Re: Jim Cramer Why Radio is dead.

<mumbler.ron@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:e7beb1ad-6a25-4e0e-876e-8b5337e3b9ad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, "David Eduardo" <da...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> These trolls were not ordinary complainers... thery were nut cases of
the
>> first water and there was considerable entertainment value in their
>> behaviour.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "the first water"?

You criticize educational levels of others, yet do not know one of the 
finest English idiomatic expressions?

The phrase means "of the finest quality. for example, "That was a play of 
the first water . The idiom refers to a grading system for diamonds where
it 
signifies the greatest purity and perfection of a diamond's complexion, 
which ought to be that of the clearest drop of water.

> In addtion to complaining, they were rude or obscene or
>> personally offensive to myself and my staff.
>
> Oh, I see. It's not as though they were just regular old NAMBLA
> advocates like you, who of course wouldn't offend any sensible
> person.
>
You use of the posts of an imposter are getting tiring. I certainly can
not 
be offended by something that I have nothing to do with, either... so, if
it 
really amuses you, keep it up. Water off a ducks back, eh? (Assuming you
are 
familiar with that idiom)
>>
>> One was a character who thought himself the protector of the Spanish
>> language, and who objected to the use of the term "troca" for "pickup 
>> truck"
>> instead of the traditional "camioneta" which nobody uses on the street.

>> The
>> guy would write 7 and 8 page letters about language, failing to see
that
>> word usage is dynamic.
>
> Ah yes, so fascinating and entertaining.

When we put the guy on the air, and he ranted about the way 99% of our 
listeners use the language, it was most amusing. Like a single beaver
trying 
to change the course of the Mississippi.
>
>>
>> We ambushed him by having two university professors who explained how
>> language changes. It made for informative radio, with the entertainment
>> value of a nutcase who wanted to roll language usage back 100 years.
>
>
> There is very little consensus among linguists regarding language
> change, especially where the semantics of the language and not merely
> the syntax is at issue. So, I suspect the "joke" was on you, though it
> doesn't sound like much of a joke.

There is plenty of consensus in Spanish, since there is a centralized body

that looks into new usages. Of course, you would not know that. Now you
do.
>
> This point escapes more and more people as time goes by.
> "Entertainment" just isn't entertaining anymore.

What a marvelously vague, useless statement. Bravo.