Jump to content
The Education Forum

Etymological awareness


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some here characterize the use of the word IGNORANT as a "personal attack".

Not so.

Those persons are etymologically ignorant.

The dictionary defines ignorant as:

ig·no·rant (ignr-nt)

adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.

2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

3. Unaware or uninformed.

I would never call Lamson ignorant of photography; I can confidentallly call "Miller"

ignorant of photography. It is a proper adjective showing he is unaware about photography.

I am ignorant in many fields, such as math and physics. It is not an insult, but a description.

The discussion field is not level when the uneducated do not understand the words.

How can we have communication when some do not comprehend what is said?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Jack, is it not possible, at least on your part, to leave this alone! Others seem less capable, or unwilling. Even in other threads where folk have agreed to disagree, the antipathy continues unabated.

There are currently too many posts/threads which are totally devoid of useful information. Every photo/film related thread is descending into utter uselessness: Where serious posts are lost in the noise of thinly veiled personal attacks.

I ask you to refrain because I feel you are the most likely person to 'turn the other cheek' as it were.

I also ask all involved can we please get back to the terms of reference defined in the title of the forum we are in.

Thanks

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack

The word etymology refers to the origin of a word not it definition LOL. For example if you go to the page linked below you’ll see that the etymology of the word etymology stretches back through Old French, Medieval Latin and Latin all the way back to the Ancient Greek word etumologia.

et•y•mol•o•gy ( t -m l -j ) KEY

NOUN:

pl. et•y•mol•o•gies

1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.

2. The branch of linguistics that deals with etymologies.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti..._N9MuwAJa2sgMMF

I guess you were ignorant as to the meaning of the word. I didn’t mean that as an insult it is just an accurate description.

“The discussion field is not level when the uneducated do not understand the words. How can we have communication when some do not comprehend what is said?”

So by your own definition and logic you are uneducated and thus communication with you will be difficult.

Duane was quite offended when people described him as ignorant so once again following your logic he must be uneducated and difficult to communicate with.

You have also used the word goon to describe those who disagree with your positions* and that quite clearly is a derogatory word:

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=92111

goon (g n) KEY

NOUN:

Slang

1. A thug hired to intimidate or harm opponents.

2. A stupid or oafish person.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...30vPXxdZtWsgMMF

The definitions above were from the American Heritage Dictionary, Webster’s gives similar definitions, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/goon

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some here characterize the use of the word IGNORANT as a "personal attack".

Not so.

Those persons are etymologically ignorant.

The dictionary defines ignorant as:

ig·no·rant (ignr-nt)

adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.

2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

3. Unaware or uninformed.

I would never call Lamson ignorant of photography; I can confidentallly call "Miller"

ignorant of photography. It is a proper adjective showing he is unaware about photography.

I am ignorant in many fields, such as math and physics. It is not an insult, but a description.

Jack, I am glad to see that you understand what the word "ignorant" means. In another thread you said this about the Wiegman and the Bell films which will apply to all three of the examples you listed ......................

Jack: He has showed an image in Bell

VERY SIMILAR TO THE IMAGE IN WIEGMAN. The Wiegman image

clearly IS NOT SUNSPOTS ON THE WALL. What should be addressed

are the images in each film. After all, BOTH FILMS MAY BE TAMPERED

WITH and we must understand what anomalies may have been

introduced by the retouchers, whether they be sunspots or men

in white shirts. If it looks like a duck....is it?

So once again you don't have your facts correct and you have jumped from you not knowing how to explain something to it possibly being altered as a solution. So everyone is not ignorant about the two films in question - allow me to share this information I had learned from Gary Mack.

"Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963.

As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film."

The discussion field is not level when the uneducated do not understand the words.

How can we have communication when some do not comprehend what is said?

Jack

I could not agree more with your statement. I think that point was driven home as I debunked all those foolish alteration claims you made in "Hoax". So in the future I would like to cite your statement above each time you repeat the same mistakes.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, is it not possible, at least on your part, to leave this alone! Others seem less capable, or unwilling. Even in other threads where folk have agreed to disagree, the antipathy continues unabated.

There are currently too many posts/threads which are totally devoid of useful information. Every photo/film related thread is descending into utter uselessness: Where serious posts are lost in the noise of thinly veiled personal attacks.

I ask you to refrain because I feel you are the most likely person to 'turn the other cheek' as it were.

I also ask all involved can we please get back to the terms of reference defined in the title of the forum we are in.

Thanks

Gary

Gary...this forum is a microcosm of the JFK assassination and coverup. Some of us here

are trying to expose the coverup. The only reason SOME OTHERS ARE HERE IS TO CONTINUE

THE COVERUP. Why do you reprimand ME for exposing the coverup provocateurs? I do not

see you reprimanding THEM. They always attack the messinger, never the message. I refer

to their abominable tactics ONLY IN SELF DEFENSE!

They represent the Warren Commission COVERUP, and those of us who have studied the

conspiracy for years think they should be exposed. Your criticism is misplaced.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some here characterize the use of the word IGNORANT as a "personal attack".

Not so.

Those persons are etymologically ignorant.

The dictionary defines ignorant as:

ig·no·rant (ignr-nt)

adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.

2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

3. Unaware or uninformed.

I would never call Lamson ignorant of photography; I can confidentallly call "Miller"

ignorant of photography. It is a proper adjective showing he is unaware about photography.

I am ignorant in many fields, such as math and physics. It is not an insult, but a description.

Jack, I am glad to see that you understand what the word "ignorant" means. In another thread you said this about the Wiegman and the Bell films which will apply to all three of the examples you listed ......................

Jack: He has showed an image in Bell

VERY SIMILAR TO THE IMAGE IN WIEGMAN. The Wiegman image

clearly IS NOT SUNSPOTS ON THE WALL. What should be addressed

are the images in each film. After all, BOTH FILMS MAY BE TAMPERED

WITH and we must understand what anomalies may have been

introduced by the retouchers, whether they be sunspots or men

in white shirts. If it looks like a duck....is it?

So once again you don't have your facts correct and you have jumped from you not knowing how to explain something to it possibly being altered as a solution. So everyone is not ignorant about the two films in question - allow me to share this information I had learned from Gary Mack.

"Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963.

As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film."

The discussion field is not level when the uneducated do not understand the words.

How can we have communication when some do not comprehend what is said?

Jack

I could not agree more with your statement. I think that point was driven home as I debunked all those foolish alteration claims you made in "Hoax". So in the future I would like to cite your statement above each time you repeat the same mistakes.

Bill

*************

Quote ""In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! ""

Bill may I ask :

If you know from where abouts these frames from the Groden version are missing , beginning, middle, or towards the end...?

Thanks B..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary...this forum is a microcosm of the JFK assassination and coverup. Some of us here

are trying to expose the coverup. The only reason SOME OTHERS ARE HERE IS TO CONTINUE

THE COVERUP. Why do you reprimand ME for exposing the coverup provocateurs? I do not

see you reprimanding THEM. They always attack the messinger, never the message. I refer

to their abominable tactics ONLY IN SELF DEFENSE!

They represent the Warren Commission COVERUP, and those of us who have studied the

conspiracy for years think they should be exposed. Your criticism is misplaced.

Jack

How do we know that Jack isn't a plant being paid to promote the coverup by doing all he can to look like an "incompetenteur"? The WC supporters just love them guys from what I have heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Jack, please re-read my post. I did not reprimand you. I appealed to you. I did not criticise you. I implored of you.

I understand your frustrations.

Bill is it really necessary to always feel the need to 'educate' us on the pictorial evidence. That is approximately your oft stated reason for posting. The forum is not a 'nanny state'; free thinking and value judgements can be achieved by individuals without your incessant 'educational' postings in all too predictable places.

As, obviously hasn't been noted from my previous post, (and I hope I'm not alone in saying this) all too many threads are being totally derailed by the regurgitation of personal antipathy disguised as education. This is depriving the vast majority of students (me) and undoubtedly researchers the opportunity to view any serious posts pertaining to the assassination through the noise.

FWIW

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill is it really necessary to always feel the need to 'educate' us on the pictorial evidence. That is approximately your oft stated reason for posting. The forum is not a 'nanny state'; free thinking and value judgements can be achieved by individuals without your incessant 'educational' postings in all too predictable places.

Gary, not all my responses are for your benefit as someone who has probably heard it before. This forum takes on new members all the time who have not heard these debates. It's like what they say when you meet someone .... what they will remember about you is their first impression. Jack misstates the record as fact - people know who Jack is, thus they assume that someone who has been around so long must surely know the record, thus what he says must be true. Seasoned researchers will know better.

Let me ask you this question ... before I posted the immediate history of the Wiegman and Bell films - did you know them?

Bill

"Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963.

As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
Bill is it really necessary to always feel the need to 'educate' us on the pictorial evidence. That is approximately your oft stated reason for posting. The forum is not a 'nanny state'; free thinking and value judgements can be achieved by individuals without your incessant 'educational' postings in all too predictable places.

Gary, not all my responses are for your benefit as someone who has probably heard it before. This forum takes on new members all the time who have not heard these debates. It's like what they say when you meet someone .... what they will remember about you is their first impression. Jack misstates the record as fact - people know who Jack is, thus they assume that someone who has been around so long must surely know the record, thus what he says must be true. Seasoned researchers will know better.

Let me ask you this question ... before I posted the immediate history of the Wiegman and Bell films - did you know them?

Bill

"Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963.

As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film."

I didn't Bill, thank you for that information, which I do find informative.

It is though, perhaps, misplaced and it's inherent educational content, might be better served in an appropriate thread; even a new one.

I do appreciate a lot of the personal research and information you can provide. I would also say that 'customer service' leaves a lot to be desired. Given both your and Jack's ample knowledge and information, the tone and content of quite a lot of recent posts is doing the forum as a whole a disservice. Which is my overriding reason for posting.

IMO

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call Gary!

All the negative input is distracting, at the least, and as for myself, a huge turnoff.

Input should be able to be given by all without fear of the denegration dished out so often by those who hold other views.

Stating one's point of view, minus any vitriol, would be a wonderful sight to behold.

Personally, I don't need anyone to point out inconsistent or outrageous claims made on the forum.

We all, occasionally, are in error.....this does not mean disinformation is the intention of those in error.

I have yet to see anyone, on any forum, anywhere, who has never been wrong to some extent.

As for myself?

Many times I have been so wrong that it has taken quite a bit of guts for me to show my face again.

But I have shown my face, and will continue to do so, because I believe that every now and then I have brought something important to light.

If even one bit of new information, or a new viewpoint, is all anyone ever contributes....is that a bad thing? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't need anyone to point out inconsistent or outrageous claims made on the forum.

We all, occasionally, are in error.....this does not mean disinformation is the intention of those in error.

I have yet to see anyone, on any forum, anywhere, who has never been wrong to some extent.

Chuck, maybe you don't need the inconsistent outrageous claims pointed out, but what about those people who do that may not be quite as photographically sharp as you? As far as disinformation not being intentionally given on this forum - you are simply mistaken about that one. Anytime someone repeatedly misstates the record or offers the worst images possible so to create something that isn't present in the better images, then it is an intentional misrepresentation IMO. I will be happy to give examples if you want to hear some.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...