bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Good Luck!  (Read 3175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Good Luck!
« on: July 19, 2007, 07:09:35 PM »

    Hey Ray, I just read your email to the Florida college student, his professor and class. You chose the words “little sarcasm” when explaining that you were not upset. I’m sorry Ray, but sarcasm is a manifestation of anger. Look it up! Also I think you have missed your calling. It is a combination of two occupations. USED CAR SALESMAN and DEFENSE ATTORNEY. You really have a gift of confusing people and twisting the truth. Good luck in the end!

Craig
     

    Dear Craig:  I just looked up "sarcasm" in several dictionaries and not one of them used the word "anger" in their definition.  So what does that may you: A prosecuting attorney who twists the truth and still can't make a believable point?

    God be with you,

    Ray
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: Good Luck!
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2007, 07:10:06 PM »

I believe I said that sarcasm is a manifestation of anger. Manifestation was the key. Anger would not be part of a definition for sarcasm if sarcasm is a manifestation of anger. It looks like you’ve done the usual and researched just far enough to support your point. You may soon learn that people are more receptive if you do not belittle them. Search yourself for the truth about you. Sometimes looking in the mirror is the hardest thing to do. Pray earnestly for God to show you the truth about His Word which is Jesus Christ. What can it hurt? You will be in my prayers.

 Craig


    Dear Craig:
    I looked again, and "sarcasm" is not defined as a "manifestation of anger" either. This is your own false definition of the word. You made that up: "sarcasm is a manifestation of anger."  Sarcasm is defined as "a form of wit." And what is "wit?" Here, I'll show you: "sarcasm, n. A form of wit..." The American Heritage College Dictionary, p. 1672.  It does not say that sarcasm is "anger," or "a manifestation of anger," but rather it says "a form of WIT." And what is "wit?"  Well, we have a dictionary right here, let's look:  "wit n. 1. The natural ability to perceive and understand: intelligence. 2a. Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment, ingenuity.  b.  Sound mental faculties, sanity.  3a.  The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously HUMOROUS MANNER the relationship between seemingly incongruous or desperate things.  3b. One noted for this ability, especially one skilled in repartee.  c.  A person of EXCEPTIONAL INTELLIGENCE." (Same, American Heritage College Dictionary). So sarcasm is a form of wit, and wit has nothing but a plethoric of positive definitions, not the least of which are HUMOROUS AND EXCEPTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. Sounds pretty good to me.
     
    Maybe you should stop before you make a total fool out of yourself, Craig.
    God be with you,
    Ray
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: Good Luck!
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2007, 04:19:53 PM »

Hello L. Ray, I know how much you like referring to the Greek and I especially liked the Greek word for sarcasm (sarkazein) which is defined “to rend (flesh), sneer” or “to bite the lips in rage”. Does rage in any way imply anger L. Ray? How about this definition? “To strip off the flesh” Someone would have to be pretty angry to strip off another’s flesh wouldn’t they? I love the Greek language; don’t you? Craig

Dear Craig:  Are you now "tearing flesh" with me?  Are you writing to me in ANGER and in a "lip-biting RAGE?"   Ray


That was not my goal. I was just asking a question which you seem to be unwilling to answer.  It's always easier to point the finger at someone else instead of taking personal inventory.  Believe me I know.  I did it for years.  If there is any way I can help you at all, please le me know. God bless you! Craig.


Hello L. Ray, I’m a little disappointed there is not one of your “witty” or “humorous” replies to my last couple of emails on sarcasm. Do you concede?  Craig

 

Dear Craig:  Let me spell this out for you. Remember when the two-faced lying hypocrites tried to trap Jesus by asking Him by what authority He did the things He did?  Jesus said that He would answer THEIR question if they they would answer HIS question. He then asked them whether the baptism of John was of God or men?  And so likewise, I am asking you if you are attempting to "tear my flesh?"  Are you in a "rage" and "angry" with ME?  A simple yes or no answer will suffice. And then I will answer your question.  Ray


Answer: No. Now for your simple yes or no. Quid pro quo. Nothing more.  Craig

 

Subject: Answer on SARCASM

Dear Craig:  I believe you had two questions:

"Does rage in any way imply anger L. Ray?"  Answer:  Yes.

"Do any of these definitions imply that sarcasm is done out of anger?" Answer:  Yes.

So do I now concede, you ask?  Concede what?  You are totally wrong in you criticism of my use of the English word "sarcasm."

Yes, "rage implies anger," and Yes,  the etymology of sarcasm may imply "anger," but not the modern English dictionary definitions.   Where do you see "tearing of flesh; lip biting rage; or anger" in any of your dictionary definitions:

1.    A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 

2.    A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

3.    The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1 

1.

harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2.

a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Now then, do you see any of those words of "anger" in any of these dictionary definitions? No, I think not.  Also notice the #1 of the second list. It is not "harsh and bitter and irony." No it is "harsh" OR "bitter" OR irony.  It can be ONE of the three, but does not need to be all three.

So the only thing you have to suggest "cuttting flesh," "lip biting rage" or "anger" is your Etymology, which we shall now take a closer look at.  Although it is true that Etymology can sometimes show us the "origin" of a word, it often has little to do with the modern definition or actual use of a word.  And it is USE that defines a word, not its etymology.  All experts agree that it is usage, and not etymology that determins the meaning of words.  You are trying to estabish the meaning of a word by tracing its etymology.   Listen, etymology often has nothing to do with the meaning of a word.  Here is what etymology is straight from The American Heritage College Dictionary:

"etymology n. 1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determine the basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible."

Do you see "meaning" or "definition" in there anywhere?  Etymology does not determine the modern meaning or definition of any particular word, and this is particularly true when a word is traced back centuries, and from one country to another and from one language to another.  You "flesh-tearing, lip-biting rage" definition of the word Sarcasm is foolishness.  It is sophomoric nonsense.

This morning while watching "Joe in the Morning," Joe Scarborough commented on black journalist Ed Bradley's excellent report on the way the La Cross team was being treating.  Side kick,  writer, producer, and comedian, John Ridley (who is also black) kidded Joe about being a "racist" and yet giving such a glowing report on Ed Bradley.  After kidding back and for a few seconds between them, Joe commented that just maybe some in their listening audience might not know that this was just "SARCASM" on John's part, meaning that a few might think Joe Scarborough really is a racist, which of course, he is not.  So here is JOVIAL Joe Scarborough and COMEDIAN John Ridley, both highly educated, highly respected, viewed daily by  millions, both with smiles on their faces, having a friendly exchange or a statement said in "SARCASM."  Where was the "flesh-tear ing, lip -biting rage" in that friendly exchange of a sarcastic remark?  That, right there, early this morning, July 19, 2007, on national television, is a perfect modern example of sarcasm.

Look at the etymology of the word "dungeon" for example.  Would you invite guests to your home and then asked them to spend the night in your DUNGEON?  I don't think so. Yet some etymologists trace the word back to mean "prince, or king, or king's castle, king's room."  The dungeon was designed to protect the King in case of an invasion. It was the most secure and safe room in the entire castle.  Because it was hard to get into, it was also hard to get out of, hence it was occasionally used to retain prisoners.  As time went on some of these king's rooms were used to not only hold prisoners, but to torture them as well.  And so now the word "dungeon" evokes feelings of pain, suffering, and horror in a dark, deep confinement, whereas etymologically, it was THE BEST ROOM IN CASTLE.

The same is true with hundreds and hundreds of words.  In Matt. 12:21 we red of the disciples eating "ears of corn" from a "corn field."  Was this the yellow grain from which we make popcorn? No. they went through a "grain field" and plucked "heads of grain."  This "corn" in Mark 4:28 was "wheat" (See Strong's).  When the English settlers came to America they were introduced by the Indians to maize.  The English didn't have a name for maize, and so they called it "corn."  Today wheat is never called "corn" in America and corn is seldom called maize.  What was wheat to the English was now maize to the Americans.  But if you had your way, Craig, we wo uld all be eating "Cornies, the breakfast of champions," seeing that the "etymology" of corn IS WHEAT. 

Many words have taken on totally different meanings from the etymological origin.  Most dictionaries give us the meaning of a word when the dictionary was written. The word "let" means "to allow," yet in Old England it meant "to restrain"--just the opposite. The word "suffer," meant "let" in the 16th century, but does not carry that connotation today.  "Carriage" was cargo four hundred years ago--today it describes the vehicle whichcarriess the "carriage." A "gazette" was a coin with the value of a newspaper--today a gazette IS THE NEWSPAPER, etc.  Am I going too fast for you?

I am not through yet.  I admit that I set you up with my question.  Notice that I didn't ask you if you are guilty of using "sarcasm" on me in your emails.  No, I asked you if you were "TEARING" me, or in an "ANGRY" or "lip biting RANGE" with me, seeing that that IS your definition of the word sarcasm.  I had to ask you twice, as you perceived something in my question, but you didn't know what, so you first tried to side-step it.  But when I put you on the spot and would not acknowledge your question until you answered mine, I knew you would answer in the negative seeing that you were just dying to have me answer your question, which you smugly thought was a slam-duck on me.

When I saw your next email in my box, I thought to myself, "Answer my question, Craig.  Put you foot in your mouth and say, NO.'"  And so I opened it and there it was; your answer was "no."  I knew if you answered you would have to say "no." I may have been born at night, Craig, but not LAST NIGHT.   And now Craig, your own mouth

My question to you was whether you were "tearing flesh" with me, or "angry" with me,  or in a "lip-biting range" with me?  And what are these things?  Why they are your definitions of "sarcasm." When one admits to using "a little sarcasm," you accuse them of "tearing flesh," being "angry," and in a "lip-biting RAGE.  Now then did YOU use sarcasm on ME in your emails?  Duh!  Of course you did.  Here are couple of examples you used on me:

[1]  "Also I think you have missed your calling. It is a combination of two occupations. USED CAR SALESMAN and DEFENSE ATTORNEY." (Your CAPS)

That, Craig, is  SARCASM.

[2]  "You really have a gift of confusing people...."

That, Craig, is SARCASM.

[3]  "It's strange that I didn't see any of these definitions in your reply."

When you add the words"it's strange," it becomes mocking SARCASM.

[4]  "Hello L. Ray [you were calling me 'Ray']...Does rage in any way imply anger L. Ray?"

Now reverting to calling me "L. Ray,"  Craig, is SARCASM.

[5]  "How about this definition? 'To strip off the flesh.'  Someone would have to be pretty angry to strip off another’s flesh wouldn’t they?  I love the Greek language; don’t you?"

This is obvious mockery and SARCASM.

And don't think that the above examples of your sarcasm is just my opinion. I showed you email to others who instantly saw the "sarcasm" in your above statements.

Yet when I asked you if you were using "flesh-tearing" sarcasm on me, you said "NO." When I asked you if you were using "angry" sarcasm on me, you said "NO."  When I asked you if you were in a "lip-biting rage" of sarcasm with me, you said "NO."  Yet you did use sarcasm on me and those are the very words you use to define sarcasm.

So now out of your own mouth, Craig, you are both a LIAR and a HYPOCRITE!

Cordially yours (a little parting 'sarcasm'),

L. Ray
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 26 queries.