Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> 
>>The transmogrification was absolutely involuntary and was presumably
>>caused by some mismatch and interplay between the character set
>>specification in Gowen's original post and the reply I was posting
>>and the character set configuration of the non-asian IME web client I
>>was using and DejaNews' front-end language settings.  I don't care
>>enough about the problem to analyze it further, and would rather post
>>in romaji.
> 
> This statement alone makes me believe that we are discussing Japanese,
> not Chinese, and is the way I came to my original conclusion.

Which is why you are a certified moron, my friend.  Instead of continuing
to base your asinine assumptions again on some strange reading of my
English-language explanations, you could have looked at the actual original
material simply by pasting two lines in a file and opening the result
file in a web browser.

You're obviously so imbued of your own importance and confident of your
(mediocre) knowledge that it wouldn't even occur to you to check your
opinions against mere facts or (gasp) the source material...  Do you
vote Republican, perchance?


>>OTOH, when Gowen writes "post in hanzis [sic]", he uses "hanzis" as if
>>designated the chinese alphabet.  In that case, he should preferably
>>have written "post in hanzi", but semi-literate people 
> 
> KGII is numerous things, but "semi-literate" is not one of them. You
> certainly don't impress me as being more literate.

Given that you've singularly failed to demonstrate any kind of competent
insight into any kind of topic germane to the discussion at hand, your
opinion as to Gowen's level of literacy, or mine, is of little import
to me.


> Strangely enough, you
> don't even seem more polite than he is, and the average rabid skunk can
> pull that off.

As to my lack of politeness, it's actually correlated with the perceived
denseness of my counterparty.  If I think my counterparty is a moron,
I'll immediately let him/her know by using words like "idiot", "inept",
"asinine", "semi-literate", "imbecilic", "cretinous" etc in my prose.
For the sake of efficient communication, why be ambiguous on-line when
it's so easy to make my low opinion of a person crystal clear?
My previous reply to you was but a caustic rebuttal; this post, on the
other hand, is intended to be a flame.


> Unless you know a way to write Chinese in romaji (which you listed as an
> alternate choice), then my assumption is pretty well founded.

I'm afraid I'll have to subtract a further 10 points from your presumed
IQ for that statement alone...
Anyway, yours is again a flawed reasoning. The character set I *might* elect
to use in FUTURE posts, say, in Japanese is in NO WAY indicative of the
language I used in a PREVIOUS post.  Got it?  Would you care to explain why
there should be a logical link there?  If I post once in Russian, will *all*
my future posts necessarily be in that language?


>> - based on that ignorant assumption, you then proceed to try to
>>   "logically" deduce that Gowen is probably right
>>
>>To put it mildly, this looks like pretty shallow thinking, the
>>kind of which one expects only from an airhead :-
> 
> Actually, my reasoning was more like "poster does not know how to
> pluralize "hanzi", does not know how to post correctly formatted text,
> therefore, he probably didn't write anything of value." Nothing has
> changed my opinion so far.

Congratulations.  You have now stated that it didn't even occur to you
that my use of the term "hanzis" might have had a justification.  Your
reading and reasoning was thus even more limited and ignorant than I
had previously thought...


>>>KGII is proof of an old axiom: just because someone is an asshole 
>>>doesn't mean he's wrong.
>>
>>I resent the implication that my own asshole credentials might not
>>cut it.
> 
> Actually, I think your post was more than sufficient to prove your
> credentials.

Does it mean my opinions might not be wrong, then?  I'm happy to
have demonstrated how your worldview and deductive logic focused
on assholeness is so easy to sway as it can overlook even the most
obvious facts.


> Let me summarize it for you. You don't know the mechanics of making a
> properly formatted post.

Oooh, Mr. Internet "expert" who doesn't even know what X11 stands for,
why should I care about some stupid technical detail like automatic
encoding by some system of double-byte characters into HTML entities?
Am I some nerd who sold his soul to a piece of silicon or what?  My time
has some value, you know?
Alternatively, if you are just a Joe average PC user, what makes you think
you are even remotely qualified to assess the particular IT configuration
I happened to be using to post to fjlij two days ago?


>                       You correct people on issues where you are
> wrong. You don't know how to use proper adjectives or pluralize the
> loanwords "hanzi" and "kanji".

The fact that at your age you're still ignorant of some basic rules of
plural formation in the English language is unfortunate, but ultimately
of little concern to this poster.
I'll be uncharacteristically charitable, however, and suggest for your
edification that you ponder the spelling of "woks" in the following
sentence -- and do not overlook, dear ignorant KWW, that "wok" is a
loanword of Chinese origin...

  "We'll need two woks -- one for frying the rice, the other for
  steaming the chicken."