Joe Six-Pack American?

[MachZer0]

All it means is she has memorized a partisan talking point and parrots it any chance she gets.

So Joe Six Pack is a talking point that she parrots

 

[RacismIsBad]

A good friend of mine, who is an English Professor (of all things), always says "nucular". I cannot imagine why he does, but I honestly think he doesn't even know that's how is he pronouncing it.

Probably just habit, I've heard people mispronounce it also. But one way to learn how to correct themselves would be to ask them to say nucleus, odds are no one says "nuculus." Once they say nucleus, hopefully they'll realize the error in "nucular" and correct it. However, if the incorrect pronunciation continues to increase, it may become part of the language.

 

[MachZer0]

Are you now agreeing that you have been incorrect for the past few pages?

Hardly

Let's really look at what happened here.

In post 132 you claim that Webster's dictionary clearly presents "nucluar" as a proper pronunciation for the word nuclear.

I never mentioned nucluar

A poster provides the actual pronunciation guide for the word.

That was me, yes

You insist that you are correct.

Indeed, having at least two dictionaries on my side

It is evident that you made this claim without understanding pronunciation tools used in dictionaries, specifically the schwa. This is pointed out to you.

Actually, the dictionary confirmed my point

While this is all very entertaining, you have been completely wrong,

Not according to the dictionaries

refused to admit the error,

That won't be necessary until the dictionaries make some sort of retraction

displayed a gross misunderstanding of both dictionaries and pronunciation guides, and now appear to be changing your argument to...

Again, the dictionaries backed me

So now the problem is an accent? Unfortunately accents do not make mispronunciations acceptable. This is why it is an accent because it is a deviation from the accepted pronunciation.

Take that up with the Kennedys

Now you bring in Ebonics in a racist attempt to score a point with your political sympathizers, but through a lack of familiarity with this term, again sabotage your argument.

Ebonics was and is intended as a method to...teach correct formal English grammar. By starting with a standard that already existed, the street dialect known as Ebonics, students can be instructed in the language they are using (introducing familiarity with nouns, verbs, and parts of speech) and thereby segue into formal English. It is important to understand what a negative is before moving onto double negatives.

In other words Ebonics was being used to teach formal English. It was used to teach proper pronunciation.

Webster's defines ebonics as Black English also:

a nonstandard variety of English spoken by some African-Americans

Not as a method of teaching

So far you have failed to make an educated argument about pronunciation, dictionary use, Ebonics, or the validity of accents. This is not to say you are uneducated (which I am sure you will claim), but your argument is absent a legion or pertinent facts or subject matter understanding that make the difference between an well formed argument and something you simply sat down to type without putting much thought into it.

The only way to say I failed is to ignore the facts as detailed in two different dictionaries

 

[Allahuakbar]

Yes, pronounced as you say, nukyaler. For those unaware, Ameican has diverse accents which produce different pronunciations of the same word. In this case, reality, and Websters, demonstrate a clear conservative bias in Palin's favor. What I find odd is that the same side of the aisle that tells us we can't correct ebonics will poke fun at Palin and her particular accent.

Are you implying that your "nucular" (which I believe is the President's pronunciation) is really "nucyaler"?

You really expect everyone to believe what you originally said was pronounced "you" you are now claiming you meant was pronounced "ya", as in "ya-ya"?

Have you really changed your argument this blatantly and want to claim this is what you said all along?

 

[MachZer0]

Are you implying that your "nucular" (which I believe is the President's pronunciation) is really "nucyaler"?

You really expect everyone to believe what you originally said was pronounced "you" you are now claiming you meant was pronounced "ya", as in "ya-ya"?

Have you really changed your argument this blatantly and want to claim this is what you said all along?

I haven't changed anything. I've only provided facts from well respected reference sources

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Probably just habit, I've heard people mispronounce it also. But one way to learn how to correct themselves would be to ask them to say nucleus, odds are no one says "nuculus." Once they say nucleus, hopefully they'll realize the error in "nucular" and correct it. However, if the incorrect pronunciation continues to increase, it may become part of the language.

Yeah, that very well could be. It's weird, because once in awhile I used to say, "It's nuk-lear." And he'd say, "That's what I said." Apparently he hears himself saying, "nuk-lear." So I wonder...

On the other hand, I never say anything to him about it anymore because it's just not that big a deal. And it's really hard to say that a 50-year old tenured professor, with an MFA, is actually a dumb person.

 

[Ganymede]

Well I have a wine cellar with about 400 bottles and it just so happens to double as a beer cellar with around 2000 bottles so I wonder what that makes me?

an alcoholic?

 

[Allahuakbar]

I haven't changed anything. I've only provided facts from well respected reference sources

Actually, you never referenced anything. I provided the sources. You provided nothing.

Now you have reversed your opinion and expect others to believe these were your original claims? This is an unbelievable lack of intellectual integrity.

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, you never referenced anything. I provided the sources. You provided nothing.

Now you have reversed your opinion and expect others to believe these were your original claims? This is an unbelievable lack of intellectual integrity.

I referenced Webster's on several ocassions. I don't recall you providing any sources

 

[MachZer0]

Yeah, that very well could be. It's weird, because once in awhile I used to say, "It's nuk-lear." And he'd say, "That's what I said." Apparently he hears himself saying, "nuk-lear." So I wonder...

On the other hand, I never say anything to him about it anymore because it's just not that big a deal. And it's really hard to say that a 50-year old tenured professor, with an MFA, is actually a dumb person.

That would depend on whether or not he's a Republican

 

[ParsonJefferson]

That would depend on whether or not he's a Republican

Actually, I think he's registered Independent. But he voted Nader last time - which we've had some good laughs over.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

That would depend on whether or not he's a Republican

So your hypothesis is that the sole determining factor as to a person's intelligence or lack thereof is whether or not they are a registered Republican?

 

[MachZer0]

So your hypothesis is that the sole determining factor as to a person's intelligence or lack thereof is whether or not they are a registered Republican?

That would seem to be the way my left leaning friends make such determinations

 

[Allahuakbar]

I referenced Webster's on several ocassions. I don't recall you providing any sources

None of this is true, and you know it is not true, but you're saying it anyway. Why?

In post 132 you said...

For those who are not as well informed on some matters of vocabulary, the "nucular" pronunciation is perfectly acceptable. Please visit Websters for the definition of nuclear and the acceptable pronunciations are listed along with audio versions

Now I am not sure if you really think saying "Please visit Websters..." is a citation or reference, but it is neither, since it does not reference specific information. You were simply alluding to what you thought was in Websters, but actually was not there at all. It appears you never bothered to research this subject before speaking on it.

Since I was curious I did look it up and posted the information, in post 137...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear

Where does M-W say this?

If you notice, I provided the hyperlink, something you have consistently failed to do. You then cut and pasted from this link (not citing it, which is plagiarism, despite an assumption that is was understood) the following information...

Here: ˈnyü-, ÷-kyə-lər

You never provided the linked citation. Additionally you did not know what the schwa meant, killing your argument, though you did not know this.

So, since it is clear I have provided sources, I am sure you can do the same. Since you copied from my sources, it seems highly unlikely you forgot this making your claim above intentionally untrue. Why you would do this, I am not sure, but I suppose you believe neither ethical standards nor honesty applies to you.

 

[MachZer0]

None of this is true, and you know it is not true, but you're saying it anyway. Why?

In post 132 you said...



Now I am not sure if you really think saying "Please visit Websters..." is a citation or reference, but it is neither, since it does not reference specific information. You were simply alluding to what you thought was in Websters, but actually was not there at all. It appears you never bothered to research this subject before speaking on it.

Since I was curious I did look it up and posted the information, in post 137...




If you notice, I provided the hyperlink, something you have consistently failed to do. You then cut and pasted from this link (not citing it, which is plagiarism, despite an assumption that is was understood) the following information...



You never provided the linked citation. Additionally you did not know what the schwa meant, killing your argument, though you did not know this.

So, since it is clear I have provided sources, I am sure you can do the same. Since you copied from my sources, it seems highly unlikely you forgot this making your claim above intentionally untrue. Why you would do this, I am not sure, but I suppose you believe neither ethical standards nor honesty applies to you.

The bottom line here is that you accessed my reference, my source, and it backed me up

 

[OphidiaPhile]

That would seem to be the way my left leaning friends make such determinations

There are definitely intelligent people on both sides but I would say that there are far more on the left than the right.

 

[Grizzly]

The bottom line here is that you accessed my reference, my source, and it backed me up

How are you going to survive the next 4 years?

 

[Allahuakbar]

The bottom line here is that you accessed my reference, my source, and it backed me up

You said something was in Websters. I look it up and posted the link, which you plagiarized, then claimed I never referenced anything, which was intentional dishonesty.

You do realize that saying something, especially when what you said is wrong, is hardly a reference?

What I continue to find so astounding is the complete dishonesty in claiming "nucular" actually means "nukyalar".

 

[RacismIsBad]

"Nucular" and the Webster's pronunciation are not the same. The current president and the governor of Alaska pronounce it incorrectly.

 

[HannahBanana]

The bottom line here is that you accessed my reference, my source, and it backed me up

Um, no, it didn't back you up. Did you not read his post at all?