Off Topic Arguing (Moved from Hutchinson thread)

[caz]

Look at the example they've used:

"a subject of uppermost concern"

The implication here is obvious: while there may be other subjects of some concern, this particular subject ranks higher than them on the concern front. I used "upmost" to convey precisely the same impression - that while I might dish out some half-arsed sincerity for simpering, time-wasting, fight-picking nuisances such as yourself, I reserved my "uppermost" sincerity for Mike, I believe, who made a legitimate and reasoned observation on that occasion.

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

Hi Ben,

Again, you provide me with a good laugh if nothing much else. Anyone would have thought you were human, and that you would measure sincerity as all other humans on earth have ever measured it - by degree.

But no, Mr Upmost is not like the rest of us. In fact he is the only one in step. If the language is not to his liking he can simply change it until it fits with his unique ability to possess 'sincerities' in the plural and to pull 'em out individually to suit the occasion.

How many sincerities have you got then, Ben? I mean, it would be nice to have a clue. I now know there's an uppermost one and a half-arsed one, but I imagine you have at least three in your personal collection or your original sentence might have been: 'with my upper sincerity' to distinguish it from your lower, half-arsed one. Of course, we lesser mortals only have to deal with sincerity in the singular, so for us it's merely a case of how much of it, not how many or which one. So you have my deepest sympathy. It must be pretty grim having to explain why this was a deliberate choice and right for you, while it would have been incorrect for everyone else on the planet.

Oh and one other thing. You can boast and lie and cheat your way round the boards and show your ignorance for all I care, when you're only making yourself look bad. But whenever you put others down in the process, you can't expect to get an easy ride. When I catch you putting me down, while talking yourself up, I will defend myself, however 'petty' you think that makes me. And the passage of time does not lessen the offence or my right to object. So if I see any more of your 'better than you' crap, as I catch up with other posts from last year, I'll show you all over again how petty I can be about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

I'm done here.

Gosh, now where have I heard this tired old lie before?

This seems to be one of the very worst symptoms of Ben-fixation: first, the offending Ben-botherer starts a long dormant argument out of pure malice and boredom, which gets instantly destroyed. The Ben-botherer is then left with egg on his or her exceedingly unprepossessing face and makes a dramatic swan-song like departure a long the lines that "Everyone knows I'm right, and Ben's horrible, so I'm leaving the thread!"

But what happens?

Back they come for another futile bash which also gets destroyed.

It's fun and predictable.

I caught Ben, who claims to be God's gift to the written word, on that other thread, thinking he could lie and cheat his way out of one of his silly schoolboy howlers

Ah, yes, here comes the belligerent terminology again. "I caught Ben" as though you're to be congratulated for the laudable behavioural trait of picking apart the vocabulary of a fellow poster with scornful criticisms that turn out to be wrong anyway. The "outrageous gaffe" on your part was chiefly your failure to appreciate that "upmost" was an abbreviation of "uppermost" which has a different meaning of its own. "Upmost" is concerned with priority. See, here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uppermost

Look at the example they've used:

"a subject of uppermost concern"

The implication here is obvious: while there may be other subjects of some concern, this particular subject ranks higher than them on the concern front. I used "upmost" to convey precisely the same impression - that while I might dish out some half-arsed sincerity for simpering, time-wasting, fight-picking nuisances such as yourself, I reserved my "uppermost" sincerity for Mike, I believe, who made a legitimate and reasoned observation on that occasion.

If this is all still so unfathomable to you, read the article again, but for your own sake, don't embarrass yourself by re-launching a four-month-old debate on such a ludicrously petty subject as this with the same desperate and clueless nonsense that you shamelessly espoused last time you were imprudent enough to pick a fight with me.

Again, I've never boasted about being "God's gift to the written word". I've said I'm better than you, which I'm sorry to say isn't all that difficult.

Now an apology from you is way overdue and would be very refreshing, and I'd be happy to leave it there and never refer to this again.

Why would I want that? I absolutely delight in seeing off the latest attempt to goad me unprovoked, especially if they lead to the sort of back and forth stamina wars that characterize almost all unsuccessful attacks from my shadows.

[caz]

I'm grateful, in light of the above, that you did and I say so with the upmost* sincerity.

*Meaning uppermost, i.e. hightest.

Ooh delicious - only just noticed that you edited your post to add the above, demonstrating how you fell right into the very trap that link warned you about, and showed you how to avoid.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the following looks fine to you?

"I say so with the uppermost sincerity."

When you mean "with the highest degree of sincerity" you require "utmost". Read the link, Ben.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I caught Ben, who claims to be God's gift to the written word, on that other thread, thinking he could lie and cheat his way out of one of his silly schoolboy howlers, describing it as my 'outrageous gaffe'.

But here he is, confronted with the offending sentence in his post, proving it was his mistake, and he claims it wasn't a gaffe at all.

Wonderful stuff. You couldn't make it up.

Oh wait. That's exactly what Ben is doing.

Ben, I urge you to read that link through again, if you genuinely can't see that 'with the upmost sincerity' is simply wrong. It makes no sense and the word you require here is 'utmost'.

That was my original point: you didn't appear to know there was a difference between the two, or what that difference was, which is fine. None of us is Mr or Mrs Perfect. I would have ignored it, just like I ignore 99% of such errors, if only it hadn't been accompanied by your unfortunate "I occupy the uppermost branches of the English tree and you are way beneath me" attitude. As you can see, I have the utmost contempt for boasters who have nothing to boast about.

Now an apology from you is way overdue and would be very refreshing, and I'd be happy to leave it there and never refer to this again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Glad you're taking steps to educate yourself.

It's a good article. Read and internalise.

"Uppermost" is more concerned with priority, of course, than "utmost". Given that Caz was one of the participants in that long-dead discussion, it shouldn't be difficult to understand why I might have felt inclined to offer more of my "sincerety" to the other participants! The only error I made was a misspelling of the word sincerity, and again, it would require the type of zealous pettiness displayed in the above post to construe this as being reflective of genuine ignorance as opposed to a typo written in haste.

[caz]

Oh and here's that link again:

http://grammartips.homestead.com/utmost.html

Ben either didn't read it properly or didn't understand how it relates back to this:

'with the upmost sincerety' [sic]

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

It's so stupid of you to tell such silly lies in public, where they are so quickly and easily exposed.

You're the liar, Caz, and an particularly repellent one at that.

We all had a wonderful time guffawing at your embarrassing and failed attempts to play headmistress four months ago. It's been the laughing joke as far as you're concerned ever since you targetted one or two individuals on the Maybrick threads for repeated scorn. Since about 2005, your basic Modus Operandi has consisted of advancing a weak and easily refutable argument and then attacking the English of your perceived opponents the moment your intellectual emptiness is exposed. The trouble is, even this favoured second phase of your attack gets burped back in your face, prompting you to smoulder for months, before finally deciding to reignite a long dormand thread.

I was the one who told you that "upmost" cannot be used as a substitute for "utmost"

You didn't need to tell me. I was fully aware of the distinction. Anyone bored enough to care was aware that I knew of this distinction. I never intended to write "utmost" or any synonym thereof. The word I intended to use was "upmost", and it's a woeful testament to your insecurity and failings as a debater that you should target one word for illogical scrutiny rather than actually addressing the content of the post.

Why did you decide to start this argument today?

What was your motivation?

What could possibly have compelled you to continue an argument that has nothing to do with Jack the Ripper, particularly when you know full well were onto a losing wicket when you first engaged in this astonishing display of pettiness?

which I only did because you routinely boasted a wonderful command of the English language while failing to demonstrate it in your posts

No, I haven't. I've speculated that I have superior abilities to you in that regard, and I've only found occasion to make this public on account of your painful and unwinnable attempts to nitpick the vocabulary of others. So I'm afraid you're not just a "miserable pedantic so-and-so" - you're just wrong, and this laughable wrongness only serves to enhance your less than admirable qualities.

Why else would I have sought out and posted that link for you which proves otherwise?

Why else would you decide to re-launch an argument that had been dormant for four months, and concerned the ever-so-petty issue of the correct application of the word "utmost"? Now you're quoting a post that I wrote on 29th of March of last year. I'm grateful, in light of the above, that you did and I say so with the upmost* sincerity.

*Meaning uppermost, i.e. hightest.

I think that's today's nonsense dispensed with.

[caz]

I can, Mike, and with the upmost sincerety at that, considering that Hutchinson's identity wouldn't remotely ennervate anything else I've suggested with regard to Hutchinson, with the possible exception that he may have been Fleming, but that is by no means a pet theory of min. Just one reasonable explanation.

I leave others to judge Ben's command of English - and honesty.

I'm done here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...culminating in your own ignorance being exposed and laughed off the thread.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha - you only exposed your own ignorance Ben, and nobody laughed me off that thread. I only went back there today and happened to see your last lame efforts to do so! It's so stupid of you to tell such silly lies in public, where they are so quickly and easily exposed. How old are you?

I was the one who told you that "upmost" cannot be used as a substitute for "utmost", and only gave you the link to prove it because you had refused to take my word for it and admit to this schoolboy howler.

You used "upmost" in a sentence which required "utmost", during one of your lengthy (and long forgotten) Hutchinson rants. If you knew it was just a silly mistake on your part, you would have gained far more respect - and considerably more peace and quiet in the long run - if you had called me all the miserable, pedantic so-and-sos under the sun for pointing it out - which I only did because you routinely boasted a wonderful command of the English language while failing to demonstrate it in your posts.

Instead, you insisted at the time that you hadn't made a mistake at all and that it was perfectly acceptable for you to write "upmost" for "utmost". Why else would I have sought out and posted that link for you which proves otherwise? And now you are lying your head off to turn it round and pretend that the mistake was somehow mine.

What mistake would that be - apart from thinking you might just be man enough to take it on the chin when one of your past mistakes caught up with you and stared you right in the face?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hello Ben,

No... Scandivians go skiing, ski-jumping, and the like..a winter sports group of nations. most active throughout the winter months, infact.

best wishes

Phil

[Ben]

Absolutely, Tom.

Perhaps it's when the Scandinavians come out of hibernation?

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

another fun attempt to goad Ben – a pastime that rather tailed off in popularity towards the end of last year!

Yes, this is to be regretted, but it seems to be a seasonal pastime.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

This seems like the most ideal spot to tackle the latest attempt to continue a petty bickerfest that finished four months ago.

Today, Caz writes:

It all started because you used it in a sentence where only "utmost" would do, and then tried to claim they meant the same thing!

It all started because you were so embarrassingly out of arguments on the thread in question that you were reduced to making ill-starred attempts at critiquing the vocabulary used by other posters, culminating in your own ignorance being exposed and laughed off the thread. "Upmost" is an abbreviation of "uppermost", meaning of the highest position or priority. Neither word is an acceptable synonym of "utmost" despite your false and desperate claim that I had confounded the two.

To the blissfully uninitiated, the above is transported from "When Does Many Become Many?" and is in reluctant response to another fun attempt to goad Ben – a pastime that rather tailed off in popularity towards the end of last year!

[babybird67]

In the name of good will, let's all please remember that Fisherman is Swedish. Therefore he shouldn't be held to the same standards of scholarship and logic that the rest of us hold to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom...we are hardly talking scholarship. We are talking plain English. Logic surely transcends nationality, although perhaps not gender.

And, i was perfectly willing to ascribe mistakes etc to language etc...i am not prepared to be called a liar, however, because i am not one.

[Sam Flynn]

And we're fortunate indeed to have them, Gareth, since - in my view - the additional census examples of Toppy's handwriting only serve to reinforce the significant differences between his penmanship and that of the Hutchinson who signed the statement. Toppy's handwriting remained fairly rigid over a 13-year period, and the differences with the statement signatures remained different over that time-span. They're really not "small" discrepencies either.

Not for Ben's benefit, but for those who might be seeing this for the first time, you can compare the signatures in question (which span fully 23 years) by viewing this "time-lapse" animation. Now (again, not for Ben's benefit) compare these with your own signatures over a similar time-span, see how they differ, and make up your own minds.

PS: There's plenty more where that came from, if anyone's interested.