proofread as adjective
Bill Dunn
whether it's hyphenated in a case like this:
"I have two years of proof-reading experience."
Justme®
answer:
> My dictionary doesn't list proofread as an adjective. My question is
> whether it's hyphenated in a case like this:
> "I have two years of proof-reading experience."
>
>
>
_X_ Co. for 2 years."
This inquiry reminds me of my job-hunting days, when I sent a
rather impressive (for the position sought) resumé. In reply, I
received a snippy letter informing me that they would not employ
a "proof reader" that could not spell, and circled (in red!)
every instance of the word "proofreader" in my resumé.
I, in turn, Xeroxed the entry "proofreader" from my trusty
dictionary, stapled it to my marred resumé, and wrote a lovely
letter in which I thanked the witch for illustrating why I would
rather not work for her firm after all.
If your inquiry is for the purposes of job-hunting, good luck
with it. And don't forget to check your spelling.
<emoticon alert!> =) </emoticon alert!>
--Ginny
Happiness is a belt-fed weapon.
Jürgen von Umlaut
<MPG.105367b29...@news.newsguy.com>...
<<In reply, I received a snippy letter informing me that they would
not employ
a "proof reader" that could not spell, and circled (in red!) every
instance of the word "proofreader" in my resumé.>>
Did you head the résumé with the word "résumé" misspelled that way,
too?
Stan Brown
> My dictionary doesn't list proofread as an adjective. My question is
>whether it's hyphenated in a case like this:
> "I have two years of proof-reading experience."
If you want to impress anyone with your skill, hyphenating that word is
not a good way to do it. That looks dreadfully old-fashioned, at least to
my eyes.
To proofread" is a verb, and "proofreading" is its present participle,
which may be used as an adjective: "proofreading experience".
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
Stan Brown
We've had this discussion before. "Resumé" is bad French but acceptable
English.
K1912
>bd...@itis.com (Bill Dunn) wrote:
>> My dictionary doesn't list proofread as an adjective. My question is
>>whether it's hyphenated in a case like this:
>> "I have two years of proof-reading experience."
>
>If you want to impress anyone with your skill, hyphenating that word is
>not a good way to do it. That looks dreadfully old-fashioned, at least to
>my eyes.
>
Stan, the new spelling is -- "oldfashioned." Actually, to be au courant, it
should probably be "seniorcitizenfashioned."
K, the unconventional nonagenarian, george.
K1912
Truly Donovan
wrote:
> My dictionary doesn't list proofread as an adjective. My question is
>whether it's hyphenated in a case like this:
> "I have two years of proof-reading experience."
>
Ask yourself, as an experienced proofreader who proofreads, why would
the experience suddenly be hyphenated?
(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
at it. It transmogrifies into "proo-fread" and deteriorates from
there.)
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Justme®
like....HAD to answer:
> Justme® <ginny_...@unforgettable.com> wrote in article
> <MPG.105367b29...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
> <<In reply, I received a snippy letter informing me that they would
> not employ
> a "proof reader" that could not spell, and circled (in red!) every
> instance of the word "proofreader" in my resumé.>>
>
> Did you head the résumé with the word "résumé" misspelled that way,
> too?
>
>
My dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary) shows *both*
instances--your version (résumé), and mine (resumé) --as being
correct.
I've seen "resumé" far more often than résumé, and would have had
to look it up to make sure it was correct before commenting on
it.
I assume that you would have done the same; but that seems to be
my (only) error.
<posted & e-mailed>
Skitt
Justme® wrote in message ...
For what it is worth, there are three ways to acceptably scribble that word:
MWCD10:
Main Entry: ré·su·mé
Variant(s): or re·su·me or re·su·mé /'re-z&-"mA, "re-z&-' also 'rA- or "rA-/
Function: noun
Etymology: French résumé, from past participle of résumer to resume,
summarize, from Middle French resumer
Date: 1804
1 : SUMMARY
2 : CURRICULUM VITAE
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
28.3854 -80.7012
PiddyMeNot
<snipped cause I have to>
>For what it is worth, there are three ways to acceptably scribble that word:
>MWCD10:
>Main Entry: ré·su·mé
>Variant(s): or re·su·me or re·su·mé /'re-z&-"mA, "re-z&-' also 'rA- or "rA-/
>Function: noun
>Etymology: French résumé, from past participle of résumer to resume,
>summarize, from Middle French resumer
>Date: 1804
>1 : SUMMARY
>2 : CURRICULUM VITAE
>--
>Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
>CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
>28.3854 -80.7012
Correct ussage is optional, I always say. I piddie those who pine
away in pretense of proper speaking. I suspect that most people
prefer my style of projecting to the populous. I'm popular among
those of nonpretentious means, and poor people too. Prepare to depart
from the Piddie.
Piddie gone
PiddyMeNot
>Justme® wrote in message ...
>>I saw this stuff written by SteveMa...@Inficad.Com and,
>>like....HAD to answer:
>>> Justme® <ginny_...@unforgettable.com> wrote in article
>>> <MPG.105367b29...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>> <<In reply, I received a snippy letter informing me that they would
>>> not employ
>>> a "proof reader" that could not spell, and circled (in red!) every
>>> instance of the word "proofreader" in my resumé.>>
>>> Did you head the résumé with the word "résumé" misspelled that way,
>>> too?
>>My dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary) shows *both*
>>instances--your version (résumé), and mine (resumé) --as being
>>correct.
>>I've seen "resumé" far more often than résumé, and would have had
>>to look it up to make sure it was correct before commenting on
>>it.
>>I assume that you would have done the same; but that seems to be
>>my (only) error.
>For what it is worth, there are three ways to acceptably scribble that word:
I'm losing patience with you, sonny. Do you want me to spank? I
know powerful people. You live only because I allow it. You will
hereby see as I allow you. Are you not afraid? You're answer is
desighsev. Gosh, is my trolling getting worse or what?
piddy2myselfonly
James Follett
s.m...@ix.netcom.com "Polar" writes:
>>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
>>at it. It transmogrifies into "proo-fread" and deteriorates from
>>there.)
>
>And is eventually assimilated into the vocabulary of all good
>cow-orkers.
You can hear this mans-laughter.
Good typography software will look out for such horrors occurring
in the hypenation hot zone.
At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
see an increase in such parroty errors.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Murray Arnow
> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
> see an increase in such parroty errors.
Just wondering, shouldn't that be Norwegian Blue or is this an improper
bird?
Stan Brown
>On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:45:28 -0000, "Bill Dunn" <bd...@itis.com>
>wrote:
>
>at it. It transmogrifies into "proo-fread" and deteriorates from
>there.)
Today's /Wall Street Journal/ reached a new low with "chil-" at the
bottom of a very long column and "drearing" at the top of the next.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Heavens to Betsy. It's dead, man. Deceased. It's just that this fellow
keeps nailing it up.
Justme®
like....HAD to answer:
He's not dead, he's *resting*! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian
Blue, isn't it? Beautiful plumage!
andy
Truly Donovan wrote:
> >>
> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) wrote:
>>On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:45:28 -0000, "Bill Dunn" <bd...@itis.com>
>>wrote:
>>> "I have two years of proof-reading experience."
>>
>>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
>>at it. It transmogrifies into "proo-fread" and deteriorates from
>>there.)
>
>Today's /Wall Street Journal/ reached a new low with "chil-" at the
>bottom of a very long column and "drearing" at the top of the next.
Ah, ye old algorithmic hyphenator strikes again. When will they learn
that an algorithmic hyphenator doesn't work in a language that is not
susceptible to algorithmic hyphenation?
On the other hand, I'm drawn to "drearing."
"The decorator, being of the Gothic persuasion, dreared everything to
a fare-thee-well."
(Although now that I'm looking at it, I'm not sure but what the
idiomatic ought to be "to drear up.")
Larry Phillips
>
> On 1 Sep 1998 18:06:45 GMT, mar...@wwa.com (Murray Arnow) wrote:
>
> >James Follett (ja...@marage.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> >> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
> >> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
> >> see an increase in such parroty errors.
Awk! Awk! Pieces of seven! Pieces of Seven! Parroty Error!
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
-- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980
Skitt
JustmeŽ wrote in message ...
>>
>> >James Follett (ja...@marage.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> >
>> >> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
>> >> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
>> >> see an increase in such parroty errors.
>> >
>> >bird?
>>
>> Heavens to Betsy. It's dead, man. Deceased. It's just that this fellow
>> keeps nailing it up.
>
>He's not dead, he's *resting*! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian
>Blue, isn't it? Beautiful plumage!
The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on its back! Lovely plumage!
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
If you are posting a reply, please, do not email it.
It just confuses me.
Gwen Lenker
>
>JustmeŽ wrote in message ...
>>I saw this stuff written by a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca and,
>>like....HAD to answer:
>>> On 1 Sep 1998 18:06:45 GMT, mar...@wwa.com (Murray Arnow) wrote:
>>>
>>> >James Follett (ja...@marage.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
>>> >> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
>>> >> see an increase in such parroty errors.
>>> >
>>> >Just wondering, shouldn't that be Norwegian Blue or is this an improper
>>> >bird?
>>>
>>> Heavens to Betsy. It's dead, man. Deceased. It's just that this fellow
>>> keeps nailing it up.
>>
>>He's not dead, he's *resting*! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian
>>Blue, isn't it? Beautiful plumage!
>
>The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on its back! Lovely plumage!
Well, there's Norwergian Blue, Norwergian Blue, Norwergian Blue, Norwergian
Blue, spam, eggs, and Norwergian Blue. That's not got a lot of Norwergian
Blue in it.
Aaron J. Dinkin
ginny_...@unforgettable.com (JustmeŽ) wrote:
> I saw this stuff written by a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca and,
> like....HAD to answer:
> > On 1 Sep 1998 18:06:45 GMT, mar...@wwa.com (Murray Arnow) wrote:
> >
> > >James Follett (ja...@marage.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > >
> > >> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
> > >> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
> > >> see an increase in such parroty errors.
> > >
> > >Just wondering, shouldn't that be Norwegian Blue or is this an improper
> > >bird?
> >
> > Heavens to Betsy. It's dead, man. Deceased. It's just that this fellow
> > keeps nailing it up.
>
> He's not dead, he's *resting*! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian
> Blue, isn't it? Beautiful plumage!
Pining for the fjords, don't you know.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
(Note new temporary e-mail address. As of September 6th, it'll change again
to "din...@fas.harvard.edu"; mail directed to me after that date should be
sent there.)
Truly Donovan
>Truly Donovan wrote:
>
>> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
>
> uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
>those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
That's not one I'd lose any sleep over; I think a case can be made for
either usage.
Stan Brown
>On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700, andy <and...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
>>Truly Donovan wrote:
>>> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
>>
>> uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
>>those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
>
>That's not one I'd lose any sleep over; I think a case can be made for
>either usage.
I'd be interested to hear the case for "words that keeps". "that"
(relative pronoun) takes its number from its antecedent, which is
indubitably "words" (plural) here.
Or are you perhaps claiming there is a case for "looks" instead of
"looking"? It's not technically perjury, maybe....
Aaron J. Dinkin
brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
> tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) wrote:
> >On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700, andy <and...@direct.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>Truly Donovan wrote:
> >>> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
> >>
> >> uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
> >>those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
> >
> >That's not one I'd lose any sleep over; I think a case can be made for
> >either usage.
>
> I'd be interested to hear the case for "words that keeps". "that"
> (relative pronoun) takes its number from its antecedent, which is
> indubitably "words" (plural) here.
Ah, what you claim is indubitable is precisely what's being dubitated here.
The antencedent of "that" is not necessarily "words" - it might be "one":
one of those (words that keep looking funnier)
vs.
one (of those words) that keeps looking funnier.
Jürgen von Umlaut
<rdd-ya023180000...@news.nii.net>...
<<The antencedent of "that" is not necessarily "words" - it might be
"one":
one of those (words that keep looking funnier) vs. one (of those
words) that keeps looking funnier.>>
This may lead to one asking, one of =what= word?
--
(Reply to SteveMacGregor at InfiCad dot Com)
===================================================================
Hi, I'm the Good Times signature virus. Copy me into your sig file!
===================================================================
rigo...@table.jps.net
: a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
: > On 1 Sep 1998 18:06:45 GMT, mar...@wwa.com (Murray Arnow) wrote:
: > >James Follett (ja...@marage.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > >> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
: > >> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
: > >> see an increase in such parroty errors.
I thought surely you were going to work grep and sed in there.
As in "the Parrrot sed".
Mike Zorn
Mike Barnes
>In article <MPG.10590c7c4...@news.concentric.net>,
>brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
>
>> tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) wrote:
>> >On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700, andy <and...@direct.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Truly Donovan wrote:
>> >>> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
>> >>
>> >> uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
>> >>those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
>> >
>> >That's not one I'd lose any sleep over; I think a case can be made for
>> >either usage.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear the case for "words that keeps". "that"
>> (relative pronoun) takes its number from its antecedent, which is
>> indubitably "words" (plural) here.
>
>Ah, what you claim is indubitable is precisely what's being dubitated here.
>
>one of those (words that keep looking funnier)
>
>vs.
>
>one (of those words) that keeps looking funnier.
You have demonstrated Truly's point that a case could be made for either
usage. But unless I've missed something there is little to be said for
the actual usage that started all this, your second rendition above.
I'd write them this way:
(1) That's one of those-words-that-keep-looking-funnier ...
(2) That's one-of-those-words that keeps looking funnier ...
They both make sense singular-plural-agreement-wise. But (2) makes no
sense meaning-wise. One of *what* words?
I vote for "keeps". But hell, we all knew what she meant.
--
-- Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
-- If you post a response to Usenet, please *don't* send me a copy by e-mail.
David McMurray
> In alt.usage.english, Aaron J. Dinkin <r...@nii.net> spake thuswise:
[...]
> >one of those (words that keep looking funnier)
> >
> >vs.
> >
> >one (of those words) that keeps looking funnier.
[...]
> I vote for "keeps". But hell, we all knew what she meant.
Yeah, right -- like that matters around here.
--
David
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>In article <MPG.10590c7c4...@news.concentric.net>,
>brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
>
>> tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) wrote:
>> >On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700, andy <and...@direct.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Truly Donovan wrote:
>> >>> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
>> >>
>> >> uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
>> >>those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
>> >
>> >That's not one I'd lose any sleep over; I think a case can be made for
>> >either usage.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear the case for "words that keeps". "that"
>> (relative pronoun) takes its number from its antecedent, which is
>> indubitably "words" (plural) here.
>
>Ah, what you claim is indubitable is precisely what's being dubitated here.
>The antencedent of "that" is not necessarily "words" - it might be "one":
>
>one of those (words that keep looking funnier)
>
>vs.
>
>one (of those words) that keeps looking funnier.
A dubitator after my own heart.
Skitt
Truly Donovan wrote in message <35f330a6...@news3.ibm.net>...
Well, if support is desired, sure, "keeps" it is! Was there ever serious or,
shall I say, reasonable doubt?
A serious question:
In my last sentence, I changed my punctuation a couple of times. The
alternatives were:
". . . serious, or shall I say reasonable, doubt?"
". . . serious, or, shall I say, reasonable doubt?" (European style, I think.)
Comments, please!
James Follett
al...@myself.com "Skitt" writes:
>A serious question:
>In my last sentence, I changed my punctuation a couple of times. The
>alternatives were:
>". . . serious, or shall I say reasonable, doubt?"
>". . . serious, or, shall I say, reasonable doubt?" (European style, I think.)
>
>Comments, please!
Take out the clauses and you're saying:
....serious doubt.
....serious reasonable doubt.
I can't imagine why you should think the latter is European style. Is
there such a thing?
The second one is ambigious so I'd opt for the first.
Skitt
James Follett wrote in message <904950...@marage.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <6spmu6$7tn$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> al...@myself.com "Skitt" writes:
>
>>A serious question:
>>In my last sentence, I changed my punctuation a couple of times. The
>>alternatives were:
>>". . . serious, or shall I say reasonable, doubt?"
>>". . . serious, or, shall I say, reasonable doubt?" (European style, I think.)
>>
>>Comments, please!
>
>Take out the clauses and you're saying:
>
>....serious doubt.
>
>....serious reasonable doubt.
>
>I can't imagine why you should think the latter is European style. Is
>there such a thing?
The extra comma by the "or".
>The second one is ambigious so I'd opt for the first.
Thanks! Ambiguousness avoided. ;-)
Podibanda Kuruppu
>
> Truly Donovan wrote in message <35f330a6...@news3.ibm.net>...
> >On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 23:03:33 -0500, r...@nii.net (Aaron J. Dinkin)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <MPG.10590c7c4...@news.concentric.net>,
> >>brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
> >>
> >>> tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) wrote:
> >>> >On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:11:28 -0700, andy <and...@direct.ca> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>Truly Donovan wrote:
> >>> >>> >>(That's one of those words that keeps look funnier the longer you look
> >>> >>
> >>> >> uh...speaking of proofreading, shouldn't your sentence be "...one of
> >>> >>those words that 'keep' looking funnier..." instead?
> >>> >
> >>> >That's not one I'd lose any sleep over; I think a case can be made for
> >>> >either usage.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be interested to hear the case for "words that keeps". "that"
> >>> (relative pronoun) takes its number from its antecedent, which is
> >>> indubitably "words" (plural) here.
> >>
> >>Ah, what you claim is indubitable is precisely what's being dubitated here.
> >>The antencedent of "that" is not necessarily "words" - it might be "one":
> >>
> >>one of those (words that keep looking funnier)
> >>
> >>vs.
> >>
> >>one (of those words) that keeps looking funnier.
> >
> >A dubitator after my own heart.
>
>
> Well, if support is desired, sure, "keeps" it is! Was there ever serious or,
> shall I say, reasonable doubt?
>
> A serious question:
> In my last sentence, I changed my punctuation a couple of times. The
> alternatives were:
> ". . . serious, or shall I say reasonable, doubt?"
> ". . . serious, or, shall I say, reasonable doubt?" (European style, I think.)
>
> Comments, please!
I don't know about puctuation, but it sounds wrong to me. Here is my version:
(If you don't like it, give it back to me please; I'll work on it over the
weekend and present a better version on Monday.)
Was there ever any serious or shall we say, reasonable, doubt? Even this does
not seem right to me. All because "There was ever serious or reasonable doubt"
does not look right to me. Ok, Skitt, grab a beer, go out to the poolside and
think it over.
Skitt
Podibanda Kuruppu wrote in message ...
>"Skitt" <al...@myself.com> writes:
>> Well, if support is desired, sure, "keeps" it is! Was there ever serious or,
>> shall I say, reasonable doubt?
>>
>> A serious question:
>> In my last sentence, I changed my punctuation a couple of times. The
>> alternatives were:
>> ". . . serious, or shall I say reasonable, doubt?"
>> ". . . serious, or, shall I say, reasonable doubt?" (European style, I
think.)
>>
>> Comments, please!
>
>I don't know about puctuation, but it sounds wrong to me. Here is my version:
>(If you don't like it, give it back to me please; I'll work on it over the
>weekend and present a better version on Monday.)
>
>Was there ever any serious or shall we say, reasonable, doubt? Even this does
>not seem right to me. All because "There was ever serious or reasonable doubt"
>does not look right to me. Ok, Skitt, grab a beer, go out to the poolside and
>think it over.
I've thunk, and thunk, but the burning question is also about the commas around
the "or".
I think, normally, there would be a comma before an "or". Now, in this case,
there is a subordinate clause following it, namely "shall I say". The
"reasonable" is a softening of my stance in the previously offered "serious"
adjective.
I believe that "Was there ever serious, or, shall I say, reasonable, doubt?" is
the correct if possibly commatose [sic] version? Now, *that's * European!
Perchprism
>From: "Skitt" <al...@myself.com>
>Date: 9/4/98 5:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6spmu6$7tn$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<snip>
>Well, if support is desired, sure, "keeps" it is! Was there ever serious or,
>shall I say, reasonable doubt?
>
>A serious question:
>In my last sentence, I changed my punctuation a couple of times. The
>alternatives were:
>". . . serious, or shall I say reasonable, doubt?"
>". . . serious, or, shall I say, reasonable doubt?" (European style, I
>think.)
"Or shall I say reasonable" is parenthetical. Number one is right. Even if you
insist on the perfectly defensible commas around "shall I say," you still need
one after "reasonable," so number two is some other style than European.
Perchprism
". . . further, father? That can't be right." - Groucho
cauce....@horse.xo.com
>In article <MPG.10567c77d...@news.newsguy.com>,
>ginny_...@unforgettable.com (JustmeŽ) wrote:
>
>> I saw this stuff written by a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca and,
>> like....HAD to answer:
>> > On 1 Sep 1998 18:06:45 GMT, mar...@wwa.com (Murray Arnow) wrote:
>> >
>> > >James Follett (ja...@marage.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> At the moment `Norwegian blue' isn't hypenated but its usage is so
>> > >> well-established that it's only a matter of time and then we will
>> > >> see an increase in such parroty errors.
>> > >
>> > >Just wondering, shouldn't that be Norwegian Blue or is this an improper
>> > >bird?
>> >
>> > Heavens to Betsy. It's dead, man. Deceased. It's just that this fellow
>> > keeps nailing it up.
>>
>> He's not dead, he's *resting*! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian
>> Blue, isn't it? Beautiful plumage!
>
>Pining for the fjords, don't you know.
Well, it's , ah, it's just pining for the ARPANET.
http://badger.alaska.net/jokes/netaxs.html
Avi:
[Pulls wire out of socket and beats it against the side of the server.]
'Ello Mister T1 !!!! TESTING TESTING TESTING! This is your 9 o'clock cron
job download!
[Watches bits physically falling on floor]
Now that's what I call a dead T1!
Bell:
No, no, you stunned it.
Avi:
STUNNED!?
Bell:
Yeah- you stunned it just as it was starting to accept packets. T1s stun
easily, major.
Avi:
Um, now look mate. I've had enough of this. This T1 is definitely
deceased, and when we hooked it up not more than a
day ago, you assured me that its total inability to transmit was due to it
being tired and shagged out after trying to pull
across all of alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.really.really.nasty last
night.
Bell:
Well, it's , ah, it's just pining for the ARPANET.
Avi:
PINING FOR THE ARPANET?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it drop
every packet as soon as we
plugged it into this Sparc?
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.