Thank goodness we have the Beeb

[Doppleganger]

Is it possible to invent new words?
We all know what profanities mean.
How about I invent a new word: "infanities"? I'll leave it up to the reader to guess the meaning, although it should be obvious.

Edit:

It's already been invented
"infanities (noun) : Infinite use of profanities.
Must you use such infanities?
Submitted by: Kevin Joyce from Pennsylvania on Feb. 23, 2007 16:08"
http://nws.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_display_alpha.php?letter=In&last=50
But I disagree with the definition. In fact the current definition is nonsensical:
"Must you use such infanities 'Infinite use of profanities'."
It should mean use of infantile comments.

 

[durhamplumber]

..

 

[durhamplumber]

Probably because of their opposition to religion.

You can make quite a good case for Jesus being a "Marxist".

Shedzy,,you could make an argument that water is not wet!...how could jesus be a marxist,before it existed? .

 

[noseall]

how could jesus be a marxist,before it existed? .

How do you know K.M. was not a Jesus-ist?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Shedzy,,you could make an argument that water is not wet!...how could jesus be a marxist,before it existed? .

Read it again, only this time do it properly

You can make quite a good case for Jesus being a "Marxist".

You're not very good at this, are you.

 

[durhamplumber]

Read it again, only this time do it properly

​

You're not very good at this, are you.

See what I mean,,you can argue with yourself over sweet f a

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm arguing with you.

You criticised a post of mine because you wilfully or incompetently failed to recognise the presence of quote marks around a word in it.

I pointed that out, because your criticism relied on those marks not being there, so whether by design or accident, you ignoring them shows that you are not very good.

And your latest post, where you fail to understand that as well, is yet more proof that you are no good at this sort of thing at all.

 

[Notch7]

Actually no - when quoting a block of text it is not normal practice (you should practise your spelling, BTW) to enclose it in quotation marks. It is normal to cite the author

Are you sure about that?

 

[Doppleganger]

I remember when I were a lad that communism was presented as the devil's work and any sensible christian would denounce it.

What has being a "sensible christian"to do with denouncing communism?..Any sensible person would denounce christianity,, never mind communism.

And your latest post, where you fail to understand that as well, is yet more proof that you are no good at this sort of thing at all.

He does seem to misunderstand many posts.
I think he read my post as: "when I were a lad that communism was presented as the devil's work, and any sensible christian would denounce it."
In my original comment I did not include the comma. Therefore it was all part of the same statement "communism was presented as....", rather than a separate additional statement.

Therefore there was little point in debating his point, as I agreed with it in my original comment.

 

[Doppleganger]

Actually no - when quoting a block of text it is not normal practice ... to enclose it in quotation marks. It is normal to cite the author.

Are you sure about that?

"A block quotation is a direct quotation that is not placed inside quotation marks but instead is set off from the rest of a text by starting it on a new line and indenting it from the left margin.
...quotations that run longer than four or five lines are blocked, but as noted below, style guides disagree on the minimum length for a block quotation." https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-block-quotation-1689173

I have learnt something from this discussion.
Thank you to all participants.

 

[Notch7]

"A block quotation is a direct quotation that is not placed inside quotation marks but instead is set off from the rest of a text by starting it on a new line and indenting it from the left margin.
...quotations that run longer than four or five lines are blocked, but as noted below, style guides disagree on the minimum length for a block quotation." https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-block-quotation-1689173

I have learnt something from this discussion.
Thank you to all participants.

You have only explained the term 'block quotation' - you havent proven it is normal practice.

 

[Doppleganger]

You have only explained the term 'block quotation' - you havent proven it is normal practice.

Look at the link. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-block-quotation-1689173

 

[Notch7]

Look at the link. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-block-quotation-1689173

That only explains what a block quotation is, not if its normal practice.

 

[Notch7]

But feel free to keep posting more proof that you don't know what you're doing.

Actually no - when quoting a block of text it is not normal practice (you should practise your spelling, BTW) to enclose it in quotation marks. It is normal to cite the author. Like this, which clearly shows that JohnD was quoting Hugo Rifkind:

Seems you dont know what you are doing either.

A block quotation needs to be indented, to show it is different.

Otherwise the multiple quotation marks rule would apply.........

 

[Doppleganger]

Seems you dont know what you are doing either.

A block quotation needs to be indented, to show it is different.

Otherwise the multiple quotation marks rule would apply.........

Good grief!
So John omitted to indent the first line of the block of text?
But all of the rest of the post followed the accepted practice!

And you have persistently gone on about it in a vain attempt to prove someone wrong. In fact your argument has developed along the way in that pursuance of proving someone wrong!
How insecure is that!