Peter:
Ah....how distance can blur a memomory. It's a wonderful thing. Anyone can use another's name, make an accusation of the past and then claim the high road.
The accurate very recent past, though is still with us.
Those who can read will note that there was no so-called "name calling" in the recent thread. I, indeed accurately labeled an improper action taken by someone. However, I never labeled him/her as a habitual or even casual practicioner of the art.
I loathe the practice, but by nessecity tolerate the practitioner.
Now then, if one wishes to attach a verb to a person by means of a noun. That would be of their choosing.
"Oh look" I say, someone just prevaricated. Someone else, even the one in question might say, "Damn prevaricator."
Someone might say "He copied that material." And, again someone else might choose to say, "He's a plagiarist." But that is that the way I choose to go. I prefer referring to the action, not the party.
Not without precise thought, did I carefully avoid of using labels.
Semantics? Perhaps. But, none-the-less, I am usually quite careful to not "call names". Do I slip ever? Probably, but not this time. And anyone who claims otherwise is a...whoops. Almost slipped.
[Edited by GarthB on Aug 8th, 2002 at 01:18 PM]