The Great James Randi Vocabulary Challenge

[plumjam]

I just happened across an excerpt of James Randi's writing on this website:

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

the excerpt in question is about a fifth the way down the page, under the heading: "Assuming False Scientific Authority"

the highly negative nature of the language employed suggested to me a little challenge to my fellow JREF forum members.

I separated out the words and phrases in the excerpt that are clearly pejorative in intent, from those that would generally be seen to be neutral.

The results were as follows:

Total words in excerpt: 443
Total neutral words: 369
Total words clearly employed pejoratively: 74

This works out as a total of 16.7% of the total excerpt consisting of pejorative language, which I would suggest is quite an unusually high proportion.
Here is a list of them:

pseudoscience, ignorance, totally false, misleading pitch, grade-school education, miraculously, falsity, cashing in on ignorance, carelessness, pure techno-claptrap, quacks, No way!, totally wrong , fictitious, total unmitigated nonsense, a pack of lies, designed to swindle and cheat, steal money, rob the consumer, nothing to do with it, they're lying, they know they can get away with it , incredible inertia , deception and thievery, There's no such thing, they bumble about endlessly, stupid

I'm just interested whether any of you can find a similar excerpt in the history of the english language, authored by James Randi, or anyone else, that has a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary than this?
The benchmark, remember, is 16.7%.
Anyone who betters this will win a big false white beard that is sure to buy you a bit of temporary popularity with the nephews ;)

Oh, and for all you serial pedants out there who are just about to reply with something like: "the challenge is obviously flawed because the definition of 'pejorative' is clearly subjective"... well please don't bother. You'd only be wasting your time and mine. Everyone knows what pejorative means :)

Well, good luck chaps :)

[-Fran-]

Oh, and for all you serial pedants out there who are just about to reply with something like: "the challenge is obviously flawed because the definition of 'pejorative' is clearly subjective"... well please don't bother. You'd only be wasting your time and mine. Everyone knows what pejorative means :)



I'd be happy to waste my time, and yours. In this case it is very clearly so that the choice of "pejorative" words are subjective. Several, most, of those words would not be considered pejorative in themselves. I mean "No way" is a pejorative phrase? "Pseudoscience"? "Grade school education"? "Totally wrong"? None of these words, and many more of your examples, are in themselves pejorative. It's you who have deemed them so because of the context they were in = subjective. If such words used is stating a fact though then it's not necessarly pejorative. There is a pretty clear distinction between what is science and what is pseudoscience for example. To honestly call something pseudoscience that you honestly, and on well founded grounds, deem to be pseudoscience is not using a pejorative.

I guess calling some an ******* who really is an ******* could be both a fact and a pejorative though.

[plumjam]

I'd be happy to waste my time, and yours. In this case it is very clearly so that the choice of "pejorative" words are subjective. Several, most, of those words would not be considered pejorative in themselves. I mean "No way" is a pejorative phrase? "Pseudoscience"? "Grade school education"? "Totally wrong"? None of these words, and many more of your examples, are in themselves pejorative. It's you who have deemed them so because of the context they were in = subjective. If such words used is stating a fact though then it's not necessarly pejorative. There is a pretty clear distinction between what is science and what is pseudoscience for example. To honestly call something pseudoscience that you honestly, and on well founded grounds, deem to be pseudoscience is not using a pejorative.

I guess calling some an ******* who really is an ******* could be both a fact and a pejorative though.

if you read the excerpt you'll see that in the context they were used all those words and phrases were meant pejoratively. obviously, any negative-sounding words that weren't clearly pejorative in the context I would not have included

[-Fran-]

if you read the excerpt you'll see that in the context they were used all those words and phrases were meant pejoratively. obviously, any negative-sounding words that weren't clearly pejorative in the context I would not have included

I did read it! Randi spoke the absolute truth. Calling something for what it is, is not pejorative. Would you like being chastized for calling a criminal a criminal?

"Hey, don't call criminals criminals, you see many criminals have a lot of excuses that in their own mind doesn't really make them criminals, so you calling one one would kinda hurt their feelings - it's prejorative!" :rolleyes:

Randi expresses an indignation over these people, yes, and rightfully so, because what he talks of are dishonest people wo are knowingly trying to sell a product under false premises. Hmm... in some countries, you know, that IS criminal.

[chillzero]

I have moved a few uncivil posts to AAH. Please keep it civil, and do not personlise issues.

[plumjam]

I did read it! Randi spoke the absolute truth. Calling something for what it is, is not pejorative. Would you like being chastized for calling a criminal a criminal?

"Hey, don't call criminals criminals, you see many criminals have a lot of excuses that in their own mind doesn't really make them criminals, so you calling one one would kinda hurt their feelings - it's prejorative!" :rolleyes:

Randi expresses an indignation over these people, yes, and rightfully so, because what he talks of are dishonest people wo are knowingly trying to sell a product under false premises. Hmm... in some countries, you know, that IS criminal.

the issue at hand is not whether Randi was justified in using pejorative vocabulary... that would be a wholly separate matter. the issue is rather whether anyone can find another excerpt in english, written by anyone, with a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary

[enjoytheview]

Some peoples' ignorance of pseudoscience makes me wonder if they have anything more than a grade-school education.
Everybody knows there's no such thing as fictitious incredible inertia, but quacks, are constantly cashing in on ignorance. They bumble about endlessly about things that are totally wrong in an attempt to rob the stupid consumer.Of course, they know they can get away with it. Total unmitigated nonsense is nothing but a pack of lies designed to swindle and cheat consumers. If anybody tells you otherwise, they're lying and are most likely just trying to steal money.
Should you put up with this deception and thievery? No way!In other news, a totally false connection has been made between carelessness and falsity.
Miraculously, pure techno-claptrap with its misleading pitch has nothing to do with it.

[enjoytheview]

I'm just interested whether any of you can find a similar excerpt in the history of the english language, authored by James Randi, or anyone else, that has a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary than this?
The benchmark, remember, is 16.7%.
Anyone who betters this will win a big false white beard that is sure to buy you a bit of temporary popularity with the nephews ;)



Hey, I found one that beats the 16.7% benchmark!
If only I had some nephews....

Some peoples' ignorance of pseudoscience makes me wonder if they have anything more than a grade-school education.
Everybody knows there's no such thing as fictitious incredible inertia, but quacks, are constantly cashing in on ignorance. They bumble about endlessly about things that are totally wrong in an attempt to rob the stupid consumer.Of course, they know they can get away with it. Total unmitigated nonsense is nothing but a pack of lies designed to swindle and cheat consumers. If anybody tells you otherwise, they're lying and are most likely just trying to steal money.
Should you put up with this deception and thievery? No way!In other news, a totally false connection has been made between carelessness and falsity.
Miraculously, pure techno-claptrap with its misleading pitch has nothing to do with it.

[Mojo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html

[plumjam]

Some peoples' ignorance of pseudoscience makes me wonder if they have anything more than a grade-school education.
Everybody knows there's no such thing as fictitious incredible inertia, but quacks, are constantly cashing in on ignorance. They bumble about endlessly about things that are totally wrong in an attempt to rob the stupid consumer.Of course, they know they can get away with it. Total unmitigated nonsense is nothing but a pack of lies designed to swindle and cheat consumers. If anybody tells you otherwise, they're lying and are most likely just trying to steal money.
Should you put up with this deception and thievery? No way!In other news, a totally false connection has been made between carelessness and falsity.
Miraculously, pure techno-claptrap with its misleading pitch has nothing to do with it.

yes, very creative :)
that would undoubtedly have clinched the beard

[-Fran-]

the issue at hand is not whether Randi was justified in using pejorative vocabulary... that would be a wholly separate matter. the issue is rather whether anyone can find another excerpt in english, written by anyone, with a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary

You are not being honest. That is exactly the issue, and you know it. The intention of your OP was not to play word games, but to try to show Randi in a bad light, and you know that too. You know fully well that you can find thousands of texts in English that contains nothing but pejoratives, and that were not written by Randi.

That's not an honest inquiry, it's a an attempt to show Randi in a bad light, and that's your right to do that, I suppose, even if you are doing a lousy job of it. I mean, it would work better if you found a text by Randi where he actually uses real pejoratives in an unfair way.

At least be honest about it, because this is not fooling anyone anyway.

[SezMe]

Everyone knows what pejorative means :)

Yes, but you cannot determine whether a word is used perjoratively or not without considering the context. You did not do that.

if you read the excerpt you'll see that in the context they were used all those words and phrases were meant pejoratively.

I see, now you are not judging whether a word is perjorative or not but are judging how it was meant to be used. I assume you verified your assumptions of intent by actually asking the author.

[plumjam]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html

A very good example, Mojo. Thanks for that article by Charlie Brooker, a fine and respected Skeptic, we must all agree.
I have analysed that article and....wait for it... here are the results:

Total words 582
Total neutral words 528
Total words meant pejoratively 54

a percentage of 9.27

here they are: dangerous, Unlightenment, overturned by idiots, Superstitious idiots, babbling, imaginary gods, rejecting, soft-headed bunkum, slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, cretins, punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again, outmoded codswallop, contemptuous mockery , spiritual claptrap, a load of floaty blah, stupid, screaming gittery, Droopy

On reading the first paragraph or so I was sure that Brooker was going to clinch current first place. He was doing wonderfully well up until the point where he started reviewing Richard Dawkin's book, the God Delusion.
Unfortunately, here Mr Brooker rather blew it by becoming almost entirely positive.

He betrayed his potential for positivity by phrases such as: "Cold, clear, rational thought is the most important thing we have."
It's really a shame, but it was a good attempt Mojo, so thanks for that :)

[Mojo]

You missed: the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages, standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch, bollocks it all up, our random narrative-free universe terrifies you, if you want comforting suck your thumb, a handful of magic beans, uppity, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity, a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism, fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions.

I make that 19.59%

ETA: And I missed: This is the real world, stupid, and sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies.

22.34%

[baron]

Thanks for that article by Charlie Brooker, a fine and respected Skeptic, we must all agree.

That is sarcasm, right? Just in case anyone thinks you're being serious, let's be straight; Charlie Brooker is so far removed from a "fine and respected" sceptic it's laughable. He's a two-bit, ignorant, obnoxious column-writer who's never done a moment's critical thinking in his life. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants.

Randi, on the other hand, has spent a large proportion of his life actually going out and investigating, doing research and applying critical thought to that research. He doesn't sit around and parrot the ideas of others. He's also studied the work of others to a slightly greater extent than reviewing a couple of books every month!

I certainly don't always agree with Randi, and on occasions his abrasiveness can get in the way of a reasoned argument (just like mine - I'm no hypocrite! :D) but if anyone has earned the right to use the words you listed, it's probably him.

[plumjam]

You missed: the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages, standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch, bollocks it all up, our random narrative-free universe terrifies you, if you want comforting suck your thumb, a handful of magic beans, uppity, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity, a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism, fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions.

I make that 19.59%

ETA: And I missed: This is the real world, stupid, and sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies.

22.34%

Good point. Looks like I missed the first bit above the ad.

Of the ones you offer I'm prepared to accept the following as clearly pejorative in the context: superstition, brutality, throwing turnips at a witch, bollocks it all up, uppity, great slide backwards, mud-eating barbarism, arrogant

An extra 19 words, and please don't feel short-changed, as I'm counting mud-eating as 2 ;)

So, the revised figures are:


Total words 665
Neutral words 592
pejorative 73

making a percentage of 10.98

which is pretty impressive by anyone's standards, but doesn't quite bag the beard I'm afraid.
Sorry, I have to be a bit of a stickler when there are such high stakes involved.

Cheers

[plumjam]

That is sarcasm, right? Just in case anyone thinks you're being serious, let's be straight; Charlie Brooker is so far removed from a "fine and respected" sceptic it's laughable. He's a two-bit, ignorant, obnoxious column-writer who's never done a moment's critical thinking in his life. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants.

Randi, on the other hand, has spent a large proportion of his life actually going out and investigating, doing research and applying critical thought to that research. He doesn't sit around and parrot the ideas of others. He's also studied the work of others to a slightly greater extent than reviewing a couple of books every month!

I certainly don't always agree with Randi, and on occasions his abrasiveness can get in the way of a reasoned argument (just like mine - I'm no hypocrite! :D) but if anyone has earned the right to use the words you listed, it's probably him.

Sarcasm? Me?

[Mojo]

I have to be a bit of a stickler when there are such high stakes involved.


Or to put it another way, you have to cherry-pick to make your point.

We could just as easily remove, for example, totally wrong, nothing to do with it, and There's no such thing from your original list.*

Are you seriously suggesting that Brooker intended the words This is the real world, stupid, sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies, standing in a smock, a handful of magic beans, if you want comforting suck your thumb, Middle Ages or fundamentalist death cults not to have negative connotations?

*ETA: In fact, we need to disregard at least these particular examples: they are not examples of language being used in a pejorative sense, they are merely expressing Randi's opinions. He expresses his opinions in plain English; it appears to be those opinions, not the language used, that you object to.

This gets Brooker up to 16.54% (sorry, I was relying on your original word-count when working out the percentages) and Randi down to 14.22%.

Note also that Brooker's piece is an entire column, while Randi's is an excerpt from a longer column, chosen by someone who appears to wish to show "skeptics" in a negative light.

Everyone knows what pejorative means :)


You seem to have demonstrated (albeit unintentionally) that this statement is not true.

[-Fran-]

Or to put it another way, you have to cherry-pick to make your point.


Originally Posted by plumjam
the issue at hand is not whether Randi was justified in using pejorative vocabulary... that would be a wholly separate matter. the issue is rather whether anyone can find another excerpt in english, written by anyone, with a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary

According to this, his point is only to honestly and comepletely objectively find the percentage of objectively choosen pejorative words in comepletely randomly choosen texts in English. It has nothing at all to do with that he doesn't like Randi, you see. :rolleyes: <---- This passage contained sarcasm, plumjam.

[plumjam]

Or to put it another way, you have to cherry-pick to make your point.

We could just as easily remove, for example, totally wrong, nothing to do with it, and There's no such thing from your original list.*

Are you seriously suggesting that Brooker intended the words This is the real world, stupid, sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies, standing in a smock, a handful of magic beans, if you want comforting suck your thumb, Middle Ages or fundamentalist death cults not to have negative connotations?

*ETA: In fact, we need to disregard at least these particular examples: they are not examples of language being used in a pejorative sense, they are merely expressing Randi's opinions. He expresses his opinions in plain English; it appears to be those opinions, not the language used, that you object to.

This gets Brooker up to 16.54% (sorry, I was relying on your original word-count when working out the percentages) and Randi down to 14.22%.

Note also that Brooker's piece is an entire column, while Randi's is an excerpt from a longer column, chosen by someone who appears to wish to show "skeptics" in a negative light.

Yikes.
You're taking this very seriously.

I used the same method for Brooker as for Randi: my impression of what was definitely pejorative in the context. There'd be no point me using a different standard for every entrant, according to the strength of their appeals.
You're assuming I want Randi to win.
Wrong.
I originally asked for writing from anyone, at any time in history.. it doesn't matter what their beliefs are.

[plumjam]

According to this, his point is only to honestly and comepletely objectively find the percentage of objectively choosen pejorative words in comepletely randomly choosen texts in English. It has nothing at all to do with that he doesn't like Randi, you see. :rolleyes: <---- This passage contained sarcasm, plumjam.

You could always enter a text if you like

[Mojo]

You're assuming I want Randi to win.


You certainly seem to be weighting it in his favour, for example by including words that are clearly not pejorative.

If you considered something to be totally wrong, nothing to do with the matter at hand, or to be non-existent, how would you say so?

[hgc]

pseudoscience, ignorance, totally false, misleading pitch, grade-school education, miraculously, falsity, cashing in on ignorance, carelessness, pure techno-claptrap, quacks, No way!, totally wrong , fictitious, total unmitigated nonsense, a pack of lies, designed to swindle and cheat, steal money, rob the consumer, nothing to do with it, they're lying, they know they can get away with it , incredible inertia , deception and thievery, There's no such thing, they bumble about endlessly, stupid


By my lights, the only pejorative in that string of terms is "stupid." If you want a real stream of invective (though no less useful or interesting than Randi), I suggest you take in some Christopher Hitchens.

[Mojo]

Yikes.
You're taking this very seriously.


If you didn't want it taken seriously, you should have posted it in "Humour".

[-Fran-]

You could always enter a text if you like

When the intentions of the game is dishonest, the rules arbitrary, and the judge overly subjective - then I would be rather stupid to play the game, no? :rolleyes:

[plumjam]

By my lights, the only pejorative in that string of terms is "stupid." If you want a real stream of invective (though no less useful or interesting than Randi), I suggest you take in some Christopher Hitchens.

good idea, I hadn't thought of him. He so rarely seems to be not-angry.
It must be quite a strain maintaining that level of general miffedness.

[-Fran-]

Yikes.
You're taking this very seriously.

Actually, it could have been rather entertaining if the premises for the game had actually worked.


I used the same method for Brooker as for Randi:

I'll give you that! But your method is flawed. It's too subjective, which means that even if you use the same method the results are still at risk at varying too much from text to text, and your own biases can not be ruled out in any way.


my impression of what was definitely pejorative in the context.

And you really don't see the problem with this? :confused:


There'd be no point me using a different standard for every entrant, according to the strength of their appeals.


No it wouldn't. But there would be a point in using a standard that is as objective as possible. Your method is so very far from that it's not even funny.

ETA
Forgot to answer this:

You're assuming I want Randi to win.
Wrong.
I originally asked for writing from anyone, at any time in history.. it doesn't matter what their beliefs are.

I was assuming you want Randi to win this prestigious competition, yes. I might have been wrong in so far that I now think you will be happy if any skeptic win. If you were truly honest in that the competition is about any texts from anyone then you wouldn't have started with a text from Randi, would you? Come on, no one believes that your OP was comepletely neutral. Of course it's about what you think about Randi and other skeptics. Don't insult our intelligence. We have read your other posts around here, you know.

I am not saying you can't criticise Randi as much as you want, go ahead, wallow in it, it doesn't bother me. You can be as unfair and biased about it as you want to, as well, what do I care. I probably won't agree with you on the issues at hand and will probably say so too, if I feel like it. But I am not here to defend Randi, he can surely do that himself if he wants to.

But just be honest about your intentions, that's all I say!

[plumjam]

Actually, it could have been rather entertaining if the premises for the game had actually worked.



I'll give you that! But your method is flawed. It's too subjective, which means that even if you use the same method the results are still at risk at varying too much from text to text, and your own biases can not be ruled out in any way.



And you really don't see the problem with this? :confused:



No it wouldn't. But there would be a point in using a standard that is as objective as possible. Your method is so very far from that it's not even funny.

Can you see that not everything in life is a meticulous experiment? This was meant to be a bit of fun.:boggled:

[-Fran-]

Can you see that not everything in life is a meticulous experiment? This was meant to be a bit of fun.:boggled:

The problem with this whole thread has been found!! Fran is a bore! :D

[plumjam]

The problem with this whole thread has been found!! Fran is a bore! :D

well I did say at the start that there was no point querying the definition of 'pejorative'. I had a feeling that the thread would spiral down into nitpicking. I wonder where that premonition came from.
:boggled:

[-Fran-]

well I did say at the start that there was no point querying the definition of 'pejorative'. I had a feeling that the thread would spiral down into nitpicking. I wonder where that premonition came from.
:boggled:

You should definitely have expected it, yes. And as someone else said here, if you wanted to reduce the risk of that, you should have made it more clear that it was a joke. Clearly it wasn't a very good one if no one recognized it as such. The mods moved your OP, and they apparently didn't since it ended up here. Try the humor section next time.

And even a very ligh hearted joke game needs some clear rules you know, or the unfairness of it will soon make some of the kids cry and no one wants to play anymore. So when you have introduced a game with a totally flawed method, saying it's just a game is kind of a bad excuse. Even "just games" that are not to be taken seriously actually needs to be fair, you see.

But if it's any consolation, I have been laughing some :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are not being honest. That is exactly the issue, and you know it. The intention of your OP was not to play word games, but to try to show Randi in a bad light, and you know that too.

Excellent use of that critical cleaver to cut through the BS!

PJ, you could care less whether Randi wins or loses your little contest, you just want to put skeptics in the defensive position and make Randi look bad. (Sort of like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Answering either "yes" or "no" makes you look like a wife-beater.)

If the piece in question was a critical piece debunking some nonsense, it is completely appropriate to use the language he used. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

As dishonest as pretending to be interested in word counts and so on when it's actually a back-door smear campaign.

[plumjam]

You should definitely have expected it, yes. And as someone else said here, if you wanted to reduce the risk of that, you should have made it more clear that it was a joke. Clearly it wasn't a very good one if no one recognized it as such. The mods moved your OP, and they apparently didn't since it ended up here. Try the humor section next time.

And even a very ligh hearted joke game needs some clear rules you know, or the unfairness of it will soon make some of the kids cry and no one wants to play anymore. So when you have introduced a game with a totally flawed method, saying it's just a game is kind of a bad excuse. Even "just games" that are not to be taken seriously actually needs to be fair, you see.

But if it's any consolation, I have been laughing some :)

I bet the kids just can't wait to play ping pong with you ;)

[phildonnia]

Oh, and for all you serial pedants out there who are just about to reply with something like: "the challenge is obviously flawed because the definition of 'pejorative' is clearly subjective"... well please don't bother. You'd only be wasting your time and mine. Everyone knows what pejorative means :)

Well, good luck chaps :)...

[blobru]

I'm just interested whether any of you can find a similar excerpt in the history of the english language, authored by James Randi, or anyone else, that has a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary than this?
The benchmark, remember, is 16.7%.
Anyone who betters this will win a big false white beard...

Well, for pure unabashed pejorative venom and vitriol, it's tough to beat this messenger of divine love:

Matthew Chapter 23 [KJV]

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


As other posters have noted, 'pejorative's subjective, but I think in context most if not all of the above boldfaced should qualify. Haven't done a tally yet, but looks to be well in excess of Randi's paltry 16.7% (amateur!). Don't know if JHC really needs another beard; maybe a bar of soap for Mary to wash his mouth out, or enroll him in an anger management for saviours workshop...:halo::a2: :con2:

[plumjam]

...

I'll accept: serial pedants

2 out of 52

3.84%

[plumjam]

Well, for pure unabashed pejorative venom and vitriol, it's tough to beat this messenger of divine love:



As other posters have noted, 'pejorative's subjective, but I think in context most if not all of the above boldfaced should qualify. Haven't done a tally yet, but looks to be well in excess of Randi's paltry 16.7% (amateur!). Don't know if JHC really needs another beard; maybe a bar of soap for Mary to wash his mouth out, or enroll him in an anger management for saviours workshop...:halo::a2: :con2:

Good contribution... and it looks like we have a new leader folks!

183 out of 856

21.37% outdoing Randi by 4.67%

here is what qualified:

bind heavy burdens, grievous, do for to be seen of men,
make broad their phylacteries, enlarge the borders of their garments,
love the uppermost rooms at feasts, woe unto you, hypocrites!, Woe unto you, hypocrites!, ye devour widows' houses, for a pretence, ye shall receive the greater damnation, Woe unto you, twofold more the child of hell, hypocrites!, Woe unto you, ye blind guides, Ye fools, blind, guilty, fools and blind, Woe unto you, hypocrites!, bind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, Woe unto you, hypocrites!, full of extortion and excess, blind, Woe unto you, hypocrites!, full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness, outwardly appear righteous, full of hypocrisy and iniquity, Woe unto you, hypocrites!, partakers in the blood of the prophets, children of them which killed the prophets, Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?, ye shall kill and crucify, scourge, persecute, upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them, your house is left unto you desolate

Part of the reason for such an exemplary result is due to the more long-winded language.. with more of the pejorative words being parts of longer phrases. Modern diatribe tends to be a lot more succinct.
Nevertheless, it's clear that old JC must have been more than a touch miffed on that day :)

Keep the samples of intemperate ranting flying in, folks! :)

[-Fran-]

I bet the kids just can't wait to play ping pong with you ;)

They love it! ;) They know I never twist the rules :)

[RemieV]

WARNING: There's a naughty word on the linked page. I don't know if that's allowed or not. NSFS or possibly W, depending on exactly how strict your environment is...

Been a whole lot easier since the *bleep* left town
Been a whole lot happier without her face around
Nobody upstairs gonna stomp and shout,
Nobody at the back door gonna throw my laundry out


(Bleeping mine)

-- The Spin Doctors, "Little Miss Can't-Be-Wrong". (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/spin+doctors/little+miss+cant+be+wrong_20128850.html)

100%.

[Morrigan]

http://lordvic.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-see-dumb-people-theyre-everywhere.html

[Soapy Sam]

the issue at hand is not whether Randi was justified in using pejorative vocabulary... that would be a wholly separate matter. the issue is rather whether anyone can find another excerpt in english, written by anyone, with a higher percentage of pejorative vocabulary

Would it help if I write one for you?


PJ, I don't take you for a fool and yet this is a foolish thread. Why waste everyone's time with nonsense like this? Randi is a grumpy geezer. There are reasons for that, one of which is a lifetime of dealing with fools; but maybe he was born grumpy. I don't know , or care. This board is not a Randi cult and nobody here takes writing lessons from Randi. If you don't like his writing style, don't read it.

[Mobyseven]

good idea, I hadn't thought of him. He so rarely seems to be not-angry.
It must be quite a strain maintaining that level of general miffedness.

It's actually quite easy, considering the 24/7 cloud of gaseous moron that permeates the air nowadays.

[Seismosaurus]

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

44 words, 23 perjorative; 52.22%

Gotta love Richard Dawkins.

But here's the point... as with Randi, are these words really pejorative? Every one of those "insults" is indeed found in the Old Testament. So is Dawkins being insulting, or is he just being honest?