Respect?
Moonshine
Hello, I've been reading many articles from this newsgroup for a
while and from what I've seen, there seems to be a lack of repect
for certain people. I mean, what does it take to gain repect here?
-Moonshine
:)
Dan Sorenson -- Cereal Killer
For starters, a full name. If you head on over to
alt.felchwits and look for Bono, Prince, Madonna, and The Edge
they will perhaps share their experiences and, hopefully, you
can all learn from your mistakes and once again enter society.
Failing that, writing style is a last resort.
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it *
* is safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs *
Charles Stross
In article <Jan5.073...@acs.ucalgary.ca> Moonshine witters:
>
>Hello, I've been reading many articles from this newsgroup for a
>while and from what I've seen, there seems to be a lack of repect
>for certain people. I mean, what does it take to gain repect here?
Well, you could start by leaving a racehorse's head at the foot of my
bed one morning. That would get my attention, although you might
not appreciate the privilege.
Or you could lay low, read the group for a month or two, and try
to figure out why certain people get roasted (ObReferences: The
Beastguy, Kitten Tikka Masala, and Ter[r]ence) and others post
lots and lots of stuff with general approval.
ObClue: it all revolves around the posession of a finely
developed sense of irony and a quick finger on the trigger.
>
>-Moonshine
>
>:)
--
Charlie Stross -- char...@sco.com, cha...@antipope.demon.co.uk
Blair Haworth
>>Hello, I've been reading many articles from this newsgroup for a
>>while and from what I've seen, there seems to be a lack of repect
>>for certain people. I mean, what does it take to gain repect here?
> For starters, a full name. If you head on over to
>alt.felchwits and look for Bono, Prince, Madonna, and The Edge
>they will perhaps share their experiences and, hopefully, you
>can all learn from your mistakes and once again enter society.
On the other hand, being named after a highly-regarded folk beverage that
the BATF doesn't approve of seems quite acceptable, as far as I'm concerned.
N.B.: You can, of course, have too many names as well; cf. Willam Jennings
Bryan, James Earl Ray, and all the plague of adenoidal, hyphenated,
social-services excrescences holding forth on, say, NPR.
Annoying personal aside: Yo, Dan, glad to see you made it back. What
time did you blow into Weaverville? Heard back from Square D yet?
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Scott M. Hampton
Well, Moonbeam, that's a rather easy question. We (I speak collectively)
have no respect for some people because they have done nothing to *EARN*
it, a concept that does seem to be abtruse beyond the point of
comprehension by many of the limp-minded souls who's misfortune it is
to stumble onto the firing line.
Now, peevers are united on very few things. We have a variety of politics
from far right to far left to far anarchist. Our incomes range from the
scrabbling students to the comfortably corporate, and our backgrounds are
diverse. Peeving spans the globe in an invisible net of vitriol; an
inflexible refusal to tolerate hypocrisy, stupidity, and the ever-
declining standards of rhetoric. Peevers are united in their disgust
with callous disregard for writing skill. Neglect your spelling, your
punctuation, or your flow and we will certainly remind you in our
respective manners.
We are not egalitarian, we are elitist. We care not for status or rank,
nor for income or title -- only skill, intellect, wit, acumen, and
ability are of any import. That you have not seen this in your claimed
reading of 'many articles' does not auger well, and starting a sentence
with "I mean" in any but a sardonic style is an ominous indication of
things to come. The entrails are not auspicious, Moonbeam: it is up to
you to prove the prophesy wrong, or join the other sacrifices upon the
Altar of the Dialectic.
Good luck, My Child -- and know now what you speak of.
Woulffe, Peevetown Poet and Swordsman
--
Scott M. Hampton sham...@jarthur.claremont.edu
We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a
virtue than malnutrition. -- Alex Comfort --
Marc Cooper
well, this tag AIN'T the way..
>:)
Nor is this..
Now then, using the Cat In The Hat approach, jsut find everything that WON'T
gain you respect around here and whatever is left over will.
And you'll no doubt provide minutes of untold amusement to the general
populace.
--
Marc Cooper - Graphics Programmer - NYMA | I'm a joker who has understood his
fsm...@lerc.nasa.gov | epoch and has extracted all he poss-
NASA Lewis Research Center MS 5-11 | ibly could from the stupidity, greed,
21000 Brookpark Dr. | and vanity of his contemporaries.
Cleveland, OH 44135 (216) 433-8898 | -Pablo Picasso
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!" -D. Duck
Articulate Mandible
You're new here, I can tell. Vide clue infra.
|>-Moonshine
|>
|>:)
^^
This is a problem. Do something about it.
--
Nolan "whatta waste of skin" Hinshaw
Internet: no...@twg.com Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197
"If a woman is going to be noiser than I am, it'd better be in bed or on the
toilet." Dave Munroe, alt.peeves
"This is of course a flawed and provincial perception, but it's mine."
Geoff Miller, alt.peeves
Philip John Stroffolino
This group used to be quite amusing. I'd much rather see a half dozen
thick-headed math-illiterates bicker over a simple probability problem
then a bunch of foul, pointless flames. Considering the high traffic
this group gets, you'd think it would be a good thing if some of the
regulars ran out of things to say, or at least slowed down their pace,
but apparently some people feel obliged to keep stuff spewing from their
terminals, whether gems of humor or total garbage.
How ironic, you say? Who is this cretin, rudely interrupting our unholy
services? It matters not, I think. I~m just a poor misguided, bored
soul who thinks it depressing that a fine, often interesting group has
degenerated into something ugly. Cruel sarcasm is of dubious value. As
are mindless (self-perceived as witty, I~m sure) flamish comments. On
the other hand, why anyone who is repeatedly flamed would feel the urge
to stick around where they are not wanted is beyond me.
ObPeeve#1: spelling/grammar freaks, who apparently have some incurable
neurosis that prevents them from looking past the most superficial of
things.
ObPeeve#2: adults. They always want to punish me when they find out
that I was using my big brother~s account. Well, I have no shame! I
accept every spanking with clenched teeth and a warm heart, eagerly
awaiting the next chance to feed Philip extra sleeping pills.
pjs
Moonshine
>
>>[a question of respect]
>
>Well, Moonbeam, that's a rather easy question. We (I speak collectively)
>have no respect for some people because they have done nothing to *EARN*
>it, a concept that does seem to be abtruse beyond the point of
>comprehension by many of the limp-minded souls who's misfortune it is
>to stumble onto the firing line.
Um, yeah, OK....Well, I don't intend to try and *EARN* respect here,
was just a curious question for all you easily annoyed people.
>Now, peevers are united on very few things. We have a variety of politics
>from far right to far left to far anarchist. Our incomes range from the
>scrabbling students to the comfortably corporate, and our backgrounds are
>diverse. Peeving spans the globe in an invisible net of vitriol; an
>inflexible refusal to tolerate hypocrisy, stupidity, and the ever-
>declining standards of rhetoric. Peevers are united in their disgust
>with callous disregard for writing skill. Neglect your spelling, your
>punctuation, or your flow and we will certainly remind you in our
>respective manners.
Yeah? Well, I'm not a peever, I don't care for politics, my
income grows on trees, and I will neglect my spelling as I
please. You can go ahead and flame, flame till the whole world
blows up into ashes. I'll still come around to bother you guys.
Hey...what happened to sociable and friendly? You guys have been
avoiding my question. Interesting.....
>We are not egalitarian, we are elitist. We care not for status or rank,
>nor for income or title -- only skill, intellect, wit, acumen, and
>ability are of any import. That you have not seen this in your claimed
>reading of 'many articles' does not auger well, and starting a sentence
>with "I mean" in any but a sardonic style is an ominous indication of
>things to come. The entrails are not auspicious, Moonbeam: it is up to
>you to prove the prophesy wrong, or join the other sacrifices upon the
>Altar of the Dialectic.
Um, OK, Mr. Literary Expert, whatever you say, and duifyaiusdyfu
to you.
--
Moonshine
>
>
>Now then, using the Cat In The Hat approach, jsut find everything that WON'T
>gain you respect around here and whatever is left over will.
You spelt 'just' wrong.
Elaine Richards
You need to know which is the business end of a flamethrower.
Now, go back to back of the classroom and watch, honey.
--
-------------------------Quote of the day ------------------------------
"Fook the neighbors" - Dessie Curley in 'Snapper'
Dan Sorenson -- Cereal Killer
>On the other hand, being named after a highly-regarded folk beverage that
>the BATF doesn't approve of seems quite acceptable, as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, but this is solely because it pisses off the control
freaks and, as always, this is a laudable goal at all times.
>Annoying personal aside: Yo, Dan, glad to see you made it back. What
>time did you blow into Weaverville? Heard back from Square D yet?
We got back home at 0-dark-thirty, which was fine since I
was driving and my brother-in-law had decided sleep was a major
priority in his life. Had he stuck to normal working hours (dusk
until dawn) he wouldn't have had that problem. As for Square D,
the pickings are slim. They just went through a major "reshuffling,"
also known as "get rid of as many as possible for the sake of money"
and hence I'm pitting my resume against many others. We'll see.
Truth be told, I'm not sure about North Carolina as a place
to live. Sure, it has inexpensive housing, fair schools, great
scenery, and all that other stuff, but I just can't feel right
about living in an area where supermarkets advertise black eyed
peas and collared greens. Or whatever. It took me nearly two
full minutes to find the bar-b-q sauce! The only saving grace
is the relatively cheap beer, for which I am very grateful.
Upcoming peeve: The Ten Days of Xmas with My Mother.
Summary: I must be adopted -- genetics cannot diverge so greatly
in the span of one generation.
Marc Cooper
Nah... too easy.
ObUnrelatedPeeve: The fucking Midwest. Specifically, the snow. Even more
specifically, the bit of snow that hid the crater in the middle of the
street, which I managed to drive into monday, which not ONLY flattened my tire
but took a chunk out of my alloy rim, to the tune of $250, PLUS a new tire,
PLUS balancing, PLUS a realignment.
Peeve2: My dimwhit insurance agent STILL hasn't called to tell me whether
this would be under comprehensive (no deductible, no killing my rates) or
collision (i.e. fuck the claim, it's all my own money anyway).
Jenny Gutbezahl
Moonshine <st...@skyway.ca> wrote:
>
>You spelt 'just' wrong.
>
Thank goodness you pointed that out, Moon. Too many blatant
misspellings and so forth go completely unnoticed here. For example,
not *one* of the folks following up your post has pointed out that you
spelled "respect" incorrectly (you spelled it "repect" twice in the
body of your post, although it is correct in the subject line).
This type of sloppiness can DESTROY a group.
I for one want to thank Moonshine for preventing alt.peeves from
falling into the pit of illiteracy into which so many other groups
have descended.
You've got my respect, Monnshine, and I hope you'll stick around to
keep alt.peeves correctly spelled. For all of us.
Yours in abject awe and admiration,
Jenny
Rick Gordon
>Greetings,
Bite me.
>This group used to be quite amusing.
Oh, really? When was this jollier era, and at what point did the
drolleries turn dark and threatening? Who, exactly, do we have to
crush like a bug under the hobnailed boot of Consensus, eh?
>I'd much rather see a half dozen
>thick-headed math-illiterates bicker over a simple probability problem
>then a bunch of foul, pointless flames. Considering the high traffic
>this group gets, you'd think it would be a good thing if some of the
>regulars ran out of things to say, or at least slowed down their pace,
>but apparently some people feel obliged to keep stuff spewing from their
>terminals, whether gems of humor or total garbage.
Live it or live *with* it, pj. It happens. If you feel ill-used by
the low quality of somebody's articles, call him, her, or them on it.
None of this "some of the regulars" arm's-distancing, either, you have
to names names and deal with the result. That's the way it works here.
You got a problem with that?
>How ironic, you say?
No. "How retromingently moronic", I say.
What in the name of Ambrose Bierce's dog is going on here? The occasional
(maybe once every couple of months) misguided Rebel Without A Clue has
become recently an infestation, a Congress of Maroons, a plague. It's
not that there isn't any new talent appearing; we've seen more than a
couple of bright, literate, incorrigibly funny new faces in recent
months. True, some of the veteran artistes have retired (temporarily,
it is hoped) from the field. True, the group dynamic ensures that
change is inevitable. But some of the portents are troubling:
Charles Parr is called "rude" in a recent article.
Charles Parr is called "Moonshine" in another.
Several kind souls have wandered in here, become offended by
what they perceive as overly aggressive dialog ("Flames!
Eeeeewwwww!"), and then *complained* about it.
And so on. It's enough to make a person queasy.
> [ ... ]
>ObPeeve#2: adults. They always want to punish me when they find out
>that I was using my big brother~s account. Well, I have no shame! I
>accept every spanking with clenched teeth and a warm heart, eagerly
>awaiting the next chance to feed Philip extra sleeping pills.
OK, I liked this part. Hee hum.
>pjs
--
Rick Gordon | "The more things change, the more different they get."
ri...@netcom.com | -- S. Krishna of Copenhagen
Charlie Stross
:
|
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|
| Heaven forfend, I should indulge in the
| particular kind of peeveological perversion
| known as the spelling f*ame ...
|
+--- but I think you spelt this wrong.
Pederast^H^H^H^H^Hantically yours,
Charlie
A. Jing Hippy
|> Greetings,
Greeting.
Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
|> ObPeeve#1: spelling/grammar freaks, who apparently have some incurable
|> neurosis that prevents them from looking past the most superficial of
|> things.
Peeve: People who, when their blunders are pointed out, relegate them
to the realm of the "superficial" and classify those who point them out as
"freaks".
See, there's this whole reality/net thing. Most of us haven't met each
other, so we have 2 ways of deciding the merits of an individual:
1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
2) Spelling and grammar.
I think that it can be shown, from the population of this group, that
spelling and grammar are *not* superficial. I've thrown out resumes because
the person either didn't have enough wherewithal to spell things properly or,
at least realizing that limitation, had someone else check it out. If
it's not important to them on something as vital as a resume, then why
should I feel that they're going to consider their job any more important?
Now, this is hardly a resume, you say. This is the net. This is
alt<dot>peeves. You'd be correct if you should say that, but the fact is
that the people who choose to populate this group, the people who, overall,
get along and express their ideas in a pretty cogent manner, consider
spelling and grammar to be important. We let typos slide by all the time.
Heck, there will probably be a couple in *this* post, but improper usage and
spelling has an impact on one's ability to convey an idea, and that is what
the majority of this group respects.
If you consider it superficial, if you consider us freaks, then I suggest
that you would be happier, and I'm quite sure that I can speak for the
group at large when I say that we would be happier, if you simply
unsubscribed.
Have a nice day.
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC |
|coc...@dg-rtp.dg.com |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|"Dr. Pavlov's distinguished career came to an |
| abrupt end one day when the doorbell rang and the|
| dog ate the Avon lady." |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Cameron Reid
>Live it or live *with* it, pj. It happens. If you feel ill-used by
>the low quality of somebody's articles, call him, her, or them on it.
>None of this "some of the regulars" arm's-distancing, either, you have
>to names names and deal with the result. That's the way it works here.
>You got a problem with that?
>Philip John Stroffolino writes:
>>How ironic, you say?
>No. "How retromingently moronic", I say.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Um, I think you missed here, unless you happen to know that Phillip
is late in his rent...
peeve: wool. eyes. etc.
--
Cameron Reid | wra...@netcom.com | cam...@autodesk.com | ...
No brains, no service. - G. Larson
Rick Gordon
>ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
>
>>Philip John Stroffolino writes:
>
>>>How ironic, you say?
>
>>No. "How retromingently moronic", I say.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Um, I think you missed here, unless you happen to know that Phillip
>is late in his rent...
Re-check your coordinates, Reid. We're using English here.
ObPeeve: Soi-disant language mavens with inadequate preparation.
>Cameron Reid | wra...@netcom.com | cam...@autodesk.com | ...
--
G. Paul Ziemba
>We're using English here.
And then goes on to write:
>Soi-disant language mavens
Am I missing something?
--
Paul Ziemba, software archaeologist: pa...@alantec.com alantec!paul
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Nosy
< In article <Eh_tqSK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Philip John Stroffolino <ps...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
< |> Greetings,
< Greeting.
< Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
Mebbe Stroffolino learned how to use the word by looking
at his daddy's draft induction notice.
Uncle Sam always has been a wasteful sod.
Do not point at face while opening
>You spelt 'just' wrong.
Ha ha ha snork.
Truth be told, Moonbeam, you've nailed it on the head. It's right
up there in the subject line. Respect. Respect isn't something
that is due to you because you exist. It isn't even due to you
because you post to the newsgroup or even becuase you can carry a
decent converstaion on a variety of topics. Not trying to, but
succeeding in sounding rather Milleresque, your desire for respect
doesn't immediately entitle you to respect.
Let's turn the tables for a few moments: What will it take for you
to respect the flow and contents of alt.peeves? What does it have
to do to earn your Liliputian dose of respect. You're just the
latest in a long string of very small people to show up and proudly
proclaim that you *will* piss on the parade because you *can*.
Although it's never quantified this way, if you don't show us
respect, we won't show you respect. Making an ass of yourself
because Usenet has no hard and fast retribution doesn't earn you
cosmic brownie points.
It's all for naught, though. I'll rest tonight, assured that you
disposed of these seeds of wisdom as if they contaminated your
freshly packed bong.
andy
ba...@abingdon.sun.com DoD #0961
--
You might be a Redneck if you think the last four words to the Star Spangled
Banner are "Gentlemen, start your engines." - Jeff Foxworthy
Jenny Gutbezahl
Cameron Reid <wra...@netcom.com> wrote:
>ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
>
>
>>No. "How retromingently moronic", I say.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Um, I think you missed here, unless you happen to know that Phillip
>is late in his rent...
>
Boy! I'd sure love to see the look on Phillip's landlord's face . . .
Retromingently,
Jenny
Rick Gordon
>first, ri...@netcom.com (e. e. gordon) pontificates:
No pontification here. This is no bull.
>>We're using English here.
>
>And then goes on to write:
>
>>Soi-disant language mavens
>
>Am I missing something?
One of the reasons English has been so successful as a human language
is that it's absolutely shameless about appropriating words and phrases
from other (usually older) languages. All the words I used in that
post (and in most things I write) are English words, in the sense
that they've been shanghaied into service without the permission of
the original owners and now appear in any good English dictionary.
The language changes constantly, and that's a Good Thing. French is
the FORTRAN of human languages.
Tooshay, hombre.
>Paul Ziemba, software archaeologist: pa...@alantec.com alantec!paul
--
Cris Pedregal Martin
In article <rickgCJ...@netcom.com>, ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
|> that they've been shanghaied into service without the permission of
|> the original owners and now appear in any good English dictionary.
|>
|> The language changes constantly, and that's a Good Thing. French is
|> the FORTRAN of human languages.
Omigawd, what's this!? Pensez 'logiciel', especially 'logiciel scientifique'!
Now that's a good concept there, M. Gordon. What would you like the
meaning of x = x + 1 to be today in your favorite programming language?
Peeve: the belief that any life situation can be easily ("trivially,
isomorphically", initiates say) translated into tech paradigms.
Peeve: misleading analogies in general
!Peeve: as long one stays clear of peeve #1 above, being a tech type ain't half bad.
Now if we are talking human languages, I happen to agree (not that it matters
much) that trying to forestall change is, more than A Bad Thing, A Useless
Endeavor. That doesn't deter a few old (white?) men ....
Peeve: L'Academie Francaise and its cousin La Real Academia Espanola.
|>
|> Tooshay, hombre.
|>
But you probably meant "touche', hombre" or "tooSHAY, OHMbreh" ... or
perhaps you assume readers of a.p can pronounce Spanish but not French?
Hell, I can't even pronounce English!
--Cris (pass the phonetics, please) P M
--
Cris Pedregal Martin pedr...@cs.umass.edu
Computer Science Department UMass / Amherst, MA 01003-4610
Philip John Stroffolino
Most of us haven't met each other, so we have 2 ways of deciding
the merits of an individual:
>1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
>2) Spelling and grammar.
And when you do meet someone in person, I'll bet you add:
3) the height / breast size of the individual
No? pre-judging someone by their spelling is shallow in my opinion.
You may feel like a mosquito-plagued burro when you come across a
deviant spelling, but the "blunder" itself is harmless.
>I think that it can be shown, from the population of this group, that
>spelling and grammar are *not* superficial.
A strong correlation does not preclude exceptions.
>I've thrown out resumes because the person either didn't have enough
>wherewithal to spell things properly or, at least realizing that
>limitation, had someone else check it out. If it's not important to
>them on something as vital as a resume, then why should I feel that
>they're going to consider their job any more important?
That bit of "logic" can get you into trouble. Would you go so far as to
tell me that if you had only two resumes in front of you, and you
noticed a spelling errors in one, that you wouldn't read them both
through? Why try and rationalize a useful heuristic?
!peeve: English. Oughta be phonetic. "Building character" be damned.
pjs
Articulate Mandible
|>In article <Eh_tqSK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Philip John Stroffolino <ps...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|>|> Greetings,
|>
|>Greeting.
|>
|>Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
Right! I only got one from The Pres, back in '66. What's good enuf for LBJ's
good enough for me.
--
Nolan "and only one salutation, too" Hinshaw
Internet: no...@twg.com Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197
Duct tape - it has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe
together.
Ha Li
>!peeve: English. Oughta be phonetic.
Phonetic according to whose pronunciation? Perhaps you'd like to lead
the crusade, in which case you might want to improve on the plan of Mr.
Clemens:
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
-Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons
are used in an underwhelming .026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means
that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local
zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer
on the streets." - Joseph Constance, Trenton, N.J., police department
(quoted from the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 6, '94)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Reid
: Cameron Reid writes:
: >ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
: >
: >>Philip John Stroffolino writes:
: >
: >>>How ironic, you say?
: >
: >>No. "How retromingently moronic", I say.
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >Um, I think you missed here, unless you happen to know that Phillip
: >is late in his rent...
: Re-check your coordinates, Reid. We're using English here.
Coordinates checked, sir. Thanks for straightening me out.
On the other hand, it is a logical mistake, I think, to confuse
"retromingent" with "arrears"...
peeve: no, really, that's exactly what I did.
--
Cameron Reid | wra...@netcom.com | cam...@autodesk.com | ...
Rick Gordon
>In article <rickgCJ...@netcom.com>, ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
>
>|> The language changes constantly, and that's a Good Thing. French is
>|> the FORTRAN of human languages.
>
>Omigawd, what's this!? Pensez 'logiciel', especially 'logiciel scientifique'!
>
>Now that's a good concept there, M. Gordon. What would you like the
>meaning of x = x + 1 to be today in your favorite programming language?
>
>Peeve: the belief that any life situation can be easily ("trivially,
> isomorphically", initiates say) translated into tech paradigms.
>
>Peeve: misleading analogies in general
No shit.
I don't know what you're Omigawding about here, and it's only out of
the Christian charity I carry in my heart for all victims of blithering
misguided enthusiasm that I advise you to Put A Clamp On It. FORTRAN,
over the years, has been formally changed only after *years* of
meetings, letters, proclamations, and proposals. For a computer
language which people are going to use across a range of machines, this
may be necessary, but the result has been a language which is slow to
change, to adapt, and which is sometimes rejected in favor of newer
languages which are more readily extensible.
Now that the analogy has been formally introduced to you, are you willing
to take it home and show it to Mom yet, or are you still going to pout
about it being "misleading"?
>Now if we are talking human languages, I happen to agree (not that it matters
>much) that trying to forestall change is, more than A Bad Thing, A Useless
>Endeavor. That doesn't deter a few old (white?) men ....
>
>Peeve: L'Academie Francaise and its cousin La Real Academia Espanola.
You have a keen grasp of the obvious, Cris. Don't ever change.
>Cris Pedregal Martin pedr...@cs.umass.edu
Russ Kepler
Ken Strayhorn <Ken.St...@launchpad.unc.edu> wrote:
>Well, gang, returned to work Monday to find a Myers-Briggs test
>upon my desk with instructions to have it finished and handed
>in by noon.
You should have posted sooner - you would have had lots of sincerely
interested help available in this group.
!Peeve: fucking with tests
>The Reason: Staff will have a retreat Thursday to discuss our
>"Vision Statement" and plans to better work as a team.
Serious peeve there. Any corporate statement containing "team"
"vision statement" or "retreat" *demands* a high level response from
you, preferably one containing lots of high explosive.
>So I spent all today imprisoned with people I barely know,
>listening to psychobabble, and being forced to take part
>in role-playing games designed, I'm told, to foster better
>understanding among coworkers.
Well, one was of looking at this is that if you suspect that "Ted" (to
pick a name out of the air and not to indicate someone at the office
of the writer of this piece, really) is a ignorant ass-kissing
sychophant with a serious crainial-rectal inversion, another when you
know it from direct experience. Consider such retreats a chanch to
get to know these people...
>Peeve: Treachery. At the end of the seminar my own secretary pipes
>up and sez: "But Ken had nothing to say all day!"
Well, if she's employed by you you know what to do. No reason to let
her "empower herself" - terminate her all the while muttering "I hear
you", "I feel your pain" and "die scum sucking bitch".
>Back to my subject line - I'm at home in my shop, counting the
>number of 5.5 NATO rounds I have and dividing by 30 so I'll
>know how many full magazines I can take to work tomorrow.
Not good - I've never seen a 30 rounder that would take 30 and not
jam. Try dividing by 28 instead and they won't jam on the 2nd round
in full auto.
--
Russ Kepler posting from home ru...@bbxrbk.basis.com
Please don't feed the Engineers
Russ Kepler
A. Jing Hippy <coc...@spam.rtp.dg.com> wrote:
>If you consider it superficial, if you consider us freaks, then I suggest
>that you would be happier, and I'm quite sure that I can speak for the
>group at large when I say that we would be happier, if you simply
>unsubscribed.
I've hired people that had posted on the net. Had they posted some of
the mishmash I'd have let someone else hire them. I don't care if
it's superficial - so's the entire decision process in hiring.
Peeve: I had to look up "superficial" above to be sure it was spelled
correctly - and it *still* doesn't look right.
Cameron Reid
: Philip John Stroffolino <ps...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
: A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
: by Mark Twain
:
...
: Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
: ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
: ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Yat werks beter ef wun iuzez "c", "x", and "y" tu riplais
"ch", "sh", and "th", rispektevli. It wud kum ful sirkil,
akxuli, wiy "ye olde" going tu "the old" and back tu "ye auld".
Now wut do wi do wiy ye letir "q"?
Philip John Stroffolino
>Boy! I'd sure love to see the look on Phillip's landlord's face . . .
>
>Retromingently,
>
>Jenny
That's one "L," you unable-to-spell meathead!
What are you, illiterate or something?
Philip John Struffalina
Philip John Stroffolino
each change, as "suggested" in Twain's joke.
And I'd bet that to anyone not already familiar with English spellings
(foriegners, children), an improved (more consistant) system would
indeed be much easier to learn and master.
Spanish and German are pretty much phonetic, and the natives of those
countries get along just fine.
Phil "how about that metric system!" Stroffolino
Alexander Vrchoticky
> And I'd bet that to anyone not already familiar with English spellings
> (foriegners, children), an improved (more consistant) system would
> indeed be much easier to learn and master [after twain's changes were
> applied].
you just mis<BANG>
seriously, sir, you seem to be operating under the misconception that
language is a means for communication. it is not.
pictograms, now those *are* a means for communication. language, on the
other hand is paint, stone, brush, chisel; the result of its use is not
communication, but art.
true, it's convenient to use the fucker to ask for another beer, but,
if we're honest, a grunt accompanied with a nod of the head would
suffice for that.
the english language is the tool of artists. there exists an amazing
body of work in this language. it's available in the form of so-called
`books', and few things in life are as pleasant and redeeming as to
slouch on the bed with one of those objects, engrossed in a world
re-created in your imagination by the act of reading, if you're lucky
also exhilarated by the quality of writing, the feeling that you're
watching a Great Mind at work.
so? if your proposed change of language was carried out, what would we
do with the works of joseph conrad, james joyce, angela carter, jeanette
winterson, hunter s. thompson, salman rushdie, william s. burroughs, f.
scott fitzgerald, susan sontag, to name but a few?
should we re-write them? surely you jest. but the alternative is
breeding a generation that has *no* access to this body of literature, a
generation of couch potatoes out of necessity, rather than just
laziness.
do you still think as highly of your suggestion? pick your answer with care.
> Spanish and German are pretty much phonetic, and the natives of those
> countries get along just fine.
what is this supposed to prove? i am a native of austria and i do get
along with english just fine, in addition to my native german.
it's a matter of caring for language, of practicing its use (reading and
writing). suggesting that the complexity of the english language when
compared with the simplicity of german (*) is an excuse for illiteracy
is ludicrous.
oh, and i'd like to see some backing for your claim that german-speaking
people `get along just fine'. this should be good.
> Phil "how about that metric system!" Stroffolino
tread carefully. you're just comparing finnegan's wake with highway
roadsigns.
-alex
-------
(*) typed after rolling around on the floor for a couple of seconds. german
pronunciation is indeed a little more phonetic than english
pronunciation, but the grammar ... oh, the grammar!
--
Alexander Vrchoticky al...@vmars.tuwien.ac.at
TU Vienna, CS/Real-Time Systems +43/1/58801-8173
Jo Miller
al...@vmars.tuwien.ac.at writes:
>should we re-write them? surely you jest. but the alternative is
>breeding a generation that has *no* access to this body of literature, a
>generation of couch potatoes out of necessity, rather than just
>laziness.
Gasp! I can scarcely imagine such a horrific scenario! It's...it's like
something out of the Twilight Zone. Thank God our great American school
system is there, ensuring that the next generation won't be denied the
ability to take pleasure in good literature.
BiggestPeeveOfMyLife: Trying to teach 18-year-olds to read and write,
knowing that by this time the clay is mostly dry and there's little one
can really do to help them. Most of the college freshmen I encounter are
intelligent people who have never read great literature nor learned how
to communicate their own thoughts in English. Now they must struggle
hard to learn the basic rules that they might have absorbed efforlessly
at age seven, had anyone bothered to teach them.
Jo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jo Miller "A planet where apes evolve from men?" dj...@cornell.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jenny Gutbezahl
>
>>Boy! I'd sure love to see the look on Phillip's landlord's face . . .
>
>
>What are you, illiterate or something?
>
That would be "or something." The "something" being that I did not
know who or what Cameron was referring to when he wrote about "Phillip's"
inability to pay rent on time. So I simply picked up his spelling.
You see, Phil, I don't have the time or inclination to keep up with all
the idiots who fw onto this group - if someone's name is availible for
me to look at, I will attempt to spell it the way they do (unless it's
Ter(r) a/e ence, of course). Since the only spelling of your name
available in the post that I read was Cam's, I used the one that he
used. It was probably just a typo on his part.
Oh, and it's Sweetmeat-head, to you, mister!
Jenny
Cris Pedregal Martin
peeve: like the monkeys (eventually) typing all Shakespeare (who, BTW, is
conspicuously absent in Alex's comments below), alt.peeves eventually cycles
back to some topics (witness the apostrophes recurring in just a couple of
weeks).
!peeve: such recurrence of ideas allows for some neat recycling of arguments, too.
As will become obvious (Hi M. Gordon!) immediately, vide infra.
But let's go on to the great online literature of today:
In article <2gmbg9$9...@email.tuwien.ac.at>, al...@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Alexander Vrchoticky) writes:
|> Philip John Stroffolino <ps...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|>
[ that Twainesquely modified English would be easier to learn ]
eliciting one of alex's songs, delicately stringed in pearls with the
form of paragraphs; these are the ones I want to recycle, pointing
M. Gordon to them:
|>
|> seriously, sir, you seem to be operating under the misconception that
|> language is a means for communication. it is not.
|>
|> pictograms, now those *are* a means for communication. language, on the
|> other hand is paint, stone, brush, chisel; the result of its use is not
|> communication, but art.
|>
|> true, it's convenient to use the fucker to ask for another beer, but,
|> if we're honest, a grunt accompanied with a nod of the head would
|> suffice for that.
This is why I bristle at analogies involving human and computer languages.
|>
|> so? if your proposed change of language was carried out, what would we
|> do with the works of joseph conrad, james joyce, angela carter, jeanette
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ who learned English at age 20,
reading newspapers -- no wonder alex cites him first!
I can't endorse alex's claim about the simplicity of German; as for Spanish,
it may be phonetic but not at all simple...
peeve: not having a second life to look into aymara and hopi.
Peeving further because I peeve on the shoulder of giant peevers,
--Cris
Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine
>Philip John Stroffolino writes:
>>This group used to be quite amusing.
>
>Oh, really? When was this jollier era, and at what point did the
>drolleries turn dark and threatening? Who, exactly, do we have to
>crush like a bug under the hobnailed boot of Consensus, eh?
It turned "dark and threatening" when everyone stopped talking
about peeves and started to flame people for petty little "typos".
>>I'd much rather see a half dozen
>>thick-headed math-illiterates bicker over a simple probability problem
>>then a bunch of foul, pointless flames. Considering the high traffic
>>this group gets, you'd think it would be a good thing if some of the
>>regulars ran out of things to say, or at least slowed down their pace,
>>but apparently some people feel obliged to keep stuff spewing from their
>>terminals, whether gems of humor or total garbage.
>Live it or live *with* it, pj. It happens. If you feel ill-used by
>the low quality of somebody's articles, call him, her, or them on it.
>None of this "some of the regulars" arm's-distancing, either, you have
>to names names and deal with the result. That's the way it works here.
>You got a problem with that?
OK, I'LL name names just to get it out of my system, the results
should be amusing.
Alex what's-his-face from Austria
Jenny G-string
Geoff "Mr.Know-it-all" Miller
Henry (can't remember your last name, but you talked about not
being able to get a date at some party? I wonder WHY?!)
Charlie Stross
There's about ten others, but they're not as bad.
> True, the group dynamic ensures that
>change is inevitable. But some of the portents are troubling:
> Charles Parr is called "Moonshine" in another.
It's all in a day's work.
-Moonshine
Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine
>
>Greeting.
>
>Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
So what's your point?
>Peeve: People who, when their blunders are pointed out, relegate them
>to the realm of the "superficial" and classify those who point them out as
>"freaks".
It's none of _your_ business pointing out blunders to other people,
that's why God created parents, teachers and employers. If you
feel you have to make a comment about someone's blunder, e-mail
them.
>See, there's this whole reality/net thing. Most of us haven't met each
>other, so we have 2 ways of deciding the merits of an individual:
>
>1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
>2) Spelling and grammar.
OK, well, about the grammer, you must remember that
some people cannot use English that well. But wait, you guys are
all perfect in your English.....
>Now, this is hardly a resume, you say. This is the net. This is
>alt<dot>peeves. You'd be correct if you should say that, but the fact is
>that the people who choose to populate this group, the people who, overall,
>get along and express their ideas in a pretty cogent manner, consider
>spelling and grammar to be important. We let typos slide by all the time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, not really, I'm not pointing the finger at you, but many others
don't even let a little minor mistake go by without having to to
make such a big deal about it. That's the big thing that is
bothering me. Take the word "a lot" for example. I spell it as
"alot" which in terms of English rules is wrong, but people do
not point it out unless the person was an English teacher.
Whether the person spelt it as "a lot" or "alot" should not have
such a big impact on you. I think most people would see what you
are getting at.
>Heck, there will probably be a couple in *this* post, but improper usage and
>spelling has an impact on one's ability to convey an idea, and that is what
>the majority of this group respects.
Yes, but even if there is a couple in this post, it wouldn't
matter, because you would've made your point more or less IMO.
People make mistakes, but of course you guys are too perfect to
make any.....
>If you consider it superficial, if you consider us freaks, then I suggest
>that you would be happier, and I'm quite sure that I can speak for the
>group at large when I say that we would be happier, if you simply
>unsubscribed.
He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Don't be such a fucken dictator!
>Have a nice day.
Have a nice day and I hope all the regulars in this group gets mad
at each other and start to flame each other.....
ObT
Moonshine writes:
>
> People make mistakes, but of course you guys are too perfect to
> make any.....
Glad you've realised that...
> Have a nice day and I hope all the regulars in this group gets mad
> at each other and start to flame each other.....
This just cannot happen. Remember, we never make mistakes, so there's
nothing to flame.
ObPeeve: I hoped that ten months would be enough to cure me from my addiction
to alt.peeves and other newsgroups. Of course, the first thing I do
the minute I'm back is to start reading it and wondering what's been
lost in the meantime.
Peeve-the-second: The university's main computers are down for some maintenance
of the ait contitioning system, so I'm forced to read news
from elsewhere.
--
The ObT
Philip John Stroffolino
>language is a means for communication. it is not.
You could have fooled me, sir.
>pictograms, now those *are* a means for communication. language, on the
>other hand is paint, stone, brush, chisel; the result of its use is not
>communication, but art.
Who are you to mock pictograms? A mummy's curse on you! Do you think
little of the Chinese writing system as well?
Are you suggesting that spelling transcends meaning? That a writer who
uses a language with an obnoxiously inconsistant spelling system is
somehow capable of producing more artistic works?
>suggesting that the complexity of the english language when compared
>with the simplicity of german (*) is an excuse for illiteracy is
>ludicrous.
Certainly not my suggestion, Alex. My point was only that, although
Twain's example was indeed entertaining, there are plenty of languages
with a much more homogeneous spelling system (all, probably ^_^) than
English, that they do not look funny (or so I would hope) to natives
readers of those languages.
Do you really think that a purely cosmetic change to a piece of writing
would hurt it's spirit? I believe it would do no more harm than storing
it on an electronic medium as opposed to paper. Or typesetting it in a
different font.
>-alex
>Alexander Vrchoticky al...@vmars.tuwien.ac.at
>TU Vienna, CS/Real-Time Systems +43/1/58801-8173
!peeve: large dogs being walked by small children
Phil
Geoff Miller
In article <Jan8.225...@acs.ucalgary.ca> ba...@acs.ucalgary.ca
(Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine) writes:
>>Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
>
>So what's your point?
Uh, that you lack a sense of humor?
>It's none of _your_ business pointing out blunders to other people,
>that's why God created parents, teachers and employers. If you
>feel you have to make a comment about someone's blunder, e-mail
>them.
I'm terribly sorry, Moonie old shoe, but you see, we prize literacy in
this here newsfroup. And literacy, contrary to what many people think,
comprises more than simply being able to read words put down by others;
it also includes related skills such as competent spelling and compre-
hension.
And how does that affect *you,* you ask? Well, it's like this. If you
wander in here and make it painfully obvious that you're sorely lacking
when it comes to basic skills like spelling, your skyward-pointing little
nose is going to be rubbed in it by those of us who actually paid
attention in school and who manage to keep our skills current by deigning
to read a book now and again. If those conditions extend beyond your
personal threshold of acceptability, then I'm sure a few moments' perusal
of your .newsrc would find you many other forums where you just might be
a better fit. Here, you see, there be tygers.
In purely practical terms, Moonie m'boy, there are a lot more of us
here than there are of you, and we aren't going to change on *your*
account.
>OK, well, about the grammer, you must remember that
>some people cannot use English that well. But wait, you guys are
>all perfect in your English.....
The attainment of absolute perfection is immaterial. What matters is
(a) most of us make a genuine effort to maintain high standards of
literacy, and (b) we're a damn sight closer to perfection than *you*
are. We, like Lexus, are dedicated to the relentless pursuit of
perfection. You, on the other hand, are the literary equivalent of
a Chevette running on three cylinders.
>No, not really, I'm not pointing the finger at you, but many others
>don't even let a little minor mistake go by without having to to
>make such a big deal about it.
Define "minor."
>That's the big thing that is bothering me. Take the word "a lot" for
>example. I spell it as "alot" which in terms of English rules is
>wrong, but people do not point it out unless the person was an English
>teacher. Whether the person spelt it as "a lot" or "alot" should not
>have such a big impact on you. I think most people would see what you
>are getting at.
You might've noticed that alt.peeves is a forum for venting one's spleen;
for discussing, as artfully as possible, the things that annoy one.
Since most of us are rather frightfully literate, peeves about spelling
and usage are quite common here. Those things matter to *us,* if not to
you, because we consider command of the language to be something of major
importance, a personal quality to be cultivated.
It so happens that "alot" is not only wrong, but also something that grates
on many of us because it's such a common error, and because anyone who
managed to stay awake in school knows better. Personally, I make it a
point to correct people who make such errors because I'm troubled by not
only the decline in literacy among otherwise educated people, but also
by the increasingly common attitude that spelling skills aren't important.
Like hell they're not. Knowing how to spell is one of the hallmarks of
an educated person, and being an educated person is a Good Thing. That
should be self evident, and if it's not, you'd be well advised to log out
of life. There are many other common examples of ignorance. Two that
irritate me to no end are the use of the words "criteria" and "media" as
the singular, for example. People should, quite simply, know better. And
if they don't, they must be set straight. If they get all sullen and
defensive when set straight, they deserve public ridicule and possibly
surgical sterilization.
>Yes, but even if there is a couple in this post, it wouldn't
>matter, because you would've made your point more or less IMO.
>People make mistakes, but of course you guys are too perfect to
>make any.....
Here's a peeve of mine: the attempt to transfer the focus of the discussion
from an abstract idea (e.g., spelling skills) to the proficiency of the
person asserting the importance of that idea. What's relevant isn't
whether or not we're perfect, but that we place importance on at least
striving for perfection instead of settling for the mediocre.
>>If you consider it superficial, if you consider us freaks, then I suggest
>>that you would be happier, and I'm quite sure that I can speak for the
>>group at large when I say that we would be happier, if you simply
>>unsubscribed.
>
>He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Don't be such a fucken dictator!
You're coming across like a petulant small child who's overdue for his
nap: "He doesn't *have* to! It's a free country!" Whaah, whaah, whaah.
Did you notice the word "suggest" in Dave's passage? It's the tip-off
that his statement wasn't intended as an imperative. See what literacy
could do for you? You end up putting your foot in your mouth far less
often.
Oh, and it's "fuckin'," not "fucken." You see, the root word is "fucking,"
and the apostrophe implies an omitted letter -- in this case, "g." This
is known as a _contraction_.
>Have a nice day and I hope all the regulars in this group gets mad
>at each other and start to flame each other.....
We don't flame each other. It's a matter of professional courtesy. No,
we only flame gibbering lackwits like you.
And the proper word in your sentence above would be "get," not "gets."
This is because "regulars" is plural.
Geoff
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Mountain View
geo...@netcom.com + DoD #0996 + California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Jenny Gutbezahl
grammar is slowly but surely deteriorating. Pretty soon it will be
indistinguishable from the language spoken bey the fine folks of
Kokomino Kounty in George Herriman's Krazy Kat:
"Thinks is all out of perpotion, Ignatz. In the way of 'ocean' for a
instinct. The ocean is so innikwilly distribitted. Take Denva,
Kollorado and Tulsa, Okrahoma, they ain't got no ocean a tall, while
Sem Frencisco, Kellafornia and Bostin, Messachoosit, has got more
ocean than they can possible us."
At this point, Ignatz generally hurls a brick in the direction of the
University of Calgary.
Later, lil anjils,
Jenny
Jenny Gutbezahl
Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine <ba...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
> (re: folks whose writing he considers to be lacking in some way)
>
>OK, I'LL name names just to get it out of my system, the results
>should be amusing.
>
>Alex what's-his-face from Austria
>Jenny G-string
>Geoff "Mr.Know-it-all" Miller
>Henry (can't remember your last name, but you talked about not
>being able to get a date at some party? I wonder WHY?!)
>Charlie Stross
I, for one, am always pleased to get constructive criticism on my
writing style. If you could explain to me what needs to be done to
raise my posts to the level of yours, I would be eternally grateful..
Jeeny
PS Really good pun on my name, too. Amazing that in all the time that
I've been posting as JennyG, nobody has *ever* made that particular
joke. Really!
Philip John Stroffolino
>[...]
>nose is going to be rubbed in it by those of us who actually paid
>attention in school and who manage to keep our skills current by deigning
>to read a book now and again. If those conditions extend beyond your
So unashamedly elitist!
>managed to stay awake in school knows better. Personally, I make it a
>point to correct people who make such errors because I'm troubled by not
>only the decline in literacy among otherwise educated people, but also
>by the increasingly common attitude that spelling skills aren't important.
Bad spelling may indeed be a symptom of a disease, but in itself, who
does it hurt? I would hardly label a bad speller "illiterate." The
ability to read and write are not low level skills. In addition, a
spelling test alone would be a poor indicator of general intelligence,
whatever that may be. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people
that actually write for a living that still have to regularly rely upon
automated spell checkers. I can spell reasonably well, and am fortunate
enough to have access to a handy spell-checker if I'm come across a word
whose spelling I'm not sure of AND I am concerned about the recipient(s)
developing a rash from exposure to a possible "blunder..." but what if
one doesn't have any sort of dictionary handy? Should one limit one's
expressive potential?
>Like hell they're not. Knowing how to spell is one of the hallmarks of
>an educated person, and being an educated person is a Good Thing. That
>should be self evident, and if it's not, you'd be well advised to log out
>of life. There are many other common examples of ignorance. Two that
Aren't good manners a hallmark of an educated person as well? I've
worked as an executive secretary to many "educated people" who had
atrocious spelling skills AND bad manners. So it goes. It is true that
most of my fellow secretaries shared your views, but at least they were
tolerant (by necessity, perhaps) of the mistakes of others. Proper
spelling is, in my view, akin to combing one's hair. It is a wise thing
to do depending on the attitudes of one's company. It does not make
one's writing better, no more than nice wrapping on a gift makes the
gift more valuable. Sure, for some people, attention to spelling is a
sign that care was taken before presenting their ideas, but that is not
true for someone who can spell correctly effortlessly, and unreasonable
in my opinion to expect of someone who for whatever reason, has trouble
spelling many words.
>Here's a peeve of mine: the attempt to transfer the focus of the discussion
>from an abstract idea (e.g., spelling skills) to the proficiency of the
>person asserting the importance of that idea. What's relevant isn't
>whether or not we're perfect, but that we place importance on at least
>striving for perfection instead of settling for the mediocre.
Pick up straws & arrange them in nice patterns while the horses starve.
Isn't it more "worthy" to be peeved at an obnoxious lack of common
courtesy, blatant irresponsibility, or an act of universal foolishness
than to waste one's time picking the scabs on your eyes that you've
suffered from being exposed to misspelled words?
There is a study (and no, I can't quote the exact reference, so please
don't ask me to) where excellent spellers were repeatedly exposed to
misspellings of "tricky-to-spell" words. After several intense sessions
of this torture, the incorrect spellings became so familiar that most of
these people lost their ability to decide which variations were correct
in a forced decision task, even though the subjects were allowed to
study the correct spellings in between tests.
And by the way, it is a myth that reading enhances one's ability to
spell, at least after one has already learned how to read effortlessly.
Reading is essentially pattern matching, an automatic process. This is
why it is hard to read phonetic spellings, given that one is not used to
them - one is forced to regress to the state where one sounds out each
syllable. This is not pleasant, nor is it necessary when reading most
common misspellings. It is possible to lower one's threshold so that
normal reading is still effortless but spelling errors don't cause one
pain. A useful skill for an "educated person" living in a world where
few people consider good spelling to be of importance.
Phil "it'll save you an ulcer, too" Stroffolino
Charles Parr
> Charles Parr is called "rude" in a recent article.
And I for one was *horrified*! I always thought my courtesy
and manly restraint were veritable bywords within these
hallowed (if virtual) walls.
Regards, Charles
--
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person
Elaine Richards
>>Greeting.
>>Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
>So what's your point?
Its called "humor". Maybe they don't teach that in Canadian ESL classes.
>It's none of _your_ business pointing out blunders to other people,
>that's why God created parents, teachers and employers. If you
>feel you have to make a comment about someone's blunder, e-mail
>them.
Its none of your business to point out blunders to other people.
If a physician kills your wife with a post-C-section infection, that's
a blunder. But, since you are not a parent (because the kid died too),
a teacher or the physician's employer, you will just have to sit there
and do nothing. Never point out to a someone about to cross a street
that there is a large truck that just swerved into his path. Nope.
Oh, yeah. Your realtor is drafting your offer to a seller and adds
an extra digit. Nope. A friend wants you to proofread his resume.
Uh uh. You are on alt.peeves and don't understand the rules in the
group. Guess what....
>
>>See, there's this whole reality/net thing. Most of us haven't met each
>>other, so we have 2 ways of deciding the merits of an individual:
>>
>>1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
>>2) Spelling and grammar.
>
>OK, well, about the grammer, you must remember that
>some people cannot use English that well. But wait, you guys are
>all perfect in your English.....
Alex the Unpronounceable does not speak English as a native language.
When he was walking around Boston with me, he said, "Feel free to
correct my grammar or anything that is not clear. I want to learn the
idom." Alex is eloquent and has a formidable knowledge of American slang.
He's a quick study. Its because he listens and has the proper attitude
toward learning - he does not get huffy or defensive about his English.
Its no skin off his nose to have someone help him spell or pronounce
something correctly.
>
[etc]
>He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Don't be such a fucken dictator!
Snore.
>
>>Have a nice day.
>
>Have a nice day and I hope all the regulars in this group gets mad
>at each other and start to flame each other.....
We do. Constantly. Its just that it is often so well-worded that the
participants are usually laughing when they are pounding the invective
into their keyboards. The readers are often laughing also. We don't get
mad at each other because we like to build it up. Its called slapstick.
I am sure Canadians must know about slapstick.
--
-------------------------Quote of the day ------------------------------
"Fook the neighbors" - Dessie Curley in 'Snapper'
Scott M. Hampton
>Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine <ba...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> (re: folks whose writing he considers to be lacking in some way)
>>Jenny G-string
>
>PS Really good pun on my name, too. Amazing that in all the time that
>I've been posting as JennyG, nobody has *ever* made that particular
>joke. Really!
Jenny, I would hope that is sarcasm - I'm sure that others have also
noticed that easy extension but, like myself, were unwilling to descend
even half that far for a cheap laugh. Come come, dear, that was so...
so... so *common*.
--
Scott M. Hampton sham...@jarthur.claremont.edu
We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a
virtue than malnutrition. -- Alex Comfort --
No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB
Actually, what Moonshine writes is not the issue of my post, but
rather what he fails to edit from the very end of his post:
>>+--------------------------------------------------+
>>|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC |
>>|coc...@dg-rtp.dg.com |
>>+--------------------------------------------------+
>>|"Dr. Pavlov's distinguished career came to an |
>>| abrupt end one day when the doorbell rang and the|
>>| dog ate the Avon lady." |
>>+--------------------------------------------------+
This is, obviously, not Dave's fault, or even Mike Holmes'
What Moonshine has to _say_ stands on its own merit, or, rather, fails
to do so, and has been appropriately targeted by others.
What peeves me at the moment is this annoyingly common inability
to use an editor. Spelling, grammar, typing skill, these
are important to me also, though a fair substitute is the
simple ability to proofread and correct. Personally, my typing
is atrocious, but after proofreading, who can tell?
It has often been said that only a poor workman blames his tools.
[forgive the sexism, please] I would expand that to those who
blame their _lack_ of tools, whether dictionary, spelling checker,
or newsreader.
Bob O`Bob
--
No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB
>
>>[...]
>
>So unashamedly elitist!
Tough to flaunt what you aint got, eh PJ?
> but what if
>one doesn't have any sort of dictionary handy? Should one limit one's
>expressive potential?
Exactly!
As I've mentioned, blaming the tools, or the lack thereof, is
simply not good enough. If one cannot be bothered to acquire the
correct tools for a job, one should not attempt to take it on.
>>Like hell they're not. Knowing how to spell is one of the hallmarks of
>>an educated person, and being an educated person is a Good Thing. That
>>should be self evident, and if it's not, you'd be well advised to log out
>>of life.
>
>Aren't good manners a hallmark of an educated person as well? I've
>worked as an executive secretary to many "educated people" who had
>atrocious spelling skills AND bad manners. So it goes. It is true that
>most of my fellow secretaries shared your views, but at least they were
>tolerant (by necessity, perhaps) of the mistakes of others. Proper
That's what is known as understanding one's place in the pecking order.
You'll learn yours soon enough.
>spelling is, in my view, akin to combing one's hair.
And, in my view, it is radically more important.
I often don't bother to comb my hair, because I rarely
seek respect from anyone based upon my appearance.
I normally proofread and rethink my articles fairly
carefully, because I *usually* care what my audience
receives from my words. If I didn't, I wouldn't
bother to assemble them. If I didn't mind that they
might be distracted or annoyed by a misspelling or
typo, then perhaps I didn't _care_ enough about my
thoughts to deserve having them considered.
> It is a wise thing
>to do depending on the attitudes of one's company. It does not make
>one's writing better, no more than nice wrapping on a gift makes the
>gift more valuable. Sure, for some people, attention to spelling is a
>sign that care was taken before presenting their ideas, but that is not
>true for someone who can spell correctly effortlessly, and unreasonable
>in my opinion to expect of someone who for whatever reason, has trouble
>spelling many words.
You fail to take into account the effect that poor spelling and grammar
have on the reader. While you note that proper spelling does not *add*
to the value of a written work, you fail to recognize that poor spelling
does detract from it. You seem to have reached the incorrect conclusion
that these facts are contradictory. Proper formation of written words
_allows_ the ideas expressed therein to communicate effectively to the
reader. Poor spelling, grammar, and proofreading interfere with the
process.
>Isn't it more "worthy" to be peeved at ...
I'm not going to bother quoting the rest of this paragraph. A peeve is
either worthy or it is not. Different readers may place their threshold
differently. But there is no point to peeve-waving dickwars. In another
group, I've recently participated in a discussion of racism and
"Affirmative Action," the latter of which I find to be an application
of the former, with the difference simply of the ownership of the
gored ox and perhaps the depth of the wounds. Those few people honest
enough to describe AA as "retribution" or "reparations" receive
somewhat more respect from me. And while I recognize that AA is in
most cases less egregious than racism, I detest the opinion that it
is not to be objected to. Just because murders take place every day
is no excuse for overlooking petty theft.
Just because one peever posts about some BDI trying to run him off
the highway does not mean that someone peeved about a misspelling
is unworthy to post of it.
At issue is the quality of the peeve itself, the posting to the
group. If Mother Theresa were to post a misspelled, poorly
written peeve about her sex life, I'd gladly be among the
first to say: "Terry, you ignorant slut..."
Bob O`Bob
--
Dan Sorenson -- Cereal Killer
>It's none of _your_ business pointing out blunders to other people,
>that's why God created parents, teachers and employers. If you
>feel you have to make a comment about someone's blunder, e-mail
>them.
When you are in my house, you obey my rules else I'll be quite
happy to show you the door. *THERE'S* the fucking door! Don't let it
hit your ass on the way out.
After all, we've company coming and we don't need any riff-raff.
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it *
* is safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs *
James F. Gray
>coc...@spam.rtp.dg.com writes:
>
>Most of us haven't met each other, so we have 2 ways of deciding
>the merits of an individual:
>
>>1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
>>2) Spelling and grammar.
>
>
>
Would you go so far as to
>tell me that if you had only two resumes in front of you, and you
>noticed a spelling errors in one, that you wouldn't read them both
>through?
no, i'd read them both just so i could laugh my ass off comparing
the intelligent, well constructed one to the misspelled one. then
i would probably circulate the shitty one around the office for a
good laugh.
look, if you've *ever* had to interview people, you might just
understand what jing is talking about. it's amazing how goddamed
unqualified people can be when applying for a job. i was hiring
for a finance support position once. i interviewed several
people, including the vaginally challenged/enhanced *and*
<insert any other favorite trait> challenged/enhanced candidate
that looked halfway qualified from their resume. i will *never*
forget the guy who claimed to have graduated with honors in
finance and *really, REALLY* wanted the job. when we got to
talking about the position, he looked at the calculator on my
desk and asked, "I won't have to use one of THOSE things, will
I?" (Look of YouReallyGottaBeKiddingMe on my face). I says,
with as straight a face as possible, Yes, I'm Afraid So. Tell
me about your academic career. What was your GPA?
"2.2"
Beg your pardon, I thought you said 2.2...
"I did"
(Uh oh....) Well tell me about your computer experience. What
applications have you used?
"Well, I've used Lotus 1, but I haven't used Lotus 2 or 3 yet. But
I'm REAL eager to learn them!"
Needless to say, I spent the rest of the morning retelling the
story around the office. Hadn't laughed so hard in months.
So you see, some of us look at spelling errors on a resume as a
warning flag. If you can't take the time to run the damned thing
through a spell checker, you aren't gonna be given the time to
explain the errors in person. Period.
Peeve: Agricultural schools that give degrees in the Arts. With
Honors no less.
Jim
Jo Miller
jg...@med.unc.edu writes:
>Peeve: Agricultural schools that give degrees in the Arts. With
>Honors no less.
From Cornell, was he?
Jo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jo Miller dj...@cornell.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A. Jing Hippy
|> coc...@spam.rtp.dg.com writes:
|>
|> Most of us haven't met each other, so we have 2 ways of deciding
|> the merits of an individual:
|>
|> >1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
|> >2) Spelling and grammar.
|>
|>
|> 3) the height / breast size of the individual
|>
|> No? pre-judging someone by their spelling is shallow in my opinion.
|> You may feel like a mosquito-plagued burro when you come across a
|> deviant spelling, but the "blunder" itself is harmless.
Actually, there was a point to be made there. I'll try again.
It's not the spelling errors in and of themselves that are peevesome. It's
the idea that they are "unimportant" and therefore no effort should be
expended to correct the problem.
It's like Jimmy Carter saying "nucular". After a while, you get so
absorbed in his mispronunciation that you miss any point that he might
have been trying to make. You are judged in this group by the ideas that
you convey. Spelling and grammar errors detract from those ideas, making
them seem more trivial or inane.
Maybe I'm projecting here. If people were laughing at me because I
mispronounced the "croquet" as "crockwet", then I'd want to know about it
so that I could correct it. Maybe some just aren't that concerned about
the image they project.
|> >I think that it can be shown, from the population of this group, that
|> >spelling and grammar are *not* superficial.
|> A strong correlation does not preclude exceptions.
This is true, and I think I pointed out that we let typos go by all the time.
Those of us who speak American and those of us who speak English tolerate
(for the most part) each others' little quirks of spelling and phraseology
(Babs and the turn signals notwithstanding). Yes, there are exceptions.
Still, I think that someone with a whit of intelligence and a bit of
self-image will certainly make an effort to correct things. If not, then
they come across as ignorant slobs.
|> >I've thrown out resumes because the person either didn't have enough
|> >wherewithal to spell things properly or, at least realizing that
|> >limitation, had someone else check it out. If it's not important to
|> >them on something as vital as a resume, then why should I feel that
|> >they're going to consider their job any more important?
|>
|> That bit of "logic" can get you into trouble. Would you go so far as to
|> tell me that if you had only two resumes in front of you, and you
|> noticed a spelling errors in one, that you wouldn't read them both
|> through? Why try and rationalize a useful heuristic?
You've assumed that I threw them out before I read them through. Fact is,
I usually end up reading them through just to see how many errors there
are (see above JC reference). Given two candidates with roughly equal
qualifications, the one with the correct spelling and grammar gets the
nod.
I'm not talking about one or two typos here. I've seen too many documents
that had a misspelling slip through even though they were checked and
rechecked. I'm talking about the person who insists on using "definately"
multiple times. Or "loose" for "lose".
Alexander Vrchoticky
> >pictograms, now those *are* a means for communication. language, on the
> >other hand is paint, stone, brush, chisel; the result of its use is not
> >communication, but art.
>
> Who are you to mock pictograms? A mummy's curse on you! Do you think
> little of the Chinese writing system as well?
the `pictograms' i was referring to are most frequently used as (hopefully)
universally understandable signs in public places. even though they have
been embraced by modern artists (*), they themselves are the ultimate in
sacrificing artistry for understandability.
if there is another meaning of the word `pictogram' that would include
chinese glyphs, i am not aware of it, and any and all misunderstandings
are to be booked on my karma bank account.
> Are you suggesting that spelling transcends meaning? That a writer who
> uses a language with an obnoxiously inconsistant spelling system is
> somehow capable of producing more artistic works?
of course not. the whole concept of `more artistic' smells rather
rancid to start with.
> [...] My point was only that, although
> Twain's example was indeed entertaining, there are plenty of languages
> with a much more homogeneous spelling system (all, probably ^_^) than
> English, that they do not look funny (or so I would hope) to natives
> readers of those languages.
i would argue that `looking funny' is much more a question of effort put
into learning the language than of intrinsic difficulty. it's fairly
obvious that continuing exposure to a language leads to a learning
process --- things *don't* look `funny' any longer, because you've
become used to seeing them. to a six-year old the phrase x*2 + 17 = 0
looks odd. after seeing such equations for some time, their meaning and
handling becomes a readily accessible skill. it's the same with
language: frequency and intensity of exposure lead to skill.
on the original point, there may be some such languages, but german is not
one of them. witness the double-s versus sharp-s confusion, witness the
difference between `das' and `da<sharp-s>', witness the arcane rules
governing the elision or non-elision of triple consonants in compound
nouns (brenn-nessel --> brennessel, but sauerstoff-flasche -->
sauerstoffflasche), etc. etc.
> Do you really think that a purely cosmetic change to a piece of writing
> would hurt it's spirit? I believe it would do no more harm than storing
> it on an electronic medium as opposed to paper. Or typesetting it in a
> different font.
no, my point was that spelling is an aspect of language. its importance
depends on the context, but i don't think that changing it is
merely a matter of `cosmetics'. it's quite obvious that a number of puns
depend on the exact spelling, for instance. it's equally obvious that
stylistic choices mandate spelling: whether i write "cm'ere boy" or
"come here, boy" makes a difference. Hell, it even makes a difference
whether I choose correct capitalization or employ an all-lowercase style.
the thought of simplifying the writing style of existing works makes me
feel queasy. borrowing an analogy from music: re-doing a complicated
classical piece in a straight four-beats-and-three-chords style might
be a good idea. passing the cover off as the original version
definitely is not.
-alex
-----
(*) !peeve: i recently read of an art project (i forget when, where, and
who), where fake non-sensical pictograms were placed in railway
stations. i like confusion.
--
A. Jing Hippy
|> In article <1994Jan6.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> coc...@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
|>
|> >
|> >Greeting.
|> >
|> >Peeve: People who waste greetings. You only need one.
|>
|> So what's your point?
This is a peeves group. That peeves me. I posted it. That's the point of
the net.
|> >Peeve: People who, when their blunders are pointed out, relegate them
|> >to the realm of the "superficial" and classify those who point them out as
|> >"freaks".
|>
|> It's none of _your_ business pointing out blunders to other people,
|> that's why God created parents, teachers and employers. If you
|> feel you have to make a comment about someone's blunder, e-mail
|> them.
This is a peeves group. That peeves me. I'll post about it. People post
things here all the time that others may take personally. If you don't
like it or can't take it, then head on over to alt.good.news or
whatever-the-hell-it-is.
|> >See, there's this whole reality/net thing. Most of us haven't met each
|> >other, so we have 2 ways of deciding the merits of an individual:
|> >
|> >1) The ideas that individual conveys, and
|> >2) Spelling and grammar.
|>
|> OK, well, about the grammer, you must remember that
|> some people cannot use English that well. But wait, you guys are
|> all perfect in your English.....
See my previous post. It's not the spelling itself, but the lack of desire
to fix the problem. The trivialization of it. Note that you misspelled
"grammar" just 5 words after it was spelled properly. Either it was a typo,
you don't care how you come across to others, or you're just plain stupid.
The first is an accident, it happens to all of us. The second is
correctable, with just a bit of self-image. The third is terminal.
|> >We let typos slide by all the time.
|>
|> No, not really, I'm not pointing the finger at you, but many others
|> don't even let a little minor mistake go by without having to to
|> make such a big deal about it. That's the big thing that is
|> bothering me. Take the word "a lot" for example. I spell it as
|> "alot" which in terms of English rules is wrong, but people do
|> not point it out unless the person was an English teacher.
|> Whether the person spelt it as "a lot" or "alot" should not have
|> such a big impact on you. I think most people would see what you
|> are getting at.
But why should they have to? What makes you so special that everyone else
on the planet must read your non-words and interpret what you mean? If
I was writing something in Spanish and screwed up a verb tense or a spelling,
I'd want to know about it. I wouldn't expect the entire Spanish-speaking
world to have to figure out what I *meant* to say.
|>>Heck, there will probably be a couple in *this* post, but improper usage and
|>>spelling has an impact on one's ability to convey an idea, and that is what
|>>the majority of this group respects.
|>
|> Yes, but even if there is a couple in this post, it wouldn't
|> matter, because you would've made your point more or less IMO.
|> People make mistakes, but of course you guys are too perfect to
|> make any.....
*sigh* Again, it's not the spelling itself, but the attitude that it's
unimportant that's peevesome.
|> >If you consider it superficial, if you consider us freaks, then I suggest
|> >that you would be happier, and I'm quite sure that I can speak for the
|> >group at large when I say that we would be happier, if you simply
|> >unsubscribed.
|>
|> He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Don't be such a fucken dictator!
You're baiting me, aren't you?
Note that the keyword above is "suggest". Dictators don't "suggest". To
the best of my knowledge, there are no dictators on the net.
Peeve: There are *way* too many people that have aspirations to
net.dictatorship.
|> >Have a nice day.
|>
|> Have a nice day and I hope all the regulars in this group gets mad
|> at each other and start to flame each other.....
Why should we? We have the likes of you that keep wandering in for us.
Keep smilling.
Mahatma Poontang
Philip John Stroffolino writes:
>So unashamedly elitist!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I was interested to read somewhere recently that the whole concept of
elitism is a recent development as those things go -- circa 1969 or
thereabouts -- and that the word was coined by that faction of the
American political Left that would later devolve into the PC movement.
(I think the source was John Hughes' excellent rant, _Culture Of
Complaint_. This essay is heartily recommended reading for any serious
peever.) Anyway, that tidbit is revealing, and helps place things into
perspective. I think that far too many people have a knee-jerk reaction
to perceived "elitism." It's comparable to the way "discrimination" has
become a loaded concept. Neither practice is necessarily a bad thing.
>Bad spelling may indeed be a symptom of a disease, but in itself, who
>does it hurt?
Are you familiar with Li'l Abner? As Mammie Yokum once said, "Good is
better than evil because it's nicer." There's more to life than the
strictly practical side of things; there are, indeed, matters of
principle. Mediocrity in any form sucks. Of course, a lot of folks
are perfectly willing to accept mediocrity so that no one's feelings
will be hurt, or anyone's fragile self-esteem damaged. That's wrong.
I submit that a person's self-esteem will be strengthened considerably
if he's given the skills that generate confidence in himself.
And if you insist on looking at this through the narrow, blinkered lens
of practicality, there's the matter of the impression one makes on others.
>I would hardly label a bad speller "illiterate." The ability to read
>and write are not low level skills.
Well, I'll grant you that maybe my choice of words was a bit harsh.
On the other hand, most people with net.access are assumed, not without
reason, to have attained a certain level of education, and to have the
attendant communications skills. When someone makes it obvious that
he lacks those rather elementary abilities while submerged in such a
milieu, he tends to stand out -- and not favorably.
>But what if one doesn't have any sort of dictionary handy? Should one
>limit one's expressive potential?
Either that, or pay the price of the derision of others. Or at the very
least, needlessly sacrifice a bit of one's credibility.
Incidentally, why are poor spelling skills tacitly assumed to be
impossible to overcome? It seems to me that they're just like any
other skill -- practice and a desire to improve oneself will show
undeniable results. All too often, though, I see the inability to
spell treated as though it's an inherent character trait, inborn and
indelible, and absolutely resistant to any efforts at improvement.
>Aren't good manners a hallmark of an educated person as well? I've
>worked as an executive secretary to many "educated people" who had
>atrocious spelling skills AND bad manners.
Of course. And any educated person who displays bad manners is damaging
his credibility in the same way as someone who refuses to improve his
spelling skills. Maybe even more so, since people don't automatically
assume that a poor speller is also a boor.
>Proper spelling is, in my view, akin to combing one's hair. It is a wise
>thing to do depending on the attitudes of one's company. It does not make
>one's writing better, no more than nice wrapping on a gift makes the
>gift more valuable.
Quite true. What it is is a basic skill, part of the foundation on which
good writing is based. It's a sine qua non; good spelling by itself isn't
enough to make one's writing admirable, but without it, any other writing
attributes tend to be far less visible.
>Sure, for some people, attention to spelling is a sign that care was taken
>before presenting their ideas, but that is not true for someone who can
>spell correctly effortlessly, and unreasonable in my opinion to expect of
>someone who for whatever reason, has trouble spelling many words.
Anyone who has trouble spelling should takes steps to remedy that situation.
I can't see why so many people insist on treating poor spelling skills as
though they're some sort of inborn mental handicap like dyslexia or Down's
syndrome. That's why we have schools.
>Isn't it more "worthy" to be peeved at an obnoxious lack of common
>courtesy, blatant irresponsibility, or an act of universal foolishness
>than to waste one's time picking the scabs on your eyes that you've
>suffered from being exposed to misspelled words?
Isn't it more worthy to be peeved about nuclear proliferation or famine in
Third World nations than at an obnoxious lack of common courtesy, blatant irresponsibility, or an act of universal foolishness?
There are a lot of things worthy of being peeved at. Saying that some
irritants are of more vital importance than others, in the greater scheme
of things, doesn't make the lesser peeves any less nettlesome.
>There is a study (and no, I can't quote the exact reference, so please
>don't ask me to) where excellent spellers were repeatedly exposed to
>misspellings of "tricky-to-spell" words. After several intense sessions
>of this torture, the incorrect spellings became so familiar that most of
>these people lost their ability to decide which variations were correct
>in a forced decision task, even though the subjects were allowed to
>study the correct spellings in between tests.
So what's the point? Unless people in general are continuously exposed
more often than not to misspelled words out in the real world, this isn't
relevant to our discussion.
>And by the way, it is a myth that reading enhances one's ability to
>spell, at least after one has already learned how to read effortlessly.
>Reading is essentially pattern matching, an automatic process. This is
>why it is hard to read phonetic spellings, given that one is not used to
>them - one is forced to regress to the state where one sounds out each
>syllable.
That's not relevant, either. We're not exposed to random or phonetic
spellings in the real world, but exposed over and over to words that are
properly spelled, with an occasional misspelling thrown in. Therefore,
the more one reads, the more one is exposed to the proper spellings of
common words. That can't help but strengthen a person's spelling abilities.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Gregor Bautz
PJS> NNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu
PJS> Aren't good manners a hallmark of an educated person as well? I've
PJS> worked as an executive secretary to many "educated people" who had
PJS> atrocious spelling skills AND bad manners. So it goes. It is true that
PJS> most of my fellow secretaries shared your views, but at least they were
PJS> tolerant (by necessity, perhaps) of the mistakes of others. Proper
PJS> spelling is, in my view, akin to combing one's hair. It is a wise thing
PJS> to do depending on the attitudes of one's company. It does not make
PJS> one's writing better, no more than nice wrapping on a gift makes the
PJS> gift more valuable. Sure, for some people, attention to spelling is a
PJS> sign that care was taken before presenting their ideas, but that is not
PJS> true for someone who can spell correctly effortlessly, and unreasonable
PJS> in my opinion to expect of someone who for whatever reason, has trouble
PJS> spelling many words.
Now you found the main idea right spelling represents: It shows you have
taken care on your writing, and at least read it twice to correct any
spelling or grammar errors. Reading it twice also means reflecting the
written text once again, resulting in changes of the formerly written
text and the process iterates.
As you put it above in association with combing your hair, your
writing is _your_ representation to others in a newsgroup you've never
seen in reality. So the only impression you leave is by your writing.
This impression in not only derived by the contents, but also by the
presentation of the contents. The intentional lack of spelling not
only reveals your disrespect for others, it annoys other readers in
this newsgroup as well.
As my English skills are far below Alex's level and not being a native
English speaker, I have to learn a lot to increase these very skills.
Apart from reading books, ranging from newspapers to Great English
Literature, I regarded this group as a pool for idioms and _correct_
English (most of it). Declining standards endanger this process, and
moreover it emphasizes the (no flame bait intended) prejudice of
American dis-culture. Correct spelling and grammar is a sign of your
culture and education. Got it? Alomost everyone here enjoyed at least
12 years of school education, university not counted. Does that mean
you passed all these twelve years completely unimpressed by writing
skills? Isn't a well written article in a scientific publication a
pleasure to read, if the writing skills meet the high standard of its
content? For me, it is.
Gregor
--
wise man from across great sea say stupid e-mail message only readable
from *front* of computer. Stupid message on back of computer say
"Intel Inside." Intel Inside reflection of stupid consumer. (DH)
****** PGP 2.3a key available on request or from key-server ******
Do not point at face while opening
>>Have a nice day and I hope all the regulars in this group gets mad
>>at each other and start to flame each other.....
>And the proper word in your sentence above would be "get," not "gets."
>This is because "regulars" is plural.
You give 'em books and you give 'em books and all they do is eat the
pages.
You're correct, Geoff, that "get" is the proper form of the verb in
this case. But the verb conjugate isn't based on the the object of the
the prepositional phrase "[of] the regulars," (you lose another 2
points for that one, Moonunit) but on "all," the subject of the
dependent clause. "All" takes a plural verb.
If you're going to pick grammatical nits, please make sure your own
flea collar is in proper working order.
Leaving purity for those who enjoy linguistic lollipops,
drew
ba...@abingdon.sun.com
--
"Grammar and spelling contribute to readability. Profanity and vulgarity
don't, but they do give me a big purple hard on." -- Douglas MacKintosh
Marc Cooper
>Mr. Miller writes:
>
>>[...]
>>nose is going to be rubbed in it by those of us who actually paid
>>attention in school and who manage to keep our skills current by deigning
>>to read a book now and again. If those conditions extend beyond your
>
>So unashamedly elitist!
Damn straight. Got a problem with it?
>Bad spelling may indeed be a symptom of a disease, but in itself, who
>does it hurt? I would hardly label a bad speller "illiterate." The
>ability to read and write are not low level skills. In addition, a
>spelling test alone would be a poor indicator of general intelligence,
>whatever that may be. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people
>that actually write for a living that still have to regularly rely upon
>automated spell checkers.
Hey, I'm a lousy speller. And and even worse typist. I often end up
sacrificing speed for accuracy. But there's nothing wrong with relying on
whatever tools you have available, be they spell checkers, an unabridged
Funk and Wagnall's, or proofreading your post umpteen times to make sure
you've got it right.
No one here rides on someone for their theoretical performance in some
mythical spelling bee (Antidisestablishmentarianism. Pneumonoultramicroscopic-
silicovolcanoconiosis). What they get reamed for is not CARING that they
let mediocre material out.
There were a good 4 or five nasty typos in the above two paragraphs, but I
read them over and FIXED them. I also had initially misspelled 'mediocre', but
looked at it agian and corrected it. No one here will bitch because I couldn't
get it right the first time. They WOULD bitch if, knowing I write substandard
initial drafts, I hadn't bothered to correct it.
>Aren't good manners a hallmark of an educated person as well?
This forum is expressly for the purpose of letting we, the 'educated' people,
a respite from manners. It is not good manners to peeve at all.
It hasn't stopped us yet. Judith Martin be damned.
--
Marc Cooper - Graphics Programmer - NYMA | I'm a joker who has understood his
fsm...@lerc.nasa.gov | epoch and has extracted all he poss-
NASA Lewis Research Center MS 5-11 | ibly could from the stupidity, greed,
21000 Brookpark Dr. | and vanity of his contemporaries.
Cleveland, OH 44135 (216) 433-8898 | -Pablo Picasso
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!" -D. Duck
Marc Cooper
>(Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine) writes:
>>
>>That's the big thing that is bothering me. Take the word "a lot" for
>>example. I spell it as "alot" which in terms of English rules is
>>wrong, but people do not point it out unless the person was an English
>>teacher. Whether the person spelt it as "a lot" or "alot" should not
>>have such a big impact on you. I think most people would see what you
>>are getting at.
>
>>
>It so happens that "alot" is not only wrong, but also something that grates
>on many of us because it's such a common error, and because anyone who
>managed to stay awake in school knows better.
It should be pointed out here that the word 'alot' does have a proper use.
To wit: We shall alot each alt.peeves newbie s/h/it's quota of flames, after
which we will throw them back into the virtual waters to mature.
Cris Pedregal Martin
|> Geoff Miller writes:
|>
|> >(Chun Lee a.k.a Moonshine) writes:
|> >>
|> >>That's the big thing that is bothering me. Take the word "a lot" for
|> >>example. I spell it as "alot" which in terms of English rules is
|> >>wrong, but people do not point it out unless the person was an English
|> >It so happens that "alot" is not only wrong, but also something that grates
|> >on many of us because it's such a common error, and because anyone who
|> >managed to stay awake in school knows better.
|>
|> It should be pointed out here that the word 'alot' does have a proper use.
|>
|> To wit: We shall alot each alt.peeves newbie s/h/it's quota of flames, after
|> which we will throw them back into the virtual waters to mature.
|>
Good try. Wrong, unfortunately. The context above suggests "allot" as in
"to assign as a share or portion..." And don't tell me it's a typo, please.
If I try "alot" in my online dictionary (nothing fancy, mind you) I get
entries for "lot" and for "a lot" but not for "allot".
peeve: bad interfaces. I almost thought there was such a thing as "alot"
when I first read the result of the query. The fact that I was getting
an approximation wasn't highlighted, inducing a 'reado'.
!peeve: my keen grasp of the obvious (naah, can't be!) forced me to read again.
!peeve: posting to a.p secure in the knowledge that my not spell-checking
what I write will inexorably catch up with me.
From "white January, and then some, Mass"
Rick Gordon
> [ ... ]
>!peeve: such recurrence of ideas allows for some neat recycling of arguments, too.
> As will become obvious (Hi M. Gordon!) immediately, vide infra.
Hi, Cris!
>But let's go on to the great online literature of today:
> [ ... ]
>eliciting one of alex's songs, delicately stringed in pearls with the
>form of paragraphs; these are the ones I want to recycle, pointing
>M. Gordon to them:
Gee, thanks, Cris, but I already read them. " ... delicately stringed
in pearls", eh? Easy, there, stomach.
> [ Pearls eaten. ]
>This is why I bristle at analogies involving human and computer languages.
Bristle away, chum. This group is famous for its propensity for bristling.
Were it not for a cruel twist of fate, it would have been called
"alt.bristles", I'm sure. In any case, I am having trouble arguing
against a concept I agree with. Not the analogy part, the other part.
> [ ... ]
>peeve: not having a second life to look into aymara and hopi.
Yeah, that really frosts me, too. Make the best of it.
>Peeving further because I peeve on the shoulder of giant peevers,
> --Cris
OK, sure. Keep in mind, though: "The scrota of giants make prickly
chinrests for the impressionable."
>Cris Pedregal Martin pedr...@cs.umass.edu
--
Rick Gordon | "The more things change, the more different they get."
ri...@netcom.com | -- S. Krishna of Copenhagen
Rick Gordon
>In article <rickgCJ...@netcom.com> ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
>
>> Charles Parr is called "rude" in a recent article.
>
>And I for one was *horrified*! I always thought my courtesy
>and manly restraint were veritable bywords within these
>hallowed (if virtual) walls.
As, of course, they are. "Manly restraint", indeed. Really,
folks, calling Charles "rude" is like calling Chelsea Clinton "homely".
It may be true, but it's unsporting to belabor the point.
>Regards, Charles
Jim Hill
>Thank God our great American school
>system is there, ensuring that the next generation won't be denied the
>ability to take pleasure in good literature.
A question on the sex front:
Why is it OK for young children to read _Daddy's Roommate_ and _Heather
Has Two Mommies_ but teens shouldn't read _Catcher in the Rye_ ?
Feh.
--
|---------------------------| `This could well be the stupidest man on Earth.
| Jim Hill | Maybe we should shoot him anyway.'
| jim...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |
|---------------------------|
Ha Li
>It wouldn't seem half so strange if we had a year to adjust in between
>each change, as "suggested" in Twain's joke.
What you seem to have missed is that regional pronunciation affected the
way he wrote that. Look at "letez", "jast", and "sam" -- few people west
of the Mississippi pronounce those words that way. But that's beside the
point, learning to spell correctly isn't difficult at all.
>And I'd bet that to anyone not already familiar with English spellings
>(foriegners, children), an improved (more consistant) system would
>indeed be much easier to learn and master.
As foreigners, my family, my father, and myself (as a kid) never found
English spelling much of an obstacle. It does help to read a lot, so that
when you hear the word, you can also visualize it as written. At least
that's what I do.
>Spanish and German are pretty much phonetic, and the natives of those
>countries get along just fine.
Our country is in chaos because of spelling? Actually, I see spelling as
a sort of Stolpa test and by far those poor spellers who do raise their head
in this forum only confirm my suspicions.
I'd bet all the great works of English literature would look just dandy
transcribed into some phonetic pidgin; a real treasure to have on one's
bookshelf, eh? No, I'm a frayed knot -- people who enjoy good writing,
people who are literate, also spell reasonably well. Spelling simplification
smacks of a certain dumbing-down for a population that would most likely
prefer USA Today factoids to a good meaty article.
-Dave
Ken Strayhorn
>Charles Parr writes:
>
>>In article <rickgCJ...@netcom.com> ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
>>
>>> Charles Parr is called "rude" in a recent article.
>>
>>And I for one was *horrified*! I always thought my courtesy
>>and manly restraint were veritable bywords within these
>>hallowed (if virtual) walls.
>
>As, of course, they are. "Manly restraint", indeed. Really,
>folks, calling Charles "rude" is like calling Chelsea Clinton "homely".
>It may be true, but it's unsporting to belabor the point.
>
Aw, Rick, that was mean!
Try refering to her as "semi-pretty", which is how Theodore White
described Lyndon Johnson's offspring.
Imagine how hard life must already be for someone who has acquired
her mother's *special* little frown, one which makes her appear
as if she's smelled something foul all the time.
Those of us from the South know this frown well. It is usually found
on the faces of Junior League members, Country Club debutants
and other women who want to make the world perfect.
Every one I've ever known has been a perfect pain in the ass.
Strayhorn
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Nils Nieuwejaar
A question on the sex front:
Why is it OK for young children to read _Daddy's Roommate_ and _Heather
Has Two Mommies_
Read?!? Hell, just rent the movies.
In a recent article in the local 'news'paper the owner of one of the
local video rental operations proudly assured the reporter that they
do not carry 'adult movies'. They do, however, have a large selection
of war and horror/gore movies.
Peeve: The American view of what constitutes 'adult' entertainment
but teens shouldn't read _Catcher in the Rye_ ?
I rather suspect that any school which would discourage the reading of
the latter would not endorse the reading of the former.
Geoff Miller
Dangling his participle, ba...@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (Do not point
at face while opening) writes:
>You're correct, Geoff, that "get" is the proper form of the verb in
>this case. But the verb conjugate isn't based on the the object of the
>the prepositional phrase "[of] the regulars," (you lose another 2
>points for that one, Moonunit) but on "all," the subject of the
>dependent clause. "All" takes a plural verb.
Was Moonshine's usage wrong, or not? *That* is the issue here, I'm
afraid. BZZZT! Thank you for playing; you'll receive a home version
of our game in six to eight weeks.
Peeve: Those who can't resist going for the tangential cheap shot by jumping
onto the coattails of their betters and proffering irrelevant trivia. We
realize that you've been away for a little while and need an opportunity to
come back up to speed, but kindly do that on your own time. You can come
see us when you've finished your preparations offstage, where you're
thankfully out from underfoot.
And don't forget your bicycle helmet.
Jo Miller
>I'd bet all the great works of English literature would look just dandy
>transcribed into some phonetic pidgin; a real treasure to have on one's
>bookshelf, eh? No, I'm a frayed knot -- people who enjoy good writing,
You've just reminded me of something I saw in a catalogue (I know this
would be more appropriate in the bookless households thread, but it is a
product designed to appeal to the "Speling's hard and who sez its
inportant" crowd):
Videocassette cases disguised as leather-bound editions of the classics.
So that you can fill your shelves with the entire _Porky's_ series and
fool visitors into thinking you spend your spare time reading
Shakespeare. A perfect gift for the discreet porn-flick addict, too.
One more for the "only in America" list.
Jo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jo Miller "Mediocrity in any form sucks." -G.M. dj...@cornell.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ad absurdum per aspera
>Has Two Mommies_ but teens shouldn't read _Catcher in the Rye_ ?
Never underestimate the usefulness of reverse psychology. You
want kids to read <foo> book? Tell 'em it's naughty and turn
your back on 'em for the appropriate length of time. As Mark
Twain put it, if that don't get 'em, I don't know Arkansas.
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
Rick Gordon
>In article <rickgCJ...@netcom.com> ri...@netcom.com (Rick Gordon) writes:
>>
>>As, of course, they are. "Manly restraint", indeed. Really,
>>folks, calling Charles "rude" is like calling Chelsea Clinton "homely".
>>It may be true, but it's unsporting to belabor the point.
>
>Aw, Rick, that was mean!
You're right. I don't know what I was thinking of. Sorry, Charles.
>Try refering to her as "semi-pretty", which is how Theodore White
>described Lyndon Johnson's offspring.
Lenny Bruce on Lucy Baines' wedding at the White House: "She looked
like a Guatemalan slave girl in that dress." I think Chelsea is
interesting looking,
which isn't the putdown it sounds like. Little girls who are pretty
early in life usually peak in high school or thereabouts, while
interesting looking girls have at least a chance to become stunning
beauties as adult women. And the shift from "homely" to "interesting"
isn't such a great leap, so maybe I should have used that term in the
first place.
>Strayhorn
Philip John Stroffolino
>i would argue that `looking funny' is much more a question
>of effort put into learning the language than of intrinsic
>difficulty.
I agree. In general, things look funny only when they are unfamiliar.
But human languages can be said to vary in difficulty in an objective
sense. For example, the aggregate literacy learning curve for young
Japanese students is considerably different than for young American
students.
But the Japanese students catch up, perhaps because of "effort put into
learning" their language as you put it.
>it's fairly obvious that continuing exposure to a language
>leads to a learning process --- things *don't* look `funny'
>any longer, because you've become used to seeing them.
Which is why it can be hard to unlearn bad writing habits
(grammar/spelling) as well...
Wouldn't it bother you if people insulted you for your accent? Accused
you of offending their eardrums, and told you to either shut up, or
speak through a native born translator?
>to a six-year old the phrase x*2 + 17 = 0
>looks odd. after seeing such equations for some time,
>their meaning and handling becomes a readily accessible
>skill. it's the same with language: frequency and intensity
>of exposure lead to skill.
You work at 'CS/Real-Time Systems,' right? Don't you think that there
is a huge difference between understanding the meaning of equations, and
handling them and facility with a language?
>on the original point, there may be some such languages, but german is not
>one of them. witness the double-s versus sharp-s confusion, witness the
>difference between `das' and `da<sharp-s>', witness the arcane rules
>governing the elision or non-elision of triple consonants in compound
>nouns (brenn-nessel --> brennessel, but sauerstoff-flasche -->
>sauerstoffflasche), etc. etc.
At least German is reasonable in the spelling -> pronunciation
direction. A computer program that accepts a string of German text and
generates synthesized speech would be much more trivial with German than
for English, don't you think?
>it's quite obvious that a number of puns depend on the exact
>spelling, for instance.
Good riddance!
>it's equally obvious that stylistic choices mandate spelling:
>whether i write "cm'ere boy" or "come here, boy" makes a
>difference. Hell, it even makes a difference whether I choose
>correct capitalization or employ an all-lowercase style.
km'ir boi
kum hir, boi
!peeve: Space ninjas. They keep landing on my roof and making my dogs howl.
FIL "AUL KAPS" STRAFOHLINO
Philip John Stroffolino
>>It wouldn't seem half so strange if we had a year to adjust in between
>>each change, as "suggested" in Twain's joke.
>What you seem to have missed is that regional pronunciation affected the
>way he wrote that. Look at "letez", "jast", and "sam" -- few people west
>of the Mississippi pronounce those words that way.
I don't see how this is a problem for the "proposal:"
1) People that are solely concerned with practicality would be happy if
regional pronunciation were standardized as well. Certainly any
confusion (in National Newspapers and their ilk) would help strengthen
such a movement.
2) People who love a rich language capable of expressing many fine and
subtle things will be proud that their particular dialects will be
frozen in time, unmangled by well-meaning people that appreciate fine
literature, but happen to speak with evolved speech.
>But that's beside the point, learning to spell correctly isn't
difficult at all.
sez yoo!
>As foreigners, my family, my father, and myself (as a kid) never found
>English spelling much of an obstacle. It does help to read a lot, so that
>when you hear the word, you can also visualize it as written. At least
>that's what I do.
Consider yourself genetically blessed. One of my Japanese teachers who
did a fair amount of teaching English in her homeland said that spelling
difficulties and complaints were common. Of course it is possible to
overcome this obstacle, but do disagree with the contention that it
would have been even easier for your family to learn if written English
was more consistent in it's spelling patterns?
>Our country is in chaos because of spelling?
Well, we do have finite brain cells... *cough*
>I'd bet all the great works of English literature would look just dandy
>transcribed into some phonetic pidgin; a real treasure to have on one's
>bookshelf, eh?
I bet you couldn't understand most of the great older works if they were
read aloud by the original authors. Heck, I know I couldn't.
And I'm not about to even try and read an untranscribed Beowulf... Lazy me.
A transcribed work is indeed ugly to someone comfortable with the
original. "La Femme Bridget Fonda" was the subject of much ridicule
when it was release in American Theaters...
There are already versions of Shakespeare rewritten in more natural
(modern) English. While this does indeed smack of "dumbing down," and I
would be furious if the original writings were not preserved, it renders
his works accessible to many who would otherwise not have the patience
to digest each word. While it sounds beautiful, lofty, and majestic,
read in it's original form in today's world, do you really think
Shakespeare's intent was to write only for educated folk?
!peeve: not being able to come up with a respectable ObPeeve
Phil "How about that Bible!" Stroffolino
Ha Li
>km'ir boi
>kum hir, boi
Ah! A puzzle.
km'ir boi
okay, this is a Cambodian.
kum hir, boi
oh! he's being told not to masturbate in the tablecloth <giggle>
-Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can't you just be paranoid like everyone else without having
time travelling aerial reptiles chasing you around, too?"
- Sandy Keen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not point at face while opening
>Dangling his participle, ba...@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (Do not point
>at face while opening) writes:
That's the last time I feed you a line in mail, sport.
>Was Moonshine's usage wrong, or not? *That* is the issue here, I'm
>afraid.
I can understand why you'd be afraid. You've gotten yourself
trapped in a grammatical mistake in the midst of trying to correct
such a mistake of another. I'm sorry, Geoff, but you're *wrong*.
That, alone, is the issue.
Mooncalf made the same mistake as you, to wit making a verb agree
with the object of prepositional phrase. Based on Mooncalf's
tenure to date, I think saying he did it unwittingly covers the
figurative and the literal. You, on the other hand, thumped the
heel of your hand on your sternum twice and declared superiority.
What can I say? You were *wrong*.
> BZZZT! Thank you for playing; you'll receive a home version
>of our game in six to eight weeks.
Thanks for your consideration, but I've been playing the game at
home longer than you've had to shave. (Your face, that is. I
realize that being a coastie, you probably had more broken whiskey
bottles applied to you back than you care to think about.)
>Peeve: Those who can't resist going for the tangential cheap shot by jumping
>onto the coattails of their betters and proffering irrelevant trivia.
Lift the carpet. Sweep the dust. Replace the carpet. What a
fascinating method of cleaning house you have, chum.
Maybe this heady mumbo jumbo helps you make it through the night,
knowing you were *wrong*, and maybe you can imagine my admonishment
of you as simply "riding your coattails." But when we get right down
to it, beads of cold sweat are going to pop out on your forehead
ever time you realize that you can't diagram a sentence. All the
moisture that belongs in your mouth will be wicked away and will
mysteriously end up on your palms. Don't let your fingers shake
during that reply ...
>We
>realize that you've been away for a little while and need an opportunity to
>come back up to speed, but kindly do that on your own time. You can come
>see us when you've finished your preparations offstage, where you're
>thankfully out from underfoot.
Pardon me for imitating a caltrop. I hope your tetanus booster is
up to date. Your "speed" seems to be about the same as a rhino in a
lumbering gait. I deduced this simply because it matches your
subtlety.
>And don't forget your bicycle helmet.
Or that other one you've promised to polish.
Alexander Vrchoticky
> >it's fairly obvious that continuing exposure to a language
> >leads to a learning process --- things *don't* look `funny'
> >any longer, because you've become used to seeing them.
>
> Which is why it can be hard to unlearn bad writing habits
> (grammar/spelling) as well...
right. i've peeved about this particular problem recently. i still
regularly fall for `pronounciation', `occassion', and a few others.
i spell-check the stuff i write, though, so few of those gaffes slip
through.
> Wouldn't it bother you if people insulted you for your accent? Accused
> you of offending their eardrums, and told you to either shut up, or
> speak through a native born translator?
hell, no! if they're stupid enough to hold a trait against me that is
nearly unavoidable for anyone who speaks more than one language, that's
fine with me. i'll probably tell them that they can just dig a hole in
the mud, stand in it, and piss at the walls until they collapse and
asphyxiate them. in german. bother me this won't.
this does not carry over to the spelling thing, though. consider this;
for some time i believed that the pronunciation of `awry' was similar
to `every'. this, at one point, led to the following dialogue between me
and an english speaker:
alex: `and then things went ewwry.'
es: `huh?'
alex: `ewwry. a-w-r-y.'
es: `a-w-r-y, that's pronounced awry!'
alex: `awwry?'
es: `awry.'
alex: `awry.'
well, sort of. what remains is the accent. i *know* the proper
pronunciation, but i am unable to produce it. yes, i can *hear* the
difference between proper pronunciation and mine. i even occasionally
notice that my accent has been particularly bad on something i just said.
there's nothing i can *do* to change it, though: i am always willing to
learn, but my tongue won't always follow(*). tough cookie, but i'd feel
like an idiot if i didn't at least try to get it right.
let's be honest: getting rid of an accent takes an extended period of
time with near-exclusive communication in the language, something that
i, for one, can't afford anytime soon. repeated misspellings, on the
other hand, are easy to avoid, given today's tools. people letting them
through act as if they could not be bothered to type `man ispell' before
addressing(**) an audience of thousands.
> You work at 'CS/Real-Time Systems,' right? Don't you think that there
> is a huge difference between understanding the meaning of equations, and
> handling them and facility with a language?
certainly. but we were not talking about facility with language, we were
talking about spelling -- probably the most basic of language skills.
> A computer program that accepts a string of German text and
> generates synthesized speech would be much more trivial with German than
> for English, don't you think?
trivial? more like impossible in either language, because in both
pronunciations depend on meaning. i'll agree that there are fewer exceptions
in german, though.
> !peeve: Space ninjas. They keep landing on my roof and making my dogs howl.
negation operator, meet phil. phil, meet the negation operator.
-alex
------
(*) i claim the ius prima noctis for this line.
(**) talk about double consonant traps: address (english) = Adresse (german).
Marc Cooper
>In article <2gs483$s...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, fsm...@tristero.lerc.nasa.gov (Marc Cooper) writes:
>|> Geoff Miller writes:
>
>|> >It so happens that "alot" is not only wrong, but also something that grates
>|> >on many of us because it's such a common error, and because anyone who
>|> >managed to stay awake in school knows better.
>|>
>|> It should be pointed out here that the word 'alot' does have a proper use.
>|>
>|> To wit: We shall alot each alt.peeves newbie s/h/it's quota of flames, after
>|> which we will throw them back into the virtual waters to mature.
>|>
>
> Good try. Wrong, unfortunately. The context above suggests "allot" as in
> "to assign as a share or portion..." And don't tell me it's a typo, please.
>
Well damn 'n blast.. I see to have come down w/ Alex's disease of believeing
an incorrect word..
Back in my youth, I made the forgivable (for a 3rd grader) mistake of using
'alot' in something I was writing, as in "I like ice creame alot." My
grandmother, not being a native speaker of English but doing very well, and a
generally smart woman besides, explained to me that it was 'a lot' and 'alot'
had a completely different meaning, which I related above.. I have thought
since then that it was 'alot'. I HAVE seen the word 'allot' in various
forms of course, but it just never dawned on me..
Peeve: A bowling alley that I do some orginzational and promotional work for
recently got in a stack of poster/flyers for some promotion. The following
phrases were spashed across them in big neon pink type:
Bowl Alot! Save Alot!
I informed the manager that he should send them back to the NYC office of
the parent company. He said he'd call. The next day he told me that the
yutz in charge over in NYC argued with him for 15 minutes that 'Alot' was
an acceptable form of 'a lot' and wouldn't redo the flyers. Idiots.
Peeve2: the typical bowling alley clientelle probably thinks it is as well..
With egg on my face and a dictionary in hand,
Jenny Gutbezahl
Marc Cooper <fsm...@tristero.lerc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>Peeve: A bowling alley that I do some orginzational and promotional work for
>recently got in a stack of poster/flyers for some promotion. The following
>phrases were spashed across them in big neon pink type:
>
> Bowl Alot! Save Alot!
Peeve: There is an poster in the U Mass campus center advertising one
of the many drinking holes on campus. The poster mentions several
reasons why one might wish to frequent said watering hole, including
"Munchies" "Sports TV" and such, and the last reason mentioned is
"Your thirsty."
SHEESH!
A bowling alley, I could see. But this is (allegedly) an institute of
higher learning. The poster was approved by the University, the
watering hole is run by the University. You would think the school
would have some stake in assuring that its students learn the
difference between a contraction and a possessive..
Again I say, sheesh!
Jenny
Ken Strayhorn
>
>Peeve: There is an poster in the U Mass campus center advertising one
>of the many drinking holes on campus. The poster mentions several
>reasons why one might wish to frequent said watering hole, including
>"Munchies" "Sports TV" and such, and the last reason mentioned is
>"Your thirsty."
>
>SHEESH!
>
>A bowling alley, I could see. But this is (allegedly) an institute of
>higher learning.
Well, here at Duke - a Top! Ten! University! we are always being
told - one can find such things all over. Outside my window
the parking lot sign says: "News Service Personal Only" as
does several other lot signs around campus.
This doesn't even take into account the misspellings in the
campus newspaper every day.
<sigh>
Articulate Mandible
Yup. If capitalized, it was one of the machines at Stanford in LOTS, the Low
Overhead Timesharing System. There was also a BLOT. Dunno about CLOT or
subsequent machines.
--
Nolan "always willing th assist" Hinshaw
Internet: no...@twg.com Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197
Duct tape - it has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe
together.
"This is of course a flawed and provincial perception, but it's mine."
Geoff Miller, alt.peeves
Articulate Mandible
In article <2gs483$s...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, fsm...@tristero.lerc.nasa.gov
(Marc Cooper) writes:
|> It should be pointed out here that the word 'alot' does have a proper use.
|>
|> To wit: We shall alot each alt.peeves newbie s/h/it's quota of flames, after
|> which we will throw them back into the virtual waters to mature.
In article <2gs7po...@ymir.cs.umass.edu>, pedr...@cs.umass.edu
(Cris Pedregal Martin) writes:
|> Good try. Wrong, unfortunately. The context above suggests "allot" as in
|> "to assign as a share or portion..." And don't tell me it's a typo, please.
The Context, may it reign forever, gives me a clue here, and leads me to
look closely at what appears to be a large, shiny hook in your cheek. I hope
the bait tasted good enough to mitigate the pain.
--
Nolan "ever wary, and seldom caught" Hinshaw
James F. Gray
>In article <2guell...@twain.ucs.umass.edu> jen...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Jenny Gutbezahl) writes:
>>
>>Peeve: There is an poster in the U Mass campus center advertising one
>>
>>
"News Service Personal Only"
>
I live a bit outside out town. Along the way you see quite a few of
those signs that proclaim certain companies have "adopted" the highway in
order to create a nicer view of the swamp for everyone. Chapel Hill
being what it is, for some this is The Trendy Thing To Do.
My landlady sees herself as one of these people. In the phonebook
her business is listed as "Betty B***** Realty." She is a decent
sort, as landlords go, and I generally like her. Even though she
*does* ride around in her Mercedes with a 200 lb German Shepherd
in the back seat. *
ANYway, a few years back she saw that she was about to miss the
TrendyMobile and took herself up to the local highway offices
to Get Herself A Road. As I turned the corner one day I noticed
that they had put her sign up, just past the intersection. And
in BIG, BOLD letters it sayeth:
BETTY B******* REALITY
Most people didn't catch this right away; I caught it because
she is *not* a world-class speller and I'm sure the Highway Dept.
printed the sign *exactly* as she specified.
Someone apparently brought the mistake to light about a month
or so later; they changed the sign to the correct spelling. Wish
I knew what had happened to the original sign!
* Then there's also the doctor up the road that used to have
his pet Nubian goat ride in the back seat of his Volvo wagon...
Jim
A. Jing Hippy
"Nah, it's all just bait and *I'm* not gonna be the one.... but there
were three posts in a row. THREE IN A ROW!
I caved. I had to do it. I just had to. I *know* I'm gonna feel like a
recovering alcoholic who just took a big swig of MD 20/20, but I can't
resist it. Here's the first:
In article <2gubdp$q...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, fsm...@tristero.lerc.nasa.gov (Marc Cooper) writes:
|>
|> Peeve2: the typical bowling alley clientelle probably thinks it is as well..
"Clientele".
|> With egg on my face and a dictionary in hand,
Which dictionary is that?
ObPeeve: These posts probably won't show up in order at many sites.
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC |
|coc...@dg-rtp.dg.com |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|"Dr. Pavlov's distinguished career came to an |
| abrupt end one day when the doorbell rang and the|
| dog ate the Avon lady." |
+--------------------------------------------------+
A. Jing Hippy
|>
|> Peeve: There is an poster in the U Mass campus center advertising one
|> of the many drinking holes on campus. The poster mentions several
|> reasons why one might wish to frequent said watering hole, including
|> "Munchies" "Sports TV" and such, and the last reason mentioned is
|> "Your thirsty."
|>
|> SHEESH!
|>
|> A bowling alley, I could see. But this is (allegedly) an institute of
|> higher learning. The poster was approved by the University, the
|> watering hole is run by the University. You would think the school
|> would have some stake in assuring that its students learn the
|> difference between a contraction and a possessive..
|>
|> Again I say, sheesh!
Well, maybe they really *are* concerned about your thirsty. Who knows
what sort of shape it's in? I know that *my* thirsty is usually the main
reason that I visit a watering hole.
Kids, always take care of your thirsty. As you get older, you'll be glad
you did.
A. Jing Hippy
In article <2gug5c$f...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Ken.St...@launchpad.unc.edu (Ken Strayhorn) writes:
|>
|> Well, here at Duke - a Top! Ten! University! we are always being
|> told - one can find such things all over. Outside my window
|> the parking lot sign says: "News Service Personal Only" as
|> does several other lot signs around campus.
|>
|> This doesn't even take into account the misspellings in the
|> campus newspaper every day.
Ken.... Buddy.... One-with-whom-I-have-supped-beer..... This really pains
me.
"...as does several other lot signs around campus"?
Rick Gordon
> [ ... ]
>My landlady sees herself as one of these people. In the phonebook
>her business is listed as "Betty B***** Realty." She is a decent
"Bastard"? "Bullshit"? Damn, not enough context.
>Jim
Ha Li
>1) People that are solely concerned with practicality would be happy if
>regional pronunciation were standardized as well. Certainly any
>confusion (in National Newspapers and their ilk) would help strengthen
>such a movement.
Not sure what you're saying here. I think it would be a shame if a phonetic
alphabet coerced speech into a single uniform pronunciation, where people from
Yorkshire and Jamaica would sound the same.
>I bet you couldn't understand most of the great older works if they were
>read aloud by the original authors. Heck, I know I couldn't.
That's a point in favor of avoiding phonetic spelling. English spelling has
remained fixed while the pronunciation has changed over hundreds of years.
>There are already versions of Shakespeare rewritten in more natural
>(modern) English. While this does indeed smack of "dumbing down," and I
>would be furious if the original writings were not preserved, it renders
>his works accessible to many who would otherwise not have the patience
>to digest each word.
Then fuck 'em! It's their loss. I don't want someone else to interpret
what Shakespeare wrote and trust them to do it without losing something in
the translation. Part of culture is taking the time to understand the
original writings and what the obscure words and phrases meant. We'd lose
a lot if such works were translated into contemporary speech. On the other
hand, a _Married With Children_ version of Shakespeare sounds promising.
-Dave
Geoff Miller
jg...@med.unc.edu (James F. Gray) writes:
>I live a bit outside out town. Along the way you see quite a few of
>those signs that proclaim certain companies have "adopted" the highway in
>order to create a nicer view of the swamp for everyone.
This seems to be all the rage clear across the Fruited Plain. I was
driving in the East Bay last weekend when I saw one of those signs, but
with an interesting twist. Most of the adopted stretches of highway are
sponsored by local businesses, which is what you'd expect. A few are
vigorously sponsored by various clubs and civic organizations, according
to my observations. But this one was interesting; it featured the name
"Bay Area Pagan Council."
And we Californians don't understand why the rest of the country thinks
we're nutso.
Orc
Jim Hill <jim...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Jo Miller <dj...@cornell.edu> writes:
>
>>Thank God our great American school
>>system is there, ensuring that the next generation won't be denied the
>>ability to take pleasure in good literature.
>
>A question on the sex front:
>
>Why is it OK for young children to read _Daddy's Roommate_ and _Heather
>Has Two Mommies_ but teens shouldn't read _Catcher in the Rye_ ?
I would guess it's because you've found a particularly stupid
censor - one who determines Moral Standards by the simple and pure
method of asking the local Righteous Folks if a book is bad. And
the local RF's haven't read or heard about the immoral content of
said books yet, while *everyone* knows that _Catcher in the Rye_
is a Bad Thing.
____
david parsons \bi/ o...@pell.com
\/
Ken Strayhorn
>
>Ken.... Buddy.... One-with-whom-I-have-supped-beer..... This really pains
>me.
>
>"...as does several other lot signs around campus"?
>
Whoops!
Which reminds me: Why, oh why does every university seem to eye
its parking lots whenever a building has to be built?
Trustee 1: "We need a new interdisciplinary research facility
and it would fit nicely on the old Engineering Building lot."
Trustee 2: "Well, that would remove 200 parking spaces from
central campus, not to mention that the 200+ people who
would work in the new building would need some place
to park."
Trustee 1: "Screw 'em. Johns Hopkins has a new research
building and I don't want Duke to fall behind."
(N.B.: In collegiant circles this is known as Edifice Rex)
Trustee 3: "But we have a budget deficit now, how are we
going to pay for it?"
Trustee 1: "A hiring freeze, which we will announce about
three months after it has taken effect. Plus there will
be only minor raises this year."
(I draw Blair Haworth's attention to this last line of reason)
And speaking of reason (or lack thereof) is the Hideaway open
at last? Will it be open Thursday?
Cris Pedregal Martin
Quick recap: Mr Cooper makes an otherwise forgettable and forgivable spelling
mistake, interesting only beacuse he made it when correcting someone else's (*)
(and so I pointed it out).
In article <1994Jan11.1...@twg.com>, no...@twg.com (Articulate Mandible) writes:
|>
|> In article <2gs483$s...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, fsm...@tristero.lerc.nasa.gov
|> (Marc Cooper) writes:
|> |> It should be pointed out here that the word 'alot' does have a proper use.
[...]
|> In article <2gs7po...@ymir.cs.umass.edu>, pedr...@cs.umass.edu
|> (Cris Pedregal Martin) writes:
|> |> Good try. Wrong, unfortunately. The context above suggests "allot" as in
In a later post, Mr Cooper amusedly describes how he came to get the
proverbial egg on his face on this one.
But, news propagate in strange ways: now Mr Hinshaw adds a twist and manages
to get a good half-dozen jumbo browns on his own virtual face:
|> The Context, may it reign forever, gives me a clue here, and leads me to
|> look closely at what appears to be a large, shiny hook in your cheek. I hope
|> the bait tasted good enough to mitigate the pain.
|> --
|> Nolan "ever wary, and seldom caught" Hinshaw
No, I won't bother quoting Mr Cooper's remarks; they will have reached Mr Hinshaw
by now anyway.
Cris (here's a paper towel dear)
(*) mistake, that is. This clarification provided for the apostrophe-challenged.
--
Cris Pedregal Martin pedr...@cs.umass.edu
Computer Science Department UMass / Amherst, MA 01003-4610
Myles Chippendale
>You've got my respect, Monnshine, and I hope you'll stick around to
>Jenny
Jenny,
I just thowht that, errr, .... Noothing :-)
Myles
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Myles J Chippendale - m...@inf.rl.ac.uk - "Too warm to be really worried" |
`----------.------------------------------------------------.--------------'
|"You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny."|
`------------------------------------------------'
Word of the week : Poltroon
Blair Haworth
>Which reminds me: Why, oh why does every university seem to eye
>its parking lots whenever a building has to be built?
Simplicity itself: because the administrative phallus-surrogates that make
these decisions already have their own parking spaces guaranteed, in small
strategically placed, jealously guarded lots not amenable to building
anyway. Big lots are invariably alloted to undergrads, who can be shafted
effortlessly by doing things during the summer; grad students and junior
faculty (beneath contempt); and hourly fieldhands like me (ditto,
especially in the absence of a u***n, but let's not kid ourselves about
the puissance of that, either). The whole thing is highly analogous to
rich liberals jettisoning those parts of the Bill of Rights that they don't
use themselves: it's easier to make those tough policy decisions when its
no skin off _your_ ass.
>Trustee 3: "But we have a budget deficit now, how are we
>going to pay for it?"
>
>Trustee 1: "A hiring freeze, which we will announce about
>three months after it has taken effect. Plus there will
>be only minor raises this year."
>
>(I draw Blair Haworth's attention to this last line of reason)
As it happens, my own Semiautonomous Accounting Unit has been in one for
about five years now, so hopefully this won't be a big bother.
>And speaking of reason (or lack thereof) is the Hideaway open
>at last? Will it be open Thursday?
Should be. A fat lot of difference that makes, of course...
A. Jing Hippy
|>
|> Which reminds me: Why, oh why does every university seem to eye
|> its parking lots whenever a building has to be built?
And why are there no freakin' *street signs* on the Duke campus? When I'm
told to take Research Drive to Science Drive and turn left, it would be
awfully nice if there was some indication *somewhere* that there are streets
actually named this way.
|> And speaking of reason (or lack thereof) is the Hideaway open
|> at last? Will it be open Thursday?
Ah, the Hideaway.... You guys'll have to check that out and let me know.
I'm heading out of town Thursday evening for parts unknown. I'd love to
try to hit it next week, though.
Dan Romanenko
>Summary: <sigh>
>
>Quick recap: Mr Cooper makes an otherwise forgettable and forgivable spelling
>mistake, interesting only beacuse he made it when correcting someone else's (*)
Ahem...
>(and so I pointed it out).
>(*) mistake, that is. This clarification provided for the apostrophe-challenged.
!Peeve: Those who are quick to jump on others regarding their spelling
invariably make mistakes in their own postings.
Peeve: Making sure I run this post through a spell checker to ensure I am
not caught in the same trap.
-Dan
--
Dan Romanenko Voice: (602) 581-4663 AG Communication Systems
Dept. Quality Consultant Fax: (602) 582-7111 P.O. Box 52179
Internet: roman...@agcs.com KB7ZQB Phoenix, AZ 85072-2179
UUCP: ....!ncar!noao!enuucp!gtephx!romanenkod
Blair Haworth
>And why are there no freakin' *street signs* on the Duke campus? When I'm
>told to take Research Drive to Science Drive and turn left, it would be
>awfully nice if there was some indication *somewhere* that there are streets
>actually named this way.
They're there it's just that - in accordance with Important Planning
Policy Guidelines doubtless formulated by expensive outside consultants -
they're small, tasteful, and designed to blend in with the foliage that
helps establish the sylvan atmosphere of our BogoGothic wet-dream.
The peeves are left as an exercise for the student.
Articulate Mandible
In article <2gv99q...@ymir.cs.umass.edu>, pedr...@cs.umass.edu (Cris Pedregal Martin) writes:
|>Summary: <sigh>
|>
|>Quick recap: Mr Cooper makes an otherwise forgettable and forgivable spelling
|>mistake, interesting only beacuse he made it when correcting someone else's (*)
|>(and so I pointed it out).
|>In a later post, Mr Cooper amusedly describes how he came to get the
|>proverbial egg on his face on this one.
|>
|>But, news propagate in strange ways: now Mr Hinshaw adds a twist and manages
Don't it, just?
|>to get a good half-dozen jumbo browns on his own virtual face:
Maybe. Vide infra.
I said:
|>|> The Context, may it reign forever, gives me a clue here, and leads me to
|>|> look closely at what appears to be a large, shiny hook in your cheek. I hope
|>|> the bait tasted good enough to mitigate the pain.
|>No, I won't bother quoting Mr Cooper's remarks; they will have reached Mr Hinshaw
|>by now anyway.
Yup. Sure did.
|>
|> Cris (here's a paper towel dear)
No thanks. Never use 'em (ain't that what denim's fer?). Well, ennyhoo, it was
sure worth a try, and I thought that Cooper deserved the proverbial benefit.
Too bad he copped before he read my followup. I hope we all had a dandy
chuckle over it.
--
Nolan "always looking for a goodie" Hinshaw
Internet: no...@twg.com Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197
"French is the FORTRAN of human languages" R. Gordon, alt.peeves