I would like to propose a new topic of intelligent discussion.

And, perhaps a self-referential one,as well. How might we
better talk about intelligent discussion?  I certainly wish that
Miss Manner’s or even Abigail Van Buren had written a column
or two on the subject, as it might pertain to cyber-tubes-intar-webs
and ,more formally, computer mediated communication.

Also, if a communication gets mediated, is that like becoming
part of the media? or becoming more medium?  I think
that this forum could easily become a rare medium,that
is well done,if only more insightful and well meaning posts
were made about language, words, semantics, syntatics
and maybe even spelling. 

Hey, did anyone notice the new spelling check thing? 
Apparently wizards can now post and also get paid,
either that or Aaron & TOri are prevented from
playing logological ice hockey here,one of those. I’m sure.

Has anyone noticed the new forum?

dianevm, masquarading as her SO’s id, (hey, I don’t have
enough email addresses to register all these test ids with.

We had a few old topics going that seem to have disappeared.  What happened to “View Last 10 Posts”, the easy way to find them?

Is Newbie’s post a banter-banner, or merely overcooked ?

As to said philosophical relationship between free-lance operator & concerned medium, does taking part not make us one integral part of it?  Ultimately, we could also be legalistically speaking of intellectual property: Our explicit submissions here & there must consequently become the inherent responsibility of whatever electronic host or presiding webmaster—in other words, neither shocking discovery nor important revelation can really be of singular authorship and either one would eventually fall under some mutual purvey regarding its final destination memento mori namely its true worth.

From the conversion,I found 22 posts, which ended up not being converted,
however, we have about 70 thousand or so,that were,so
I was thinking the ratio was good,no?

additionally, I was hoping they might be resurrected easily by our
vast an unpaid research department?
semi-recent posts: #1
use of modern technology might make it seem new but the basic tech has been around for ages.

A little "standing on the shoulders" is more the thought here.
||
Re: How about this one:|douglang|douglang@batelco.com.bh|02/29/08 at 05:41:52|douglang|xx|0|213.42.21.61|The phrase is "to lay false claim".  I’ll try to think of a word.||
Re: How about this one:|genova35|genova@aya.yale.edu|02/29/08 at 08:03:07|genova35|xx|0|64.69.104.142|douglang,

Nice one. I think that will work. Thanks for the help and if you can think of a word, please let me know.

||02/29/08 at 08:05:04|genova35
Re: How about this one:|bandito|lindlipp@aol.com|02/29/08 at 12:03:38|bandito|xx|0|206.209.9.92 192.236.50.205 206.209.8.136 192.236.50.221 192.236.50.204|So now this German distinction comes to present mind, namely that of Forschung "research" and Untersuchung "investigation" wherein the former process might only involve some well documented assemblage of demonstrable proof based upon solid fact, but latter action nevertheless signify a carefully measured response to obtain at least one desired result or favorable outcome with scant regard to plain, universal truth.  In other words, neither endorsed program nor bankrolled project simply founded upon lengthy research must needs include exhaustive credits & laborious footnoting when singular, realistic goals count as primary object rather than just academic glory.||03/02/08 at 15:02:37|bandito
Re: How about this one:|douglang|douglang@batelco.com.bh|03/02/08 at 06:49:46|douglang|xx|0|213.42.21.61|Misattribution or misascribe is the best that I can come up with in a single word.

Plagiarism is good, but would only apply if the credit was taken knowing of the earlier discovery, which is not the premise of this discussion.  The Nobel Committee probably has a word for it - claims of origin for nearly all good inventions seem to be questionable,  Alexander Graham Bell being the most recent to be unfrocked.

If the original inventor had patented the idea, the pretender would be patently incorrect !||03/02/08 at 07:26:26|douglang
Re: How about this one:|bandito|lindlipp@aol.com|03/02/08 at 15:25:59|bandito|xx|0|192.236.50.204 206.209.8.169 206.209.8.202|Perhaps something else like "deadbeat fraud" rather suits this more speculative mind, though I suppose awarded money has nothing to do with it here.  At any rate, patent suits can nonetheless be much too easy to avoid, especially when instrumental dynamics & universal laws of applied physics remain exclusively within the generic domain of all to purvey.  Thus industry specialists have only to make a few slight variations here & there, and voila you get still another newly designed product—really places one incredible burden upon the US patent office!||03/06/08 at 12:07:26|bandito
Re: How about this one:|douglang|douglang@batelco.com.bh|03/09/08 at 14:41:00|douglang|xx|0|82.194.62.230|If plagiarism is close to the mark, pelagicarism would be anyone other than Matthew Webb claiming to be the first person to swim the English Channel.||
Re: How about this one:|douglang|douglang@batelco.com.bh|03/11/08 at 17:21:38|douglang|xx|0|82.194.62.230|In our contemporary debate on the armless nonplus, we have perhaps laid claim to a variation on nomenclature, giving names to entities based on the number of appendages which they either already have, never had, or had and lost, then grew back - which is hereby designated "numberclature".

Is this a false claim to a previous attribution, or a pelagicarist out of his depth ?
||

Now for the inevitable plainly logical question, “Was it something I said?”

Probably not.  A Bandito works the opposite to a placebo, the irritation factor being more like an allergy test than a study in HIV resistance.

Nor could you be a maraviroc, it’s far too well tolerated.  Does that make you a Maverick Placebo ???

Привет всем! Я тут новенький и новенький в инете! Вот нашёл форум по всей теме! Расскажите, что  к чему тут, пожалуйста!
/ Greetings to all! I here the newcomer and the newcomer in an Internet! Here has found a forum on all subject! Tell that to what here, please!

Such free dictionary exchange would also seem to favor the grammatical & lexicographical subject area but I say go on and take your very best shot, Kemosabe!

Now to begin more properly with your original Cyrillic expression:

A.  Привет всем! Я тут новенький и новенький в инете! Вот нашёл форум по всей теме! Расскажите, что к чему тут, пожалуйста!

[v. my complete post further down infra]

I here the newcomer. Not absolutely I will understand with rules. Explain, please. http://kinobam.ru/mapp.html  http://pis-dec.ru/mapp.html

Now to begin more properly with your original Cyrillic expression:

[v. my complete post further down infra]

Now to begin more properly with your original Cyrillic expression:

A.  Привет всем! Я тут новенький и новенький в инете! Вот нашёл форум по всей теме! Расскажите, что к чему тут, пожалуйста!

which on the one hand admits interlinear ALA-LC Romanization plus significant accents:

B.  Privét vsém!  ͡Ia tut nóven′kiǐ i nóven′kiǐ v inete!  Vot nashël fórum po vséǐ téme!  Rasskazhíte, chto k chemú tut, pozhaluǐsta!

followed on the other hand by a somewhat different English version in bright, cheerful language:

C.  “Hello to all!  I am brand new here and brand new on the internet!  Here I found the forum on every subject!  Tell me, what’s what here, please!”

instrumentum memorandum

1.  привет всем = privét customary Russian greeting “hello” and plural dative case vsém “to all”

2.  я тут новенький = ͡ia tut nóven′kiǐ with zero copula “I (am) brand new here”

3.  в инете = v inete with zero article “on (the) internet”

4.  нашёл = nashël masculine singular past tense meaning “I found” in spoken English cf. ex lingua dictionary keyword entry найти naǐtí “to find”

5.  форум = fórum also with zero article “(the) forum” cf. ex lingua original Latin antecedent forum “town square”

6.  расскажите = rasskazhíte plural imperative “tell (me)” with optional pronoun cf. ex lingua dictionary keyword entry рассказать rasskazát′ “to tell”

7.  что к чему = chto k chemú Russian equivalent of very familiar idiom “what’s what”

8.  пожалуйста = pozhaluǐsta courteous & polite interjection “please”

Hello all, just want to say I great place to learn.  I have to post some good info very soon <a >:)</a>

Quite certain to speak for all of us here, when I vouchsafe anything to help you realize such noble goals!

Such free dictionary exchange would also seem to favor the grammatical & lexicographical subject area but I say go on and take your very best shot, Kemosabe!

Edited… Thanks Luke!