Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 03/28/2014 20:14 (03/28/2014 20:14) |
| Message-ID | <slrnljbik7.bcc.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (1h & 1m) > Sandman |
In article <q3dbj994rojhuofq580vdd55lf1627iskl@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:
So - you don't recall the specifics, but are still going to claim that it was "a link or two or three"? Hilarious how thin the ice you're standing on is.SavageduckTony Cooper
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described so?
It was hardly an inundation. I don't recall the specifics, but it was a link or two or three. Weak substantiation, at that. He has a different idea of what "substantiation" means than I do.
The first time I used the word was here:
Sandman Re: Buying Adobe Elements? 05/27/2013 <mr-9ED69B.16491327052013@News.Individual.NET>
"Again, no I am not. You claiming that I am doesn't make me do it. You may think or wish that this is the case, but without explaining why this is the case, all the above is simple guessing on your part. You want there to be "one form" of sponsorship that I am in reference too, in spite of the onslaught of references that I and others have provided that agree with 100% of what I've said, and the exact amount of *nothing* you have provided in terms of substantiation."
That was in reference, in part, to this post:
Sandman Re: Buying Adobe Elements? 05/27/2013 <mr-208418.11441727052013@News.Individual.NET>
[...]
This is obviously not the case, given the fact that I have used photographs, wikipedia links, dictionary links and even accounting term glossary resources consistently throughout this entire "back and forth" thing to substantiate my claims. Let me show you my substantiations thus far, just to illustrate the sheer amount of it:
On the terms of my understanding the english translation of swedish accounting terms: http://www.nysscpa.org/glossary
On the definition of "sponsorship" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship
On the usage of sponsorship on american tv-shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibber_McGee_and_Molly#Sponsors
On my definition of an owner's manual:
And an example of an owner's manual that clearly has not gone through the marketing department where they have added/edited the content of it for marketing purposes: http://tinyurl.com/og32pdd
Do you feel there is any claim I have made where I have not substantiated that claim (even if you would *disagree* with the substantiation)?
I am more than willing to remedy that, of course. I take great care in making sure I have some form of substantiation when I make a claim - at least the first time I make it! :-D"
Clearly an "onslaught" given the fact that it 1. was an overwhleming large number of substantiations (considering you had provided exactly zero substantiations) and 2. it was hard for you to cope with the amount of substantiations.
An individual can unleash an onslaught of posts, but that implies a very large quantity of posts. And, that's what we call "spamming".Of course not. Onslaught is not a synonym for "large quantity", it needs the "overwhelming" parameter to be present - like when I substantiate my claims over and over and again and all you can do in response is ignore it and snip it away. That's an onslaught, when the number of X is too much for you to handle.
"Onslaught" is usually reserved for what other people do, and masses of other people rather than one person.Ah, this is the supposed "accepted" definition, then? Haha. You have to tell the Oxford dictionary, who use this examples:
"in some parks the onslaught of cars and people far exceeds capacity."
As you may (not) realize, that could mean that 25 cars showed up for an even where the parking capacity was 5.
It's also usually chosen to mean something negative.Indeed - the onslaught of substantiation you have been unable to handle have really wrecked your credibility.
For example, there was an onslaught of objections to Miley Cyrus's "twerking" performance. When it's a description of a large number of positive responses, we're more likely to say something like "a flood of supporting tweets".A flood is equally usually meant to describe something negative. Maybe you mean words like "abundance", "plethora", "excess" or "surplus" just to mention a few words that are synonyms but with a more positive or at least neutral connotation.
Words can be like spices in cooking. A good cook knows which spices to use and how much spice to add to a particular dish.I would hate to eat at your place, then. You seem to have no idea what spices to use, and will argue indefinately that pepper isn't "accepted" or that chilli is the correct spice for pancakes.
-- Sandman[.net]
03/13/2014-
-
