Benjamin Nicholas comes clean

woodlawn · October 28, 2005

RE: Am I boring someone? Too bad!

>Just the whole BN

>thing is a little rediculous no alot rediculous

You've said that before. So why do you keep reading these threads about BN? Is someone holding a gun to your head and making you do it? Why read something you've already decided is boring?

...lets move on

>to happier subjects like hot men we want to read about

Who's stopping you from spending all of your time reading about whatever subject interests you? And why do you care what the rest of us spend our time doing?

After all the threads created on this subject, you must be able to figure out that there are some people here who ENJOY talking about it. Who are you to tell us we should be doing something else? Our time belongs to us, not to you. Try to remember that.

RockHard · October 28, 2005

RE: The blowhard really fucked up this time...

"Actually, "former" does modify "escort couple" -- to give the meaning you have deduced, BN would have to have said "formerLY HIGH-PROFILE"."

Thank you, Charlie, for bringing this to our attention. I'm surprised I missed this blubbering blowhard error.

The following statement by Roy Cohn-wannabe is a crock of shit and a really dumb thing to say:

"You are lying about what BN wrote because you can't defend what he actually wrote. He did NOT refer to a "FORMER ESCORT COUPLE." He called them a "former HIGH-PROFILE escort couple," and it was absolutely clear that the "former" modified "high profile""

"Former" is an adjective modifying "escort." "High-profile" is also an adjective modifying "escort." Using the adverb "formerly" would break the sentence down to say, "The escort couple are formerly high-profile." "formerly modifies the verb "to be."

As for the rude, pompous, blowhard declaration, "You are lying..."", well, I'll let those words speak for themselves. :-)

Doug69 · October 28, 2005

>Actually, "former" does modify "escort couple"--to give the

>meaning you have deduced, BN would have to have said "formerLY

>HIGH-PROFILE".

This would be true, Charlie, assuming that Benji was familiar with the difference between adverbs and adjectives. His choppy, grammatically incorrect, often borderline-illiterate writing makes clear that - as you acknowledge - he almost certainly is not.

The fact that Benji employed the adjective "former" rather than the adverb "formerly" hardly proves that he intended to modify the noun "escort couple" rather than the adjective "high-profile." To conclude that is to attribute to Benji substantially more mastery of basic grammar than he has.

I will say it again, since no Benji apologist can answer it: The context of what he wrote leaves no doubt that the escorts he was smearing are current escorts - rather than former escorts - since he urged them to tell their clients about their HIV discovery "AHEAD OF TIME."

Since former escorts, by definition, don't have clients they can tell this to "ahead of time," it was conclusively clear that he was trying to smear current escorts, and as a result, the "former" plainly modified "high-profile," albeit ungrammatically.

+ *Charlie* · October 28, 2005

RE: The blowhard really fucked up this time...

Alas! I can't give either of you top grades. In the phrase "former high-profile escort couple", "former," "high-profile" and "escort" are ALL adjectives modifying the noun "couple." In your made-up sentence, "They are formerly high-profile," the adverb "formerly" modifies the compound adjective "high-profile", not the verb "to be". You and Doug both write well, but grammatical analysis is something else.

RockHard · October 28, 2005

RE: The blowhard really fucked up this time...x 2

You are right, Charlie. "Escort" can easily be a noun, and often is, but when used to modify the word "couple," it takes on the form of adjective. And adverbs can modify other adjectives, an easy rule to overlook. Thanks for clarifying even though the essence of my post remains.

Doug69 · October 29, 2005

RE: The blowhard really fucked up this time...

>Alas! I can't give either of you top grades. In the phrase

>"former high-profile escort couple", "former," "high-profile"

>and "escort" are ALL adjectives modifying the noun "couple."

Charlie, not to belabor this (although, bizarrely I do find grammar to be interesting), but I believe you are mistaken.

It is possible, I suppose, to view "escort couple" as being comprised of a noun ("couple") modified by an adjective ("escort"), but I believe the phrase is, in fact, quite clearly a compound noun.

______________________________

http://www.zozanga.com/grammar/nouncompound.htm

A compound noun is a noun that is made up of two or more words. Most compound nouns in English are formed by nouns modified by other nouns or adjectives.

Compound nouns can also be formed using the following combinations of words: . . . .

Adjective + Noun -- monthly ticket

__________________________________

In the example above of "monthly ticket," one could, I guess, argue that "monthly" is an adjective modifying "ticket." In actuality, the entire phrase -- "monthly ticket" -- is a compound noun.

In Benji's mangled, admittedly ambiguous sentence, that is how I view "escort couple": as being a compound noun (with "high-profile" as an adjective modifying it and "former" an adverb (albeit in ungrammatical form) modifying the adjective "high profile).

Whether something is more properly considered to be a compound noun or an (adjective + noun) may be subjective, but I think, here, it is more accurately viewed as a compound noun.

I would hope it would go without saying that I am not invested in proving myself to be right about this point, since I strongly doubt that anyone other than you, me, and the Megalomaniacal Pathological Liar are reading any of this at this point. I just think grammar is appealing and interesting in the same way (and for the same reasons) Logic and Mathematics are.

Funseeker 22 · October 31, 2005

>Oh Dear !

>Another trash BN thread. Isn`t this getting kind of old ?. :+

I was away for a week and now see that post #104 was made.

I restate my opinion.

Luv2play · November 1, 2005

RE: The blowhard really fucked up this time...

I was the first poster to point out that BN had used the term former as an adjective qualifying the noun couple. Doug interpreted BN's wording in his own way, attributing the lack of clarity (if there was any) to BN's alleged illiteracy. He continues to pursue his tortured logic even though all evidence still points to the fact that BN was referring to a couple of escorts who no longer escort as a duo. Who cares anyway!:7

November 1, 2005

Read The OP

> Who cares anyway!

You might want to go back and read Rick's original post, over a week ago. Certainly the person who e-mailed Rick cared.

Luv2play · November 1, 2005

RE: Read The OP

I am mindful of Rick's original post which, in addition to the reference to that e-mail from a concerned potential client, also indicated that BN had announced in his most recent blog entry that Derek and Rick were not the couple he was referring to in his blog's earlier entry. This should put to rest concerns that people may have had about Rick and Derek. All the rest that has been said since is so much blather, IMO.

SexualAlchemist · November 1, 2005

As of this moment, 108 replies and the thread is still on the front page (with no sign of dying).

Whose name do I see, day after day, on the front page of "The Deli"? Why, Benjamin Nicholas! Oscar Wilde was right, wasn't he? There is no such thing as bad publicity.

best hotel · January 10, 2009