Originally posted by NemesioWrong as you pronounce, the company surrounding me appear to agree with the usage of criteria in the singular form. Wrong, indeed, I am of criterion as the plural of the same. As with the shift between data, datum/agenda/agendum, I appear to have been (temporarily at least, given the confluence of language) left in the cold.
What you are confusing is the abominble practice of using 'criteria' as a singular
My opinion is: stop posturing with your grammatical crusade
As far as a 'grammatical crusade' is concerned, which way would you have it? You would rather the reader of the posts herein should labor, while the posters sloppily spew, carefree of any heavy work, such as at least resembling the language? I disagree. Although not espousing a campaign for colons, I think posters owe it to their adoring public, a modicum of precision.
Too, why call me to self-improvement, if said improvement will be met with such reproach?
P.S. Don't recall hearing the one on graffiti. Thanks for that, and thanks for the correction on criterion/criteria.