Mobile Me is dead but it lingers on with an icon in my menu bar, an 
icon in System Preferences, an iDisk icon in the Finder's Go menu, 
etc.

Can anyone point me at instructions for purging MobileMe from the 
system? 10.6.8.

-- 
John Varela

John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:

> Mobile Me is dead but it lingers on with an icon in my menu bar, an 
> icon in System Preferences, an iDisk icon in the Finder's Go menu, 
> etc.
> 
> Can anyone point me at instructions for purging MobileMe from the 
> system? 10.6.8.

You can at least hide the visible signs on the menu bar and in Finder:

Hold down the Command key and drag the MobileMe Sync icon down off the
menu bar.

Hold down the Command key and drag the iDisk icon out of the Finder
sidebar.

You can't easily get rid of MobileMe in System Preferences. That would
require a software update from Apple, or an unsupported modification to
the system.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In message <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-OWCyBwBKLnXF@localhost> 
  John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> Mobile Me is dead but it lingers on with an icon in my menu bar, an 
> icon in System Preferences, an iDisk icon in the Finder's Go menu, 
> etc.

> Can anyone point me at instructions for purging MobileMe from the 
> system? 10.6.8.

Install 10.8?


-- 
Maybe I should have seen it as some kind of sign, except I don't believe
in them no more; no no, but I believe these things I can't forget, tho I
don't see you anymore.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:00:36 UTC, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David 
Empson) wrote:

> John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > Mobile Me is dead but it lingers on with an icon in my menu bar, an 
> > icon in System Preferences, an iDisk icon in the Finder's Go menu, 
> > etc.
> > 
> > Can anyone point me at instructions for purging MobileMe from the 
> > system? 10.6.8.
> 
> You can at least hide the visible signs on the menu bar and in Finder:
> 
> Hold down the Command key and drag the MobileMe Sync icon down off the
> menu bar.
> 
> Hold down the Command key and drag the iDisk icon out of the Finder
> sidebar.
> 
> You can't easily get rid of MobileMe in System Preferences. That would
> require a software update from Apple, or an unsupported modification to
> the system.

Thanks. I had already removed iDisk from the Finder sidebar but it 
remains in the Go menu. I purged some MobileMe things and the icon 
has disappeared from the menu bar; I don't know why. Today I found 
and removed some MobileMe items and even some .mac items from Little
Snitch, but at least one .mac item can't be removed.

I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.

-- 
John Varela

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:59:09 UTC, Lewis 
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-OWCyBwBKLnXF@localhost> 
>   John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Mobile Me is dead but it lingers on with an icon in my menu bar, an 
> > icon in System Preferences, an iDisk icon in the Finder's Go menu, 
> > etc.
> 
> > Can anyone point me at instructions for purging MobileMe from the 
> > system? 10.6.8.
> 
> Install 10.8?

Just as soon as they include Rosetta in 10.8 and retrofit iCloud to 
the g5.

Actually, now that I have Dropbox, BusyCal, and MacHighway I don't 
need anything from MobileMe or its successor.

-- 
John Varela

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday, 20 July 2012 16:00 +1200, 
 in article <1knjcts.tn2r3d1wzh259N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, 
 David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> You can't easily get rid of MobileMe in System Preferences. That would
> require a software update from Apple, or an unsupported modification to
> the system.

Before doing _anything_, make absolutely certain that your disks are 
fully and thoroughly backed-up.

 /System/Library/PreferencePanes/MobileMe.prefPane

Dragging the MobileMe.prefPane to the trash requires administrator 
privileges.  You'll be prompted for your password.  Once it's there, 
you should be able to safely delete the Preferences Pane.

There are a slew of associated files, which may be harder to track 
down.  Here's what I was able to turn up, relatively easily:

 ~/Library/Application\ Support/MobileMeSyncClient
 ~/Library/Preferences/MobileMeAccounts.plist
 ~/Library/Preferences/MobileMeAccounts.plist.lockfile 

These three items should be quite small.  I don't have a problem with 
them becoming yet more accumulated cruft.

There are some other items, which I'm leaving in place, as they may be 
used by other Apple Applications, PerferencesPanes or Plug-ins.

At any rate, moving /System/Library/PreferencePanes/MobileMe.prefPane 
to the Trash, or renaming it, should have the effect of making it 
disappear from your System Preferences.

HTH.

- -- 
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
 Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: Public Keys: <http://dritz.home.mindspring.com/keys.txt>

iEYEARECAAYFAlAJ4osACgkQUrwpmRoS3uuIagCfUCBn7GnqLC7nOYRd3X33KT9N
pG8AnRnlyuv71st5p/dwU6ndfXPMbpn/
=buV1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2012-07-20 21:44:59 +0000, John Varela said:

> I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.

Would the word "incentive" work here as well?

John Varela:
> > I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.

gtr:
> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?

Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
importance to the word and to the user of the word. As an example,
every manufacturer has a product line, but it takes a Big, Important
Manufacturer to have an ecosystem. Apple's line of hand-held products,
referred to as the "iOS ecosystem" by all really (self) Important
People, springs to mind. 

Such language makes me want to visit trauma upon people's crania.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2012-07-23 02:20:55 +0000, Davoud said:

> Such language makes me want to visit trauma upon people's crania.

Me, I just want to go upside their head.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:20:55 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> John Varela:
>> > I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.
> 
> gtr:
>> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?
> 
> Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
> importance to the word and to the user of the word. As an example, every
> manufacturer has a product line, but it takes a Big, Important
> Manufacturer to have an ecosystem. Apple's line of hand-held products,
> referred to as the "iOS ecosystem" by all really (self) Important
> People, springs to mind.
> 
> Such language makes me want to visit trauma upon people's crania.

I may be wrong but I see things like "incentivization" as evidence of a 
strong Germanic language heritage in the US.

-- 
Paul Sture

gtr:
> >> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?

Davoud:
> > Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
> > importance to the word and to the user of the word. 

Paul Sture wrote:
> I may be wrong but I see things like "incentivization" as evidence of a 
> strong Germanic language heritage in the US.

Incentivization is a neologism that is evidence only of the fact there
are people who don't know any better than to use pompous, meaningless
words. These folks haven't learned their Shakespeare, and they do not
know that "...brevity is the soul of wit..." (though the passage in
which that appears is cleverly ironic in that it contains much pompous
language).

The suffix -ation is of Latin, not Germanic, origin.

As for a strong Germanic language heritage in the U.S., the primary
language here is American English. English is a Germanic language. That
means that our core vocabulary and core grammar are derived from
proto-German. Our Germanic language heritage could hardly be much
stronger than that, could it? Recent research reveals that English is
much farther removed from German in time than was once thought, which
accounts for the fact that the resemblance today is superficial. Our
Germanic language heritage is further disguised by the borrowing of
large numbers words from other languages, particularly Greek and Latin,
but also Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, Sanskrit, and numerous others.

Did you know that that most German of cognates, berg, burg, and other
variations, is, in fact, not German at all, but is derived from a
Sanskrit word? It is cognate with the "-pore" in Singapore, for
example, also the -bury in such names as Waterbury (a common American
place name). In English we have it as burg, berg, burgh, bury, berry,
and borough, for example. In French it appears in bourgeois. Original
meaning: a walled city, usually on a hill. (Having a city on a hill
served two purposes--it let you see the enemy coming and it avoided
building cities on arable land.) City and hill together pretty well
describe berg's various meanings in German, do they not?

<http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:10:17 -0400, Davoud wrote:


> gtr:
>> >> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?
> 
> Davoud:
>> > Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
>> > importance to the word and to the user of the word.
> 
> Paul Sture wrote:
>> I may be wrong but I see things like "incentivization" as evidence of a
>> strong Germanic language heritage in the US.
> 
> Incentivization is a neologism that is evidence only of the fact there
> are people who don't know any better than to use pompous, meaningless
> words. These folks haven't learned their Shakespeare, and they do not
> know that "...brevity is the soul of wit..." (though the passage in
> which that appears is cleverly ironic in that it contains much pompous
> language).
> 
> The suffix -ation is of Latin, not Germanic, origin.

To be honest I was thinking of the German practice of agglutination 
rather than the origin of the word elements, and I should have indicated 
that in my reply.

> As for a strong Germanic language heritage in the U.S., the primary
> language here is American English. English is a Germanic language. That
> means that our core vocabulary and core grammar are derived from
> proto-German. Our Germanic language heritage could hardly be much
> stronger than that, could it? Recent research reveals that English is
> much farther removed from German in time than was once thought, which
> accounts for the fact that the resemblance today is superficial. Our
> Germanic language heritage is further disguised by the borrowing of
> large numbers words from other languages, particularly Greek and Latin,
> but also Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, Sanskrit, and numerous others.

I haven't studied linguistics formally but my initial reaction is that 
recent research is probably right.  A Swiss German friend told me she 
found Chaucer's English relatively easy to understand, but for a modern 
English speaker it is pretty hard.  Of course Swiss German roots are 
Allemanic, not German itself...

> Did you know that that most German of cognates, berg, burg, and other
> variations, is, in fact, not German at all, but is derived from a
> Sanskrit word? It is cognate with the "-pore" in Singapore, for example,
> also the -bury in such names as Waterbury (a common American place
> name). In English we have it as burg, berg, burgh, bury, berry, and
> borough, for example. In French it appears in bourgeois. Original
> meaning: a walled city, usually on a hill. (Having a city on a hill
> served two purposes--it let you see the enemy coming and it avoided
> building cities on arable land.) City and hill together pretty well
> describe berg's various meanings in German, do they not?

Interesting thanks.  In modern German Burg is a castle and Berg is a 
mountain or hill.  The meanings have separated.  A couple of places  in 
Switzerland spring to mind:

Regensberg, although featuring a castle atop a hill, it is a big hill 
surrounded by deep valleys.  Neuenburg (Neuchâtel is the modern French 
name) is by a lakeside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuch%C3%A2tel

Another flavour of burg is the German for citizen, Bürger.

> <http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>

The one that surprised me there was Betelgeuse :-)

-- 
Paul Sture

On 7/22/12   PDT 7:20 PM, Davoud wrote:
> John Varela:
>>> I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.
>
> gtr:
>> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?
>
> Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
> importance to the word and to the user of the word. As an example,
> every manufacturer has a product line, but it takes a Big, Important
> Manufacturer to have an ecosystem. Apple's line of hand-held products,
> referred to as the "iOS ecosystem" by all really (self) Important
> People, springs to mind.
>
> Such language makes me want to visit trauma upon people's crania.

"Never use a big word, when a diminutive one will suffice", is my rule 
of thumb, attribution possibly Edwin Newman.

As part of "Apple's incentive program" is what's meant, and I see the 
word used as OK.  It's more active than "incentive"; therefor just 
"incentive" has a different meaning.

Now, decrying the inflation of speech, how many times have you seen 
"more cold", or the use of "more" when there's a proper adjective 
already, uh, such as "colder", etc.

Davoud:
> > <http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>

Paul Sture:
> The one that surprised me there was Betelgeuse :-)

That's one of my favorites. As a long-time amateur astronomer I have
long known that star, but I didn't give a thought to its name until I
learned Arabic and went to live in the Middle East for 10_ years. The
name didn't sound quite right to me as an Arabic name.

A little bit of research turned up the following. This name was
transcribed from an Arabic manuscript into the Roman alphabet sometime
in the mediaeval era. Now it turns out that the Arabic equivalents of Y
and B are identical, except that the Y has two dots under it and the B
has one dot under it.

One can imagine a skilled transcriber working from an old, worn,
manuscript by candle light and without the benefit of a native Arab
scholar. One of the dots was missing, or the transcriber overlooked one
of the dots, and a Y became a B. The Arabic name of the star is Yed
al-Jawz, a construct form meaning "Hand of the Giant," or perhaps "Arm
of the Giant." Please see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse#Etymology>.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:45:44 UTC, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2012-07-20 21:44:59 +0000, John Varela said:
> 
> > I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.
> 
> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?

No.

The difficulty of removing MobileMe from one's system is an 
incentive. Apple's actions in creating this difficulty is an 
incentivization.

Learn to speak English. Find a good dictionary and use it.

-- 
John Varela

gtr:
> >> >> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?

Davoud:
> >> > Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
> >> > importance to the word and to the user of the word.

Paul Sture:
> >> I may be wrong but I see things like "incentivization" as evidence of a
> >> strong Germanic language heritage in the US.

Davoud:
> > Incentivization is a neologism that is evidence only of the fact there
> > are people who don't know any better than to use pompous, meaningless
> > words.

Paul Sture:
> To be honest I was thinking of the German practice of agglutination 
> rather than the origin of the word elements, and I should have indicated 
> that in my reply.

Still no. Agglutination is the evolved way in which German works. This
is not the case in English, where the practice generally has no
legitimate use except in special cases, such as when new terms,
especially names in taxonomy, may be formed from agglutination of Latin
or Greek words. In many cases what would be agglutination in German
requires a hyphenated word in English.

Of course, like all languages, we continue to borrow from a wide
variety of languages. I do not know if "schadenfreude" (not capitalized
in English because we don't capitalize nouns any more) is considered an
English word yet or not, but it has been in use here for some years, at
least in educated circles, and my feeling is it could gain permanent
traction. Even though it is a long word by English standards, it is a
good fit in English because we have no single word to express its
meaning (OK, one, "epicaricacy," which comes from Greek, which is not
nearly as mellifluous as "schadenfreude" and which nobody--including
me--has ever heard of).

Having said that we don't agglutinate words, I will now admit that we
do, but we tend truncate them rather than use them whole. Words made
like this are called "portmanteau words." Two that come to mind are
"smog," from "smoke" and "fog," and "spork" from "spoon" and "fork." As
far as I know, sporks are always made of plastic and are seen only in
fast-food restaurants, where they are a profit booster.

Other portmanteaux in English include "Microsoft" and "Amtrak."

Finally, Schaden and Freude both have English cognates, "scathe" and
"frith." The latter word is archaic and unknown in modern English.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 07-23-2012 11:10, Davoud wrote:
> are people who don't know any better than to use pompous, meaningless

Don't you mean "utilize" ?

-- 
Wes Groleau

    “Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious.”
"You mean like circular reasoning?”
    “He believes in God.  Therefore, he's fallacious."

Davoud:
> > are people who don't know any better than to use pompous, meaningless

Wes Groleau:
> Don't you mean "utilize" ?

Thanks for the reminder. I really meant "...effect the utilization
of..."

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

gtr:
> > Would the word "incentive" work here as well?

John Varela:
> No.
> 
> The difficulty of removing MobileMe from one's system is an 
> incentive. Apple's actions in creating this difficulty is an 
> incentivization.
> 
> Learn to speak English. Find a good dictionary and use it.

Boundless pomposity! That is a meaningless bit of bureaubabble.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:42:28 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> Davoud:
>> > <http://www.davidillig.com/daoud.shtml>
> 
> Paul Sture:
>> The one that surprised me there was Betelgeuse :-)
> 
> That's one of my favorites. As a long-time amateur astronomer I have
> long known that star, but I didn't give a thought to its name until I
> learned Arabic and went to live in the Middle East for 10_ years. The
> name didn't sound quite right to me as an Arabic name.
> 
> A little bit of research turned up the following. This name was
> transcribed from an Arabic manuscript into the Roman alphabet sometime
> in the mediaeval era. Now it turns out that the Arabic equivalents of Y
> and B are identical, except that the Y has two dots under it and the B
> has one dot under it.
> 
> One can imagine a skilled transcriber working from an old, worn,
> manuscript by candle light and without the benefit of a native Arab
> scholar. One of the dots was missing, or the transcriber overlooked one
> of the dots, and a Y became a B. The Arabic name of the star is Yed
> al-Jawz, a construct form meaning "Hand of the Giant," or perhaps "Arm
> of the Giant." Please see
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse#Etymology>.

Fascinating thanks.  Betelgeuse didn't sound Arabic to me either, though 
many years ago I heard a (possibly apocryphal tale) that many astronomers 
had difficulty pronouncing it so settled on "Beetle juice".

The one dot or two dots thing reminds me of an old joke.

Many years ago the monks were busy transcribing religious scripts and one 
exceptionally bright young monk asked the senior monk a difficult 
question.

The senior monk headed off to the vaults where old originals were kept.

When he didn't return after half an hour the other monks got concerned 
and went to see what had happened to him.

They found him banging his head against the wall, saying:

"It says Celebrate, not Celibate!".

-- 
Paul Sture

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:57:36 UTC, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> gtr:
> > > Would the word "incentive" work here as well?
> 
> John Varela:
> > No.
> > 
> > The difficulty of removing MobileMe from one's system is an 
> > incentive. Apple's actions in creating this difficulty is an 
> > incentivization.
> > 
> > Learn to speak English. Find a good dictionary and use it.
> 
> Boundless pomposity! That is a meaningless bit of bureaubabble.

What did you not understand about "Find a good dictionary and use 
it"?

-- 
John Varela

John Varela:
> > > incentivization.

Davoud:
> > Boundless pomposity! That is a meaningless bit of bureaubabble.

John Varela:
> What did you not understand about "Find a good dictionary and use 
> it"?

Beautiful, meaningful English doesn't come from finding words in
dictionaries. It comes from reading the works of great authors and
being educated by skilled speakers and writers. After all that, a style
manual /may/ be of help, but it can't have been written by a New-Age
product of global dumbing.

It doesn't matter if "incentivization" is in wide use a thousand years
from now; it will always be bad English because it will always be a
pompous and ugly word that will never mean anything that cannot be
expressed by a skilled speaker or writer with far more elegance.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <mm90e9-s63.ln1@news1.chingola.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> wrote:

> To be honest I was thinking of the German practice of agglutination 
> rather than the origin of the word elements, and I should have indicated 
> that in my reply.

As a grad student, I studied Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnungtheorie, mostly 
in English, though, and some in Russian.  :)

---  Joe

In article <230720121843448707%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Still no. Agglutination is the evolved way in which German works. This
> is not the case in English, where the practice generally has no
> legitimate use except in special cases, such as when new terms,
> especially names in taxonomy, may be formed from agglutination of Latin
> or Greek words. In many cases what would be agglutination in German
> requires a hyphenated word in English.

Look at newspaper articles, inter alia, from about a hundred years ago, 
and note the usage of hyphenated words like "to-day" which have since 
become completely agglutinated.  We all can do some research, but I 
would bet that most compound words in English are simply examples of 
agglutination.

---  Joe

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:46:09 -0700, Joe wrote:

> In article <mm90e9-s63.ln1@news1.chingola.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> wrote:
> 
>> To be honest I was thinking of the German practice of agglutination
>> rather than the origin of the word elements, and I should have
>> indicated that in my reply.
> 
> As a grad student, I studied Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnungtheorie, mostly
> in English, though, and some in Russian.  :)

Another reason I am glad I don't have to write cheques.

Einhundertneunundneunzig Franken.
(199 Francs)

-- 
Paul Sture

Davoud:
> > Still no. Agglutination is the evolved way in which German works. This
> > is not the case in English, where the practice generally has no
> > legitimate use except in special cases, such as when new terms,
> > especially names in taxonomy, may be formed from agglutination of Latin
> > or Greek words. In many cases what would be agglutination in German
> > requires a hyphenated word in English.

Joe
> Look at newspaper articles, inter alia, from about a hundred years ago, 
> and note the usage of hyphenated words like "to-day" which have since 
> become completely agglutinated.  We all can do some research, but I 
> would bet that most compound words in English are simply examples of 
> agglutination.

Yes, of course. My point, however, was illustrated in your previous
post. Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnungtheorie. /In/ /general/ we just don't
make words of that kind in English. If we did I might tell you what I
am doing right now in this way: I'm drinking coffee and watching my
Deckmountedsugarwatersyrupfilledhummingbirdfeeder. If we did that, that
would be fine; it would be what we know. Considering the elegance and
expressiveness of the German language and the extant body of great
literature in German, it appears to me that agglutination, even when it
results in what outsiders might consider very long words, is not an
obstacle to fluency and clarity in a language, or a great hindrance to
foreigners learning the language.

One of my languages is Thai. Thai is generally written without spaces
between words, but that's not agglutination. The generally monosyllabic
words remain distinct in their pronunciation. Even with its
Indic-derived alphabet of 44 consonants and I-don't-know-how-many*
vowels, it is not a particularly difficult language for most foreigners
to learn to read and write.

Endlessly fascinating creature, Archilochus colubris, by the way. And
to conform with international norms, it is not called
Archilochuscolubris in German!

* The requirement to hyphenate compound adjectives in English should
not be confused with agglutination.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:27:56 UTC, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> John Varela:
> > > > incentivization.
> 
> Davoud:
> > > Boundless pomposity! That is a meaningless bit of bureaubabble.
> 
> John Varela:
> > What did you not understand about "Find a good dictionary and use 
> > it"?
> 
> Beautiful, meaningful English doesn't come from finding words in
> dictionaries. It comes from reading the works of great authors and
> being educated by skilled speakers and writers. After all that, a style
> manual /may/ be of help, but it can't have been written by a New-Age
> product of global dumbing.
> 
> It doesn't matter if "incentivization" is in wide use a thousand years
> from now; it will always be bad English because it will always be a
> pompous and ugly word that will never mean anything that cannot be
> expressed by a skilled speaker or writer with far more elegance.
 
Then you must be able to give us a simpler, more elegant, and more 
esthetic synonym for "incentivization" that carries the same 
implications about Apple's practices. If so, I will gladly use it in
the future.

-- 
John Varela

On 2012-07-25 21:30:55 +0000, John Varela said:

>> It doesn't matter if "incentivization" is in wide use a thousand years
>> from now; it will always be bad English because it will always be a
>> pompous and ugly word that will never mean anything that cannot be
>> expressed by a skilled speaker or writer with far more elegance.
> 
> Then you must be able to give us a simpler, more elegant, and more
> esthetic synonym for "incentivization" that carries the same
> implications about Apple's practices. If so, I will gladly use it in
> the future.

Frequently the best way to communicate is with a simple phrase, rather 
than a complex word, even when the word has been accorded a slot in the 
dictionary.

On 7/25/12   PDT 12:27 AM, Davoud wrote:

> It doesn't matter if "incentivization" is in wide use a thousand years
> from now; it will always be bad English because it will always be a
> pompous and ugly word that will never mean anything that cannot be
> expressed by a skilled speaker or writer with far more elegance.

And what would those words be?

On 2012-07-25 19:38 , gtr wrote:
> On 2012-07-25 21:30:55 +0000, John Varela said:
>

>> Then you must be able to give us a simpler, more elegant, and more
>> esthetic synonym for "incentivization" that carries the same
>> implications about Apple's practices. If so, I will gladly use it in
>> the future.
>
> Frequently the best way to communicate is with a simple phrase, rather
> than a complex word, even when the word has been accorded a slot in the
> dictionary.

I really have no issue with incentivization.  It ain't very pretty.  I 
tried other sentence structures but they were less compact, even less 
elegant.  So it's fine enough.

Can't be worse than abbreviation.

-- 
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
             -Samuel Clemens.

Davoud:
> > Beautiful, meaningful English doesn't come from finding words in
> > dictionaries. It comes from reading the works of great authors and
> > being educated by skilled speakers and writers. After all that, a style
> > manual /may/ be of help, but it can't have been written by a New-Age
> > product of global dumbing.
> > 
> > It doesn't matter if "incentivization" is in wide use a thousand years
> > from now; it will always be bad English because it will always be a
> > pompous and ugly word that will never mean anything that cannot be
> > expressed by a skilled speaker or writer with far more elegance.

John Varela:
> Then you must be able to give us a simpler, more elegant, and more 
> esthetic synonym for "incentivization" that carries the same 
> implications about Apple's practices. If so, I will gladly use it in
> the future.

First, let me note I'm not certain what you mean by "...implications
about Apple's practices," but I'll assume disapproval, even though
Apple has no way of forcing people to buy Mountain Lion (that I know
of). After all, your premise was an extremely weak one; you were unable
to remove a certain, single, harmless, .mac reference from your Mac and
you took that as Apple doing something to your Mac for the purpose of
forcing you buy a new version of the Mac OS in order to keep using your
Mac. Really?

Really!?

Never mind.

I didn't get where I am today by wasting my time doing other people's
homework for them, especially for free, but since I have already
arrived, what the hell! Throw a crumb to the 99%, I like to say. I
could probably tell you 50 more aesthetic ways of saying that, but I'll
limit myself in the interest of saving your time and mine; after all,
it's hard to go wrong however you say it, so long as you don't use the
nonsense-word incentivization. 

"I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion."

That's pure poetry. Vogon poetry. Oy, the pain! 

"I suppose this is Apple's way of encouraging people to buy Mountain
Lion." You just can't beat plain English. It worked for Chaucer, it
worked for Shakespeare, and it works today. Guaranteed not to jar
reasonable people.

One of the most difficult things to convey to students, especially
those who have a personal or professional need to appear important, is
that pompous, overblown language weakens their message rather than
strengthening it. I recall an instance back in my working days when I
was taking minutes at a meeting (pen and paper, before your time,
probably). A self-important executive said something like "Communicate
to them that we will deploy that system in the May time-frame," and
then said to me "How was that? Read it back." I read it: "Tell them
we'll send it in June." Can you say "glower?" But, I digress.

"I suppose this is Apple's way of promoting Mountain Lion."

"I suppose this is Apple's way of persuading people to buy Mountain
Lion."

"I suppose Apple is providing an incentive for people to buy Mountain
Lion."

Going a bit negative, not to say cynical, we have:

"This is Apple's way of suckering people into buying Mountain Lion."

"This is Apple's way of forcing people to buy Mountain Lion."

And so on. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, don't, and that's
that.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2012-07-26 01:28:57 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2012-07-25 19:38 , gtr wrote:
>> On 2012-07-25 21:30:55 +0000, John Varela said:
>> 
> 
>>> Then you must be able to give us a simpler, more elegant, and more
>>> esthetic synonym for "incentivization" that carries the same
>>> implications about Apple's practices. If so, I will gladly use it in
>>> the future.
>> 
>> Frequently the best way to communicate is with a simple phrase, rather
>> than a complex word, even when the word has been accorded a slot in the
>> dictionary.
> 
> I really have no issue with incentivization.  It ain't very pretty.  I 
> tried other sentence structures but they were less compact, even less 
> elegant.  So it's fine enough.

Perhaps so.  Me, I didn't understand what the sentence meant, that's 
why I asked.

In article <230720121843448707%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> Of course, like all languages, we continue to borrow from a wide
> variety of languages. I do not know if "schadenfreude" (not capitalized
> in English because we don't capitalize nouns any more) is considered an
> English word yet or not, but it has been in use here for some years, at
> least in educated circles, and my feeling is it could gain permanent
> traction. Even though it is a long word by English standards, it is a
> good fit in English because we have no single word to express its
> meaning (OK, one, "epicaricacy," which comes from Greek, which is not
> nearly as mellifluous as "schadenfreude" and which nobody--including
> me--has ever heard of).
I Googled epic-- epicac-- what you said, and found its Wikitionary entry
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/epicaricacy>; the citation page shows
that C. S. Lewis had heard of it, and even used it. Well, he would.

-- 
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:35:54 UTC, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> Davoud:
> > > Beautiful, meaningful English doesn't come from finding words in
> > > dictionaries. It comes from reading the works of great authors and
> > > being educated by skilled speakers and writers. After all that, a style
> > > manual /may/ be of help, but it can't have been written by a New-Age
> > > product of global dumbing.
> > > 
> > > It doesn't matter if "incentivization" is in wide use a thousand years
> > > from now; it will always be bad English because it will always be a
> > > pompous and ugly word that will never mean anything that cannot be
> > > expressed by a skilled speaker or writer with far more elegance.
> 
> John Varela:
> > Then you must be able to give us a simpler, more elegant, and more 
> > esthetic synonym for "incentivization" that carries the same 
> > implications about Apple's practices. If so, I will gladly use it in
> > the future.
> 
> First, let me note I'm not certain what you mean by "...implications
> about Apple's practices,"

That's not surprising, given your general level of understanding.

but I'll assume disapproval, even though
> Apple has no way of forcing people to buy Mountain Lion (that I know
> of).

See what I mean?

after all, your premise was an extremely weak one; you were unable
> to remove a certain, single, harmless, .mac reference from your Mac and
> you took that as Apple doing something to your Mac for the purpose of
> forcing you buy a new version of the Mac OS in order to keep using your
> Mac. Really?
> 
> Really!?

No, not really, if you had actually read what I wrote and succeeded 
in paying attention.

> Never mind.

Indeed.
 
> I didn't get where I am today by wasting my time doing other people's
> homework for them, especially for free,

Talk about pompous! Be careful not to fall off of that high horse.

	<snip>
 
> "I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion."
> 
> That's pure poetry. Vogon poetry. Oy, the pain! 
> 
> "I suppose this is Apple's way of encouraging people to buy Mountain
> Lion."

	<larger snip>
 
> "I suppose this is Apple's way of promoting Mountain Lion."
> 
> "I suppose this is Apple's way of persuading people to buy Mountain
> Lion."
> 
> "I suppose Apple is providing an incentive for people to buy Mountain
> Lion."

The fourth try comes close to saying the same thing. I fail to see 
the need for all that struggle for a quick usenet posting.

> Going a bit negative, not to say cynical, we have:
> 
> "This is Apple's way of suckering people into buying Mountain Lion."
> 
> "This is Apple's way of forcing people to buy Mountain Lion."
> 
> And so on. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, don't, and that's
> that.

Why don't you go over to alt.usage.english and give them the benefit
of your brilliance? I'm sure the regulars there have much to gain 
from your instruction.

-- 
John Varela

John Varela:
> Why don't you go over to alt.usage.english and give them the benefit
> of your brilliance? I'm sure the regulars there have much to gain 
> from your instruction.

At least one of them could benefit from doing a bit of quality reading
and listening!

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> writes:

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:20:55 -0400, Davoud wrote:
> 
> > John Varela:
> >> > I suppose this is part of Apple's incentivization for Mountain Lion.
> > 
> > gtr:
> >> Would the word "incentive" work here as well?
> > 
> > Not really. It seems that made-up, big words are needed to lend
> > importance to the word and to the user of the word. As an example, every
> > manufacturer has a product line, but it takes a Big, Important
> > Manufacturer to have an ecosystem. Apple's line of hand-held products,
> > referred to as the "iOS ecosystem" by all really (self) Important
> > People, springs to mind.
> > 
> > Such language makes me want to visit trauma upon people's crania.
> 
> I may be wrong but I see things like "incentivization" as evidence of a 
> strong Germanic language heritage in the US.

But of course the English regularly use "orientate" whereas the US
makes do with "orient" most of the time.

Why would the US have a stronger Germanic language heritage than other
English speaking countries?  English is, after all, a Germanic
language in the first place.

Also, the "-tion" suffix is applied primarily to words of Latin
origin, not Germanic.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:01:24 UTC, Doug Anderson 
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would the US have a stronger Germanic language heritage than other
> English speaking countries?  English is, after all, a Germanic
> language in the first place.

It could be because there are more people of German than English 
ancestry in the US.

From census.gov:

Top 15 Ancestry Groups: 1990 (In millions. Percent of total 
population in parentheses) German (23%) Irish (16%) English (13%) 
Afro-American (10%) Italian (6%)
www.census.gov/apsd/cqc/cqc14.pdf

(I couldn't find anything more recent on census.gov.)

-- 
John Varela