threading

[Rick Johnson]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 8:50:59 AM UTC-5, Neil D. Cerutti wrote:
> [...]
> Plus Rufus Xavier Sasparilla disagrees with it.

If you think you're going to argue in such an implicit manner
as to the benefits of pronouns, then you should expect that
an astute logician such as myself will tear you to shreds.

############################################################
#                        WARNING:                          #
############################################################
# You cannot wave shiny objects in front of MY eyes and    #
# expect me to fold like a lawn-chair!                     #
############################################################

And whist i admit your snarky comment is founded on a
*superficial* fact that cannot be denied,(that is: the fact
that pronouns remove superfluous repetition from
communications), most people will be so distracted by the
initial emotional response of laughter, that they will lose
their logical focus and fortitude, and forget to confirm the
validity of your assertion.

Your comment is a fine example of why people like Bill Mahr,
Steve Colbert, and , uh, that other guy??? can pacify
otherwise intelligent people via comedy whist their civil
liberties are robbed from them and justice is ignored. Does
"fiddling" and "Rome" ring a bell people?

############################################################
#                        Summary:                          #
############################################################
# You comment is cleaver propaganda, but (as we shall all   #
# learn soon) in no way shape or form is your assertion    #
# *logical* or *resilient* to interrogations.               #
############################################################

Now, before i utterly destroy you, we must first *ALL* take
a lesson in linguistics.

############################################################
#                       Define Noun:                       #
############################################################
# a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a  #
# class of people, places, or things                       #
############################################################

############################################################
#                    Define "Pronoun":                     #
############################################################
# In linguistics and grammar, a pronoun is a word or form  #
# that substitutes for a noun or noun phrase.              #
############################################################

Pronouns are simply shorthands versions of nouns. We use
them to reduce the amount of atomic repetition in our speech
and writing, at that's a good thing! No one wants to inject
superfluous repetition into their prose. This, is the very
argument that my good friend "Mr. Cerutti" is presenting
with his *esoteric* reference to "Rufus Xavier Sasparilla"
-- of whom I will refer to from now on as "Mr.RXS"

Whist i agree with my opponent and "MR.RXS" on this one tiny
aspect of pronouns, we must dig deeper to understand why
"Mr. Cerutti's" argument is invalid to the subject matter
for which he is replying. The only way Mr Cerutti's comment
could be valid is if i argued that *ALL* pronouns are
evil, and that is NOT my argument.  MY ARGUMENT IS HIGHLY
SPECIFIC!

############################################################
#                  Inquisitive Joe asks:                   #
############################################################
# "But why do you single out "it" for excommunication      #
# Rick? What is so bad about "it"?"                        #
############################################################

My argument is simply that the pronoun "it", is a
superfluously implicit use of pronouns! Since "it" can refer
to either a "person", a "place" or even a "thing", it
therefor injects too much ambiguity EVEN when "properly"[1]
used.

But not only is the ambiguity of the "it" pronoun an
unfortunate ubiquity, the manner in which the pronoun "it"
is referenced will many times manifest itself in confusing
manners. Observe the following three sentences which use
"it" in  illogically ascending orders of incomprehensibility:

    1. I ate a burger, and it was good.
    
    The first example is not terribly difficult to grok
    since the noun "burger" is defined before the pronoun
    "it" is declared and then logically bound to "burger".
    
    2. It was a good day today.
    
    In the second example we have the "it" at the very
    beginning of the sentence, therefore, i must not only
    read and comprehend the remainder of the sentence, but, i
    must also remember that i need to find the antecedent of
    the initial unbound pronoun "it".
    

    3. It irks me that language designers pay no attention
       to consistency.
        
    And the evil incarnation of the IMPLICIT PRONOUN raises
    it's ugly head!!!

Again we have the pronoun "it" declared as the very first
word of the sentence, however, the referent is missing, and
instead must be intuited! But the fun does not stop there
people, NO-NO-NO, after you go to all the work required to
intuit the referent, you then immediately realize that the
referent is *SUPERFLUOUS* and needs garbage collection! What
sort of sick joke is this? Heck, we have not even considered
the emotional states that must be mustered to empathize
with the authors' intent!!!

This last example is the height of illogical and superfluous
prose, and a fine example of the slippery slope that is
common to the "it" pronoun.

============================================================
 REFERENCES:
============================================================
[1]: I use the term "properly" loosely here, actually more
like sarcastically!