Is Gah! inane?

**Reenk Roink** · 04-17-2006, 03:05

Originally Posted by Pindar

Is this a self-recrimination?

No.

Originally Posted by Pindar

So now it is your mission to defend retardation? Do you defend pig latin and ebonics as well or only retarded sounds?

And what is considered retardation? Do "The Good Guys" get to pick? Could it be possible that others have differing views on what is retarded and not? What is your personal criteria for retardation? Answer these questions please.

It has been stated many times that 'Gah' is used to indicate "none of the above." Most polls do not provide every single option that every single person would want. Also, many polls deal with complex issues, yet give simplistic options.

Originally Posted by Pindar

That is the traditional subject matter. Its use was to indicate the conditions to meet the proof had been met. If you use Q.E.D. as a rejoinder to my post #47 then you are agreeing the stance was sufficiently demonstrated. Is that what you want to do?

No, reread the discussion in its context.

**Pindar** · 04-17-2006, 03:50

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

And what is considered retardation?

The use of gah in polls.

Do "The Good Guys" get to pick?

Yes.

Could it be possible that others have differing views on what is retarded and not?

Yes, but they would be wrong.

What is your personal criteria for retardation?

That which retards i.e. stymies the development or progress of a thing. The gah response in polls stymies discussion and is thus a retardation. Another example would be this:

"GAH!" or

"Gah Canadian positive Gah !" or

"Gah!" or

"Gah!" or

"HaG" (this is an example of the gaggle who can't spell)

It has been stated many times that 'Gah' is used to indicate "none of the above." Most polls do not provide every single option that every single person would want. Also, many polls deal with complex issues, yet give simplistic options.

If one isn't happy with the options then they shouldn't respond to the poll obviously. If one refuses to respond because gah is not present then that is an example of the gaggle mentality.

No, reread the discussion in its context.

I did. The base use of Q.E.D. is as I described. It means sufficient proof has been given. To use it directly after a position is stated (even if it is your interlocutor's) suggests sufficiency of that stance. My guess is that is not what you wanted to say.