"Dirty Tricks" and "Both Sides Do It"

My point exactly, actually . . . maybe I was being way too subtle.

Or "too clever by half."

Lately, the anonymous barrage crossposting crap has gotten even worse than
normal.

Sorry if my thread about off-topic posting was, well, off topic.

Steve


"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ...

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
| Hey Gang:
|
| So with all of the recent anonymous smear campaigns- unsubstantiated,
| "howler" type accusations- you know, the ones from anonymous posters
with
| all of the ~~~ symbols etc. . . .
|
| . . . does anyone want to take up a rational, fact based discussion of
the
| premise that "both sides do it" (use "Dirty Tricks;" e.g., lie, smear,
use
| proxies, mistrepresent, cheat on election/campaign laws, etc.)?
|
| There are objective, "scientific" methods to determine to what extent
each
| political party uses so-called "dirty tricks" in their campaigns.
|
| Anyone want to discuss which side relies more heavily on dirty tricks
and
| to what extent?
|
| --
| *********************************
| Steve & Leslie Swartz
| Abolish the Police State
| and
| the Welfare State
| VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
| ********************************
|
|






Leslie, unless one or both sides start using military aircraft - it
really
is irrelevant for this newsgroup.


In any case, US campaign politics becomes less and interesting the
further
you are away from the US.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

vincent p. norris wrote:

Best I noticed "the *one* poster" who was/is fond of tildes.
I've applied a "rule" to all messages starting thusly.

Can I do that, using Agent? It complains about a syntax error.

Dan, do you suppose that might be because there's no such word as
"thusly"?

vince norris

Vince, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary thinks there is...

--

-Gord.

In article , Cub Driver
writes

My bet is that we are going to see the dirtiest, nastiest
election campaign in the post-war period.

You evidently haven't followed many American elections. This one, so
far, is notable mostly for its blandness.


I'd rather not have to follow any. Other countries' elections are even
more boring than one's own, especially when fought in a newsgroup.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Vince, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary thinks there is...

Interesting, Gord. My M-W College Edition (hard copy) does not.

Of course, "ordinary" dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
They report what people say and write, not what they should say and
write; and different editors have different standards of how often a
misuse must appear before it goes into the dictionary. "Thusly" does
appear with some frequency.

"Usage dictionaries"and "writers' guides" report what recognized
authorities agree are correct and incorrect usages. Most authorities
seem to consider "thusly" poor usage.

For example, the _Prentice Hall Reference Guide to Grammar and Usage_
(1991) says, on p. 327, "Thusly: This is an incorrect substitute for
thus."

Bergen and Cornelia Evans say, in _A Dictionary of Modern American
Usage_, p. 512, "Thusly seems to have originated in the Boston
_Journal_ in1889. Whether it was the product of illiteracy or
exuberance is not known, but it is hard to see what purpose it
serves."

Wilson Follet's discussion of the problem of adding "ly" to irregular
adverbs runs from page 306 to 308 in _Modern American Usage_. In
essence, he says that people "feel" that an adverb must end in "ly"
and thus (!) add those letters where they do not belong. (Although we
do not very often encounter the phrase "run fastly," despite that fact
that some people "run slowly.")

The _American Heritage_ online says:

ADVERB:
Usage Problem Thus.
USAGE NOTE:
Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an
alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus
or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by
humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of
poorly educated people straining to sound stylish.
The word has subsequently gained some currency in
educated usage, but it is still often regarded as
incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found
it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing
thus can still be used as in the examples above; in
other styles this way, like this, and other such
expressions are more natural.

Hope you'll forgive the long-winded response.

vince norris

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Cub Driver writes:

My bet is that we are going to see the dirtiest, nastiest
election campaign in the post-war period.

You evidently haven't followed many American elections. This one, so
far, is notable mostly for its blandness.

Actually, most of teh Presidential Campaigns of the 20th Century, and
leter, have been, on the whole, rather on the dull side. If we were
to go back to the 19th Century...
"Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa?"
"Gone to the White House! Haw! Haw! Haw!"

A Harrison campaign slogan used against Grover Cleveland, when it was
discovered that he had supported a child born out of wedlock.

It rather backfired, though. Rather than duck the issue, Clevelan
scknowledged the action, pointed out that out of the 4 or 5 likely
candidates for Paternity in this case, (Every generation thinks that
they were the ones to discover sex, or at least improve on it) he was
in the best position to provide support, and cheerfully did so.
Instead of being covered in mud, he came across as a man of honor who
was willing to deal with teh consequences of his actions.

Then there was the Douglas/Lincoln election of 1860... We all know
what a lovefest that turned out to be,

American elections of the 1800's would put current doings to shame!

Probably some of the most bitter were the Adams-Jefferson and
JQ Adams-Jackson contests. Absolute raw, fabricated, viciousness!

Many of the elections featured backroom deal-making that would make
Florida 2000 look angelic.

But certainly compared with typical 20th century electioneering, the
current contest is going to be a very bitter one, and given the
increasing polarity between Left and Right, I'd expect the trend to
continue in future contests.


SMH

But there have been a few rather dubious anti-Kerry postings
as well on this newsgroup. Far fewer, I admit that, and less
trollish. That may be because trolls know that most of the
readership here is not easily provoked by anti-Kerry
statements... And because Kerry is most remarkable for his
blandness, while Bush provokes violent feelings pro or contra.

Yes, all very true.

(But don't underestimate Kerry's abiility to stir up anger! For
example, check out http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

vincent p. norris wrote:

Hope you'll forgive the long-winded response.

vince norris

Of course Vince, I appreciate the info sir.
--

-Gord.

According to the OED, "thusly" is colloquial term for "thus" dating to
the 19th century. Actually, I think it's a mistake made by elegant
Victorians trying to pretty up the adverb. It's not shown as a
separate word.

Webster's Collegiate of course regards it as word without any
apologies. American lexicographers gave up standards at about the same
time American universities did. To do otherwise would be to enforce
the the Male Gaze, or the Canon, or sumpin.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

According to the OED, "thusly" is colloquial term for "thus" dating to
the 19th century. Actually, I think it's a mistake made by elegant
Victorians trying to pretty up the adverb.

I think so too, Dan. Some folks think a longer word is more elegant
and sounds more intelligent than a short word--although the opposite
is true. The author of one of my books on writing calls that "the lure
of the additional syllable."

So we constantly hear "at this point in time" instead of "now," and
"at that point in time" instead of "then."

My favorite is "individual." We hear it constantly, from the mouths
of virtually everyone on television. Bergen and Cornelia Evans, in
the book I cited, say that when Dickens wanted to make a character in
one of his novels appear pompous and ridiculous, he had him use the
word "individual" instead of the correct word, "person."

But many of his readers didn't get the joke, and adopted the new,
longer, more elegant word. We see the results today

vince norris

Cub Driver wrote:


According to the OED, "thusly" is colloquial term for "thus" dating to
the 19th century. Actually, I think it's a mistake made by elegant
Victorians trying to pretty up the adverb. It's not shown as a
separate word.

Webster's Collegiate of course regards it as word without any
apologies. American lexicographers gave up standards at about the same
time American universities did. To do otherwise would be to enforce
the the Male Gaze, or the Canon, or sumpin.

all the best -- Dan Ford

Thanks Dan...
--

-Gord.