On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:55:39 -0600, Steven Catron <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Reef Fish" <[log in to unmask]>

>> Steve, since you're the first responder from the USA, I'll give my
>> reply, which applies to your post, and those of others NOT in the
>> USA as well.
>>
>> If what you said were indeed the exclusive usage of "recruited",
>> implying "success", then the term "successfully recruited" would be
>> highly redundant, wouldn't it?  Yet you can easily find HUNDREDS of
>> web pages in which that precise term "successfully recruited" are
>> used.

>You are correct.  And I believe the term IS redundant, or at least
>unnecessary.  Or maybe it's superfluous, I'm not sure.  ;-)
>
><good examples snipped>

Let's not get into a new pedantic thread on the words "redundant"
vs "superfluous".  :-)   It was BOTH, IMO.  But I am glad that
the actual examples helped you see the point of the meaning
of "recruit" in ACTUAL USAGE.

>
>One caveat:  the examples you cited all seemed to be from marketing
>websites.

If you include the University of South Florida as a marketing
website (which is actually TRUE to a certain cense of the word
marketing, because they were trying to sell their 3rd rate
academic program as one better than what it really it.  ;-))

But the webpages (which didn't take but a few seconds to find using
google.com, by using merely the keywords "successfully recruited")
are from the entire spectrum of organizations and examples I had
previously cited COMMON usage of the term "recruit".


But the BOTTOM LINE is ...

the whole discussion of the single word "recruit" was just a
padantic and pathetic diversion introduced by Lee.  See my post
on THAT subject to exaplain why.   For HIS accusation that I
lied, I DID NOT USE the word "recruit" at all.


>Frequently marketers employ nonstandard usages to mislead their
>audiences, or to place heightened emphasis on a point they fear their
>audiences might miss.

Certainly there is some truth to that.  But as I said, the RATE
of success of the recruiting is usually VERY LOW.  There are
still a few open positions in the Mthsc Dept at Clemson for
which people have been ACTIVELY recruited for the past two years
without any success.  When ONE of those position gets filled,
THEN they can make the claim that "so-and-so was successfully
recruited" as did the podunk U in Florida, if said successfully
recruited person is worth crowing about.


>Apologies to all if I'm becoming pedantic here, or not explaining
>myself well.

No apology is needed.  You were inadvertently drawn into a pedantic
discussion, which was not germain (but only Lee's diversional
tactic) to the CENTRAL discussion about Lee's false accusation.
But you expressed YOURSELF clearly, on the pedantic part.  :-)


>Do we have any English professors on the list?  Aaargh!!!  :-)

From which country?   ;-)

-- Bob.