Harry Rutter on the benefits of cycling

[David Martin]

Jon Senior wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
>> I am not aware of any context in which "inflammable" means it does not
>> burn.
>
>
> The prefix "in" generally negates the rest of the word in English. Not
> always admittedly but where it has an effect on a word, the effect is
> always negation. Except for "inflammable" where it has no effect at all.
> I think that was the point being made (And I have no doubt that I've
> just confused the issue further).

In the murky depths of my brain lurks some vestige of memory that
suggests that one is used to denote stuff which will burn if ignited
(flammable) such as paper etc., and the other denotes stuff which will
spontaneously burn if the right mix of gas etc is present, like acetylene.

Of course, ICBW.

...d

 

[Jon Senior]

David Martin wrote:
> In the murky depths of my brain lurks some vestige of memory that
> suggests that one is used to denote stuff which will burn if ignited
> (flammable) such as paper etc., and the other denotes stuff which will
> spontaneously burn if the right mix of gas etc is present, like acetylene.

I have a funny feeling that you're right about that one, but only in the
context of UN safety warnings. In common language, both mean "will burn".

Jon

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:44:57 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>A doctor, as a doctor and thereby a
>member of the medical profession, does not get to decide where a new
>hospital will go or who will get the contract. A doctor who happens to
>be a government minister or a senior member of a health authority might
>do so, but only in that capacity.

An interesting attempt to make a distinction, but one which I
reject.

>Perhaps you have heard of Richard Taylor?
>http://www.healthconcern.org.uk/
>The history link has all the background.

Yes. However, you may like to consider the row over maternity
services at Wick. Trying to blame the nasty administrators is an old
trick.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:03:07 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>The prefix "in" generally negates the rest of the word in English. Not
>always admittedly but where it has an effect on a word, the effect is
>always negation. Except for "inflammable" where it has no effect at all.
>I think that was the point being made

Precisely.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:06:04 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Try reading some of the public health stories on the BBC news page. They
>all (many) use "mortality" in the same way.

The BBC use English in a poor way!!!!!!!!! Shock, horror, alarm


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[James Annan]

David Hansen wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:06:04 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Try reading some of the public health stories on the BBC news page. They
>>all (many) use "mortality" in the same way.
>
>
> The BBC use English in a poor way!!!!!!!!! Shock, horror, alarm

The number of exclamation marks takes that sentence well into the realms
of the ridiculous. Should try harder on the punctuation. My personal
view is that this tells us something about David Hansen's grasp of
English, but that is a separate discussion.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[David Martin]

On 24/1/05 11:46 am, in article [email protected], "James
Annan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The number of exclamation marks takes that sentence well into the realms
> of the ridiculous. Should try harder on the punctuation. My personal
> view is that this tells us something about David Hansen's grasp of
> English, but that is a separate discussion.
>
The Humpty-Dumpty school of English Comprehension.
Post-Graduate diploma methinks..

...d

 

[JLB]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:44:57 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>A doctor, as a doctor and thereby a
>>member of the medical profession, does not get to decide where a new
>>hospital will go or who will get the contract. A doctor who happens to
>>be a government minister or a senior member of a health authority might
>>do so, but only in that capacity.
>
>
> An interesting attempt to make a distinction, but one which I
> reject.
>
>
>>Perhaps you have heard of Richard Taylor?
>>http://www.healthconcern.org.uk/
>>The history link has all the background.
>
>
> Yes. However, you may like to consider the row over maternity
> services at Wick. Trying to blame the nasty administrators is an old
> trick.


I'll stick with blaming those who are to blame, to the extent they are
to blame, rather than falling back on some indiscriminate prejudice or
bigotry against the medical profession. YMMV.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[David Martin]

On 24/1/05 1:30 pm, in article [email protected], "JLB"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> I'll stick with blaming those who are to blame, to the extent they are
> to blame, rather than falling back on some indiscriminate prejudice or
> bigotry against the medical profession. YMMV.

Indeed, otherwise it gets absurd. WHere does one draw the line? Sex? race?
nationality? age? species?

...d

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:30:56 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>falling back on some indiscriminate prejudice or
>bigotry against the medical profession. YMMV.

My view does vary. The words indiscriminate, prejudice and bigotry
are inaccurate.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Colin Blackburn]

Jon Senior wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
>> I am not aware of any context in which "inflammable" means it does not
>> burn.
>
>
> The prefix "in" generally negates the rest of the word in English.

No, it has two different effects, neither more general than the other.
One is negation, the other is "into" or to cause. For instance, inflame
is to 'cause to flame'. Something which can be caused to flame is
inflamable or inflammable.

> Not
> always admittedly but where it has an effect on a word, the effect is
> always negation.

In attached to flame does have an effect, it isn't negation.

> Except for "inflammable" where it has no effect at all.

But it isn't "in - flammable" it is "inflam(m) - able".

Colin

 

[JLB]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:30:56 +0000 someone who may be JLB
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>falling back on some indiscriminate prejudice or
>>bigotry against the medical profession. YMMV.
>
>
> My view does vary. The words indiscriminate, prejudice and bigotry
> are inaccurate.
>
>
Read your own words.

After you posted, inter alia:

"The medical mob... have also moved hospitals from convenient locations
to fields in the middle of nowhere,"

.... I explained how to discriminate between, on the one hand, the
medical profession and medical practitioners and, on the other hand,
those who run health authorities. You responded:

"An interesting attempt to make a distinction, but one which I reject."

Hence, you are indiscriminate.

The rest of your comments concerning the medical profession (or, in your
own phrase, "the medical mob") make the case for prejudice or bigotry
with no further elucidation.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:29:40 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>... I explained how to discriminate between, on the one hand, the
>medical profession and medical practitioners and, on the other hand,
>those who run health authorities. You responded:
>
>"An interesting attempt to make a distinction, but one which I reject."
>
>Hence, you are indiscriminate.

Nice try.

>The rest of your comments concerning the medical profession (or, in your
>own phrase, "the medical mob") make the case for prejudice or bigotry
>with no further elucidation.

Ditto.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.