TUNA!
 

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
rw wrote:
Bob Weinberger wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...


When confronted with a question about the meaning of a word, I have a
couple of choices. I can look up the word in a well respected
dictionary, or I can ask you or Wolfgang.



Well I feel sorry for you if you truly believe that those are your only
choices to acquire understanding of the meaning of a word.


But of the two, where should I put my money?

After further reflection, I realize that you are absolutely right. I do
have other choices besides consulting a dictionary, or you, or Wolfgang.
I could, for example, ask Willi or Charlie. :-)

In fact, when I think about it, the array of choices is overwhelmingly
vast. I could poll every English speaker on the face of the earth. Maybe
that's why they invented dictionaries. :-)

I could investigate the etymology of the verb "to cull" -- it's closely
related to the verb "to collect."

I'm not wedded to dictionary definitions. Many words in common usage
have meanings that evade the best attempts of lexicographers to pin them
down. Not only that, but the meanings of some words change faster than
new editions can keep up.

If someone were to use a word in a way that expanded or stretched its
dictionary definition, I wouldn't be bothered (within limits). Remember
the "meniscus" thread? (I may have been guilty recently when I objected
to Particle Salad saying he was "almost" a purist, or words to that
effect, but I was just trying to needle him a little. I wasn't serious.)

However, when someone insists that his definition is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE
usage, like you have done, and when that idiosyncratic definition stands
in contradiction to the dictionary definition, and in contradiction to
the opinions of other English speakers (who admittedly may not have
reached the highly refined, intelligent literacy of, for example,
Wolfgang), I object. Baloney.


Still don't have any idea what Timmy said, huh?

Wolfgang
who, optimist that he is, thinks timmy finally figured it out. :)

TUNA!
 

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
After further reflection, I realize that you are absolutely right. I do
have other choices besides consulting a dictionary, or you, or Wolfgang.
I could, for example, ask Willi or Charlie. :-)

snip

However, when someone insists that his definition is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE
usage, like you have done, and when that idiosyncratic definition stands
in contradiction to the dictionary definition, and in contradiction to
the opinions of other English speakers (who admittedly may not have
reached the highly refined, intelligent literacy of, for example,
Wolfgang), I object. Baloney.

OK, RW, rather than use the authority of dictionaries, which, as you say,
may contain definitions that are outdated by the time they are published, or
take the opinions of others you may or may not trust, how would you, based
on your life experiences and hopefully your ability to think logically,
honestly answer what the verb cull means to YOU personally.
Before you answer by spouting the dictionary's definitions, think back to a
post I made a short time ago, to wit: If T-Bone, Charlie, or Willi were to
declare that you are a cull, after picking you out from others, using the
process which by remarkable coincidence is called culling ....

And no you don't need to actually respond to this post; it is after all your
own personal definition.

--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

TUNA!
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:

OK, RW, rather than use the authority of dictionaries, which, as you say,
may contain definitions that are outdated by the time they are published, or
take the opinions of others you may or may not trust, how would you, based
on your life experiences and hopefully your ability to think logically,
honestly answer what the verb cull means to YOU personally.

Back in the 70s I was culled from the ranks of young men subject to the
draft, intended supply the government with cannon fodder in Viet Nam. I
couldn't have been more pleased.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

TUNA!
 

"rw" wrote in message news:C75cc.16217
Back in the 70s I was culled from the ranks of young men subject to the
draft, intended supply the government with cannon fodder in Viet Nam. I
couldn't have been more pleased.

Just goes to show that being culled (selected as undesireable) for certain
purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. ;)


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

TUNA!
 

On 4 Apr 2004 07:15:54 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

"Wolfgang" wrote in message ...

Actually, there are vanishingly few C&R purists and exactly zero C&K purists
who have made their presence known in this news group. This is one of the
two major reasons that the entire argument is so tedious and unrelievedly
stupid. The other, of course, is that there is no issue.

Well I see that didn't stop you from participating :-)

While I would like to agree with the sentiment, it must simply
be observed that _something_ in this newsgroup, the FF glossy rags,
the "cash flow" business, everything else that revolves around
flyfishing _did_ cause cyli to perceive a hostility to C+K. It is
my opinion that she perceived a real phenomenon, that she isn't
crazy but rather observant.


I am a bit weird, but not crazy. Yes, I have the _impression_ of a
bias. Probably because of the numbers or general talk of how many
fish are often caught in a day by many of the people here. It's
obvious they're not killing them (I don't think they're poachers,
except possibly in the cooking sense), and there's often talk of
release. And I don't recall people talking about how they prepared
the fish when they got them home or how good they taste. A few have
mentioned smoking them. Very few. Very seldom. Leads to an overall
_impression_ I've gotten that most don't eat them. As I leap to
conclusions much more easily than I physically leap out of my computer
chair, I'm now seeing that I arrived in the midst of one that's not as
tenable as I'd thought.

I don't read much of the glossy stuff, nor even the pulpy stuff. This
group is the basis of 98% of what I've learned about trout and fly
fishing. I have one video and that's a teaching / guide one and
there's no reason he'd kill a fish on there. I don't recall him
saying anything about either mode of fishing. I occasionally read
something in Field and Stream, but they're not big into c & r, as near
as I remember. There I assume that most eat a lot of the fish they
catch. Something about shooting Bambi and then cutting him up and
taking him home for dinner leads one (this one) to assume they're not
into much of releasing stuff that tastes good.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

TUNA!
 

One would expect a conversation like this at a woman's quilting bee. Perhaps
fly tieing attracts people, who, in their admirable fascination with
minutiae, exhibit other characteristics usually associated with a bunch of
damn women. It is becoming clear that this habit of continual nit-picking
with the accompanying ad hominem attack is not some learned behavior which
can be easily changed. It is a constitutional defect relating to sexual
orientation. If you look like you have pms, act like you have pms, get ****y
and mean like you have pms, damn, you could be a woman! But you probably tie
really nice flies, and if you wished, could crochet and knit lovely doillies
(sp) too!

TUNA!
 

TUNA!
 

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:29:19 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

Just goes to show that being culled (selected as undesireable) for certain
purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. ;)

Do a Google search on the phrase "culled from" and see what percentage
of the usage in the results requires the 'culls' to be undesirable.
--
Charlie...

TUNA!
 

"Darwin Vander Stelt" wrote in message
...
One would expect a conversation like this at a woman's quilting bee.
Perhaps
fly tieing attracts people, who, in their admirable fascination with
minutiae, exhibit other characteristics usually associated with a bunch of
damn women. It is becoming clear that this habit of continual nit-picking
with the accompanying ad hominem attack is not some learned behavior which
can be easily changed. It is a constitutional defect relating to sexual
orientation. If you look like you have pms, act like you have pms, get
****y
and mean like you have pms, damn, you could be a woman! But you probably
tie
really nice flies, and if you wished, could crochet and knit lovely
doillies
(sp) too!

Hm.......you got something against quilting, Derwood?

Wolfgang
the united states air force knows where you live........and it has powerful
friends.

TUNA!
 

Hm.......you got something against quilting, Derwood?

Wolfgang
the united states air force knows where you live........and it has powerful
friends.

Just looking up the coordinates now.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse Email to reply