bob wrote:
> Actually, you are giving him too much credit, as his correction, is actually
> incorrect.
>

Hilarious, isn't it?

:0)

a

 

Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>
> Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
> quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
> "incorrect"?
>

Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
will explain what you did wrong.

a

 

Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>
> Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
> quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
> "incorrect"?
>

Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
will explain what you did wrong.

a

 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:29:23 -0500, "bob" <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>Nothing is funny about cultural intolerance - there simply wasn't any here.
>How is making light of an auto manufacturer culturally intolerant? Did I
>miss how Fiat and Italy are now synonyms?

You're an Italian, yet know nothing of Italy's industrial history?

>Tantamount to equating "Jaguar,
>can pass anything on the street except a service station" to UK (or now US)
>bashing. That is a less than tenuous link. In fact, it is a non-existent
>link.

"Fix It Again *Tony*"... Why not Tommy, Timmay?

>Oh and by the way, you may like to check the Fiat website - where you might
>just find (I know it will be hard for you to do so, with the amazing lack of
>alacrity in all things web you've displayed)

FFS... One hasty post...

>the name of the company is "Fiat Auto SpA".

And yet still FIAT is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili
Torino. ..."Fiat" is a marketing-friendly homonym.

>Have you used your MI6 contacts to check my ancestry, comrade?

LOL

 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:29:23 -0500, "bob" <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>Nothing is funny about cultural intolerance - there simply wasn't any here.
>How is making light of an auto manufacturer culturally intolerant? Did I
>miss how Fiat and Italy are now synonyms?

You're an Italian, yet know nothing of Italy's industrial history?

>Tantamount to equating "Jaguar,
>can pass anything on the street except a service station" to UK (or now US)
>bashing. That is a less than tenuous link. In fact, it is a non-existent
>link.

"Fix It Again *Tony*"... Why not Tommy, Timmay?

>Oh and by the way, you may like to check the Fiat website - where you might
>just find (I know it will be hard for you to do so, with the amazing lack of
>alacrity in all things web you've displayed)

FFS... One hasty post...

>the name of the company is "Fiat Auto SpA".

And yet still FIAT is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili
Torino. ..."Fiat" is a marketing-friendly homonym.

>Have you used your MI6 contacts to check my ancestry, comrade?

LOL

 

"Harold Adrian Russell Philby" <home.office@kremlin.co.ru> wrote in message
news:2atjr0hi4apm277rp57sh8r0kqd00jsfh7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:29:23 -0500, "bob" <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>Nothing is funny about cultural intolerance - there simply wasn't any
>>here.
>>How is making light of an auto manufacturer culturally intolerant? Did I
>>miss how Fiat and Italy are now synonyms?
>
> You're an Italian, yet know nothing of Italy's industrial history?

Less than I should, but Italy is so much more than Fiat, wouldn't you say?

>
>>Tantamount to equating "Jaguar,
>>can pass anything on the street except a service station" to UK (or now
>>US)
>>bashing. That is a less than tenuous link. In fact, it is a non-existent
>>link.
>
> "Fix It Again *Tony*"... Why not Tommy, Timmay?

The remark is not a slam on Tony, it is a slam on Fiat. Picking a name that
most would construe as consistent with the manufacturer's country isn't
really out of place is it? So the only comment, if you will, being made
about Tony is to be a typical Italian name, that happens to start with "T".
I don't know anyone that uses Tony as a slur against Italians. If such a
loaded name were used, I could definitely see your point of view. The
bottom line remains, it is not Tony at center of this remark, it is Fiat.
Overactive political correctness has ruined even simple discourse.

>
>>Oh and by the way, you may like to check the Fiat website - where you
>>might
>>just find (I know it will be hard for you to do so, with the amazing lack
>>of
>>alacrity in all things web you've displayed)
>
> FFS... One hasty post...
>
>>the name of the company is "Fiat Auto SpA".
>
> And yet still FIAT is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili
> Torino. ..."Fiat" is a marketing-friendly homonym.

Yes, the logo on the cars is FIAT, and yes I already knew the origin of it,
but in fact the company name is Fiat. Dinging me for referring to it the
same way as the company itself, hardly seems warranted.

>
>>Have you used your MI6 contacts to check my ancestry, comrade?
>
> LOL

I'm glad you appreciated that humor. Is it time to stop wasting our time on
this thread?


>

 

"Harold Adrian Russell Philby" <home.office@kremlin.co.ru> wrote in message
news:2atjr0hi4apm277rp57sh8r0kqd00jsfh7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:29:23 -0500, "bob" <bob@bob.com> wrote:
>>Nothing is funny about cultural intolerance - there simply wasn't any
>>here.
>>How is making light of an auto manufacturer culturally intolerant? Did I
>>miss how Fiat and Italy are now synonyms?
>
> You're an Italian, yet know nothing of Italy's industrial history?

Less than I should, but Italy is so much more than Fiat, wouldn't you say?

>
>>Tantamount to equating "Jaguar,
>>can pass anything on the street except a service station" to UK (or now
>>US)
>>bashing. That is a less than tenuous link. In fact, it is a non-existent
>>link.
>
> "Fix It Again *Tony*"... Why not Tommy, Timmay?

The remark is not a slam on Tony, it is a slam on Fiat. Picking a name that
most would construe as consistent with the manufacturer's country isn't
really out of place is it? So the only comment, if you will, being made
about Tony is to be a typical Italian name, that happens to start with "T".
I don't know anyone that uses Tony as a slur against Italians. If such a
loaded name were used, I could definitely see your point of view. The
bottom line remains, it is not Tony at center of this remark, it is Fiat.
Overactive political correctness has ruined even simple discourse.

>
>>Oh and by the way, you may like to check the Fiat website - where you
>>might
>>just find (I know it will be hard for you to do so, with the amazing lack
>>of
>>alacrity in all things web you've displayed)
>
> FFS... One hasty post...
>
>>the name of the company is "Fiat Auto SpA".
>
> And yet still FIAT is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili
> Torino. ..."Fiat" is a marketing-friendly homonym.

Yes, the logo on the cars is FIAT, and yes I already knew the origin of it,
but in fact the company name is Fiat. Dinging me for referring to it the
same way as the company itself, hardly seems warranted.

>
>>Have you used your MI6 contacts to check my ancestry, comrade?
>
> LOL

I'm glad you appreciated that humor. Is it time to stop wasting our time on
this thread?


>

 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:12:26 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>> Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
>> quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
>> "incorrect"?
>
>Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
>will explain what you did wrong.

....Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?

 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:12:26 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>> Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
>> quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
>> "incorrect"?
>
>Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
>will explain what you did wrong.

....Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?

 

Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:12:26 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>
>>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>>
>>>Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
>>>quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
>>>"incorrect"?
>>
>>Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
>>will explain what you did wrong.
>
>
> ...Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?
>

Ok, I'll start off with the above because you're still doing it. Using
quotes around the word "arbitrary" and the word "incorrect" is
unnecessary.* You weren't quoting me there nor were you denoting irony,
you may have intended to, but you were actually using the words yourself.

A direct quote would read like:
"Arbitrary," a said.

They way your sentence above really reads is:
...become either the word "arbitrary" or the word "incorrect".

You just should have typed the words with no quotes because you were
trying to suggest what those words meant, not the actual words themselves.

a

PS. Don't be discouraged; Herman Melville didn't get it right either...

* Note: In this sentence, quotation marks are used to denote the words
themselves, not their meanings.

 

Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:12:26 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>
>>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>>
>>>Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
>>>quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
>>>"incorrect"?
>>
>>Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
>>will explain what you did wrong.
>
>
> ...Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?
>

Ok, I'll start off with the above because you're still doing it. Using
quotes around the word "arbitrary" and the word "incorrect" is
unnecessary.* You weren't quoting me there nor were you denoting irony,
you may have intended to, but you were actually using the words yourself.

A direct quote would read like:
"Arbitrary," a said.

They way your sentence above really reads is:
...become either the word "arbitrary" or the word "incorrect".

You just should have typed the words with no quotes because you were
trying to suggest what those words meant, not the actual words themselves.

a

PS. Don't be discouraged; Herman Melville didn't get it right either...

* Note: In this sentence, quotation marks are used to denote the words
themselves, not their meanings.

 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:07:34 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:12:26 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>>>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
>>>>quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
>>>>"incorrect"?
>>>
>>>Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
>>>will explain what you did wrong.
>>
>> ...Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?
>
>Ok, I'll start off with the above because you're still doing it. Using
>quotes around the word "arbitrary" and the word "incorrect" is
>unnecessary.* You weren't quoting me there nor were you denoting irony,
>you may have intended to, but you were actually using the words yourself.
>
>A direct quote would read like:
>"Arbitrary," a said.
>
>They way your sentence above really reads is:
> ...become either the word "arbitrary" or the word "incorrect".
>
>You just should have typed the words with no quotes because you were
>trying to suggest what those words meant, not the actual words themselves.
>
>PS. Don't be discouraged; Herman Melville didn't get it right either...
>
>* Note: In this sentence, quotation marks are used to denote the words
>themselves, not their meanings.

[blink. ...blink, blink.]

Yeah...

....I'm going to charitably conclude English is not your native
language, and bid you a long and happy life.

 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:07:34 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:12:26 GMT, a <a@a.ca> wrote:
>>>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just when did the use of quotation marks to indicate 1) a direct
>>>>quotation, or 2) ironic usages, become either "arbitrary" or
>>>>"incorrect"?
>>>
>>>Print your post, take it to your 10th grade English teacher and they
>>>will explain what you did wrong.
>>
>> ...Why can't you answer a simple, direct question?
>
>Ok, I'll start off with the above because you're still doing it. Using
>quotes around the word "arbitrary" and the word "incorrect" is
>unnecessary.* You weren't quoting me there nor were you denoting irony,
>you may have intended to, but you were actually using the words yourself.
>
>A direct quote would read like:
>"Arbitrary," a said.
>
>They way your sentence above really reads is:
> ...become either the word "arbitrary" or the word "incorrect".
>
>You just should have typed the words with no quotes because you were
>trying to suggest what those words meant, not the actual words themselves.
>
>PS. Don't be discouraged; Herman Melville didn't get it right either...
>
>* Note: In this sentence, quotation marks are used to denote the words
>themselves, not their meanings.

[blink. ...blink, blink.]

Yeah...

....I'm going to charitably conclude English is not your native
language, and bid you a long and happy life.