Yes, but UG misspelled "Philippines" twice in the same post, and did it two different ways. That's what Clodfobble pointed out. He still doesn't get it "[a]fter puzzling over [it] for a while" and is succeeding at confusing you too.

No, I'm not confused, but it IS true that 'Filipino' is a word. However, this has little to do with the fact that he misspelled Philippines twice. So I conceeded that he got one thing right.

Conceeded? Conceited?
 

From Merriam-Webster Online: "conceeded The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right."

*mirth*

Glatt, as near as I can recall, I wrote two different words: Philippines with too many Ls, and "Filipino."

When your ego no longer calls for you to make such remarks, Ibbie, it will be a sign to you that you have become an adult. You're a teenager; I was one of those once. I'll make allowances, as it is a prolonged, if not necessarily intensely, awkward phase. Condescending, I know, but that's how I treat people who talk a bunch of ill-considered shit, see? Shit's mostly useful for helping roses grow, later.

I might as well assume "conceeded" was a typo. "Loose" for "lose" could be in that category too.

I can't believe I'm continuing on this trivial point, but here goes:

The correct spelling is: Philippines.
You misspelled it as both "Phillipines" and "Phillippines".

Clodfobble pointed that out. Somehow you thought she was saying that you also misspelled "Filipino." Ibram also picked up on "Filipino." Nobody ever said that "Filipino" is wrong.

I don't care much about spelling. I don't make much of an effort to police my own. The only reason I even pointed it out is because you said you spent a while trying to figure out what Clodfobble was talking about, but you still got it wrong, and then turned around and tried to tell Clodfobble that she was wrong.

Okay, I generally don't like to get into the whole 'spelling' debate. It really doesn't bother me if someone doesn't spell a word correctly, nor does it concern me overly if someone misses a typo. I'm interested in the content of their posts and generally speaking, their intent is not obscured by spelling mistakes. I have spelling errors in my post. I don't always correct them. The same can be said for most people who use these boards.

That said.......

UG, this isn't a dig. I can't say as I care how you have spelled Philippines. However in order to clear up your confusion: The two mis-spellings of that word were 'Phillippines' and 'Phillipines'.

I regularly mis-spell that word. It's one of those words, I can never remember when it comes to it. Spelling is something I don't often have trouble with (though typos are) yet that word routinely trips me up.



And now, UG I am getting at you. You have spewed some fairly ill-considered shite on this board recently and are therefore deserving of condescension, see?

No, I don't see, as I reject the premise that it's either ill-considered or shite.

Thanks for explaining it, glatt. :) DanaC, I generally don't care if other people misspell words (okay, not true, I do care, because I'm a neurotic perfectionist when it comes to spelling, but I am not rude enough to correct them,) but in this case I was poking UG about it because he very frequently corrects other Dwellars, and goes so far as to loudly draw false conclusions about their intelligence based on their typos.

How many Ls in philistine?

(snicker)

Officially it´s The Republic of the Philippines (or Pilipinas in Tagalog, or Islas de Filipinas in Spanish named after King Philip II of Spain), or ROP. Americans used to call it PI or Philippines Islands.

Colloquially, Filipinos may refer to themselves as Pinoy (feminine: Pinay)

Ingat Ka.

DanaC: Illegitimi Non Carborundum... ;)

Fair enough :) I daresay Ibram would say the same.

*grins* thanks for the timely reminder.....EGO reputo vir est per dementis

You almost got it right, ClodF: I draw conclusions about their intelligence based not on their typos, but on their posts. How could you have missed that? Is there not a great deal of unwisdom put forth here at least weekly if not daily?

Nor do I overdo my concern about spelling -- just understand that it is as everpresent as yours. These people are enjoying a stroke of luck and are trying some middle-school piling on. Such breaks will be few, and far between. I can be patient.

How can you declare a Fatwa against something you are not supposed to be doing to begin with?
These Fataws are like a damn hobby now.

Urbane:

This what you posted in an earlier thread :

This seems to me to be in contrast to the spirit of what you've just asserted to Clod. I also think it shows you in a very bad light. Are you really suggesting that someone whose use of English isn't perfect should thereby be undeserving of respect?

I've known a lot of very intelligent and worthy dyslexics who might disagree with you on that score. Not to mention a lot EFL students.

I am saying that such a poor, inattentive writer cannot hope for respect from good writers in that regard. I remarked on that as just one more defect in a terrible array of things wrong. Tw's manifest desire is to be taken as some kind of sage fount of wisdom. Well, absolutely not. I haven't met a leftist I would account truly wise in all my fifty years. What I have seen are dingdongs, communists' dupes, cranks, and one or two outright crazies, in the company of frauds like Ward Churchill, who is now a few months away from being fired from UC Boulder for academic fraud and misconduct.

You have no hope of prevailing in this dispute, Dana. I know good and I know bad, and I know when they are presented to me. I don't buy shoddy intellectual goods.

Having different viewpoints not always results in being unwise, especially when supported with facts. Then again, it has always been the tactics of the anti-lefties to kill the messenger...

The lefties try the identical tactic, and too often succeed.

I'm convinced the right-of-center has the real brains. Then too, National Review, Commentary, and the World Jewish Review could persuade anyone of that.

Both sides are guilty of it.
And did you really just say that the NRO has the real brains? Or is that sarcasm not coming across the Intarnetwebs?

As any sarcasm about NR or NRO's intellectual power is completely unjustified and practiced therefore only by the pseudosophisticated and the mendacious, none, of course, was intended.

They tend to pass tests of wisdom when it comes to foreign policy. Try testing it yourself.

I've only read their domestic coverage, which is laughable, at best.

I do not find it laughable, but considerably better than that. One thing I do expect of NR is that it will, above all else, articulate a point of view that is Roman Catholic and conservative. The Catholicism tends to show up in occasional explicit Mariolatry and that they dislike abortion -- hardly surprising. Their support of an assertive (sometimes emphasized) foreign policy will probably continue long after the semiretired William F. Buckley is in the ground. I don't entirely agree with them all the time, but then who would? The world just isn't that dully uniform. However, they are too smart for the wise to dismiss. The foolish may follow their own headstrong course, straight into a wall.

Beestie, it's unwise to try teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. It wastes your time and she's likely to hit you one with her cane.

Webster's Third doesn't have an entry for "mushmouthed;" Webster's New Universal Unabridged does. You could always look it up. I came across it in a Barnes & Noble yesterday evening, and well, what did I see...

I'd say the points you raised in the post I've quoted you from haven't held up any too well. I know what I'm doing; if you don't, best you sit back and watch.

Also, some dang fool who doesn't like Urbane Guerrilla very much will be moved to squawk to the effect of "you're still on this?" -- many dang fools don't like me, true -- but I'm just tying up a loose end.

Not that their war mongering was approved by Catholics in general or the Holy Father.

"When war, like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent for us to proclaim, with a firm and decisive voice, that only peace is the way of building a more just and caring society," he said.

The Pope, in a speech to employees of Catholic television station Telepace, added: "Violence and weapons can never resolve the problems of man."

The Pope led the Vatican in a diplomatic campaign to avert war, putting the Holy See on a collision course with Washington and its backers in the Iraq campaign.

When has there been a Pope in the last sixty to one hundred years who understood when it was time to go to war?

Griff, wrt teaching grandmothers to suck eggs: surely you can recognize metaphor?

Have you been in a coma or something? You are replying to a post I wrote three or four months ago.

Have you been in a coma or something? You are replying to a post I wrote three or four months ago.

It just took him that long to think of a snappy reply !!!

Don't you mean.....repli, Zippy? :D

Your words implied that they spoke for Catholics. I'm just noting that their Catholicism disappears on questions of foreign policy.

How? Sending the Swiss Guard? Or the VAF (Vatican Airforce)?

Adding to my earlier reply upon discovering a bit of new data, dear boy. Just adding to. Piling on, if you like. :p Don't hate me for being better acquainted with the dictionary than yourself.

It oughtn't to be read that way, Griff. I wouldn't say their Catholicism disappears -- after all, it seems to underlay and underlie their entire editorial philosophy -- so much as they are conservatives who are Catholic; I'll not indulge in the "happen to be" phrase, for I don't think there's any mere coincidence to it.

I'm saying to the Pope, and the shade of the one before him, that being a peacenik isn't going to get the desired results, which are the stymieing of anti-democracy, anti-humanity religious bigots. These must be stopped, defeated, destroyed, defunded, and discredited in the hearts of men. Benedict is not trying to get this done.

Ja, that Jesus was such a peacenik! What a fucking commie he was!

Something like that, yes... you might have a look at Larry Gonick's "Cartoon History of the Universe" Vol 2 p. 223... yep.