[OT] McCarthy? From Lisa
Driver
apologizing here.
Some of you responded to her postings in a somewhat childish
matter.
You can say what you want,but correcting grammars is not my idea
of mature conversation.
Besides,her only "crime" was to express her opinions.Your crime
was to not tolerating it.
Now,what`s worse?
---Driver---
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
hep kat
>
> Ok, first of all I would like to apologise for my stupidity on
> this whole McCarthy issue. I admit my knowledge of my
> grandfather is very limited. I've only learned what my family
> has taught me about him. But thanks to kind oppinions and
> responeses, I've learned otherwise.
>
You shouldn't take the newsgroup's word as anything more than what it
is: it is a collective voice of people who have R.E.M. in common. Maybe
because of where the band is politically the newsgroup tends to bend
that way, but it does not mean it is the whole. If you want to really
learn more about your grandfather, then go to the library. Check out
books by people, from both sides, who were there and see what they have
to say. Try to look at both sides objectively and take it from there. A
lack of knowledge is in no way stupidity. Open yourself to learning and
then make up your own mind. Who knows, you may still believe that
McCarthy was right. At least your opinion will be an informed one even
though it doesn't agree with many here.
kat
--
"And if you give us any more trouble, I shall visit you in the small
hours and put a bat up your nightdress." Basil Fawlty
Font of All Important Info
<beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> felt compelled by mysterious
forces to say:
>I don`t think Lisa is the only one who should be doing the
>apologizing here.
>Some of you responded to her postings in a somewhat childish
>matter.
>You can say what you want,but correcting grammars is not my idea
>of mature conversation.
>Besides,her only "crime" was to express her opinions.Your crime
>was to not tolerating it.
>Now,what`s worse?
as i said elsewhere, i just finished reading the entire exchange
you're referring to here, and i have to say that the only person
acting childishly was Lisa "Family Relations to McCarthy." talk about
your major clusterfuck...
anyway, for your own well-being, here's some correction:
1) it's childish _manner_, not "matter";
2) the word "grammar" doesn't take the plural form ("grammars"? what
the hell is that? both your grandmothers said in a colloquial tone?);
3) the comma is your friend. learn to respect the comma and use it
properly;
4) "to not tolerating it" is grammatically incorrect. it should be,
"not to tolerate it." besides splitting your infinitive, you used the
wrong verb form of "tolerate."
now go write on the board 100 times, "i will not comment on grammar
until i learn it myself" before i am forced to get rude with you.
--dez (any grammatical/spelling errors in my post are 100%
intentional, BWAAHAHAHAHHAAAAA)
...a pistol-hot cup of Dez...
"Chef of chicanery, your buns are mine!"
--the Tick
Ron Henry
being naked before an audience and saying:
>I don`t think Lisa is the only one who should be doing the
>apologizing here.
Do tell.
>Some of you responded to her postings in a somewhat childish
>matter.
>You can say what you want,but correcting grammars is not my idea
>of mature conversation.
Perhaps not. But when you come out of nowhere attacking people,
you're bound to get them riled up. <restraining... urge... to
comment on... "childish matter"... augh...>
>Besides,her only "crime" was to express her opinions.Your crime
>was to not tolerating it.
>Now,what`s worse?
You seem to forget that her "opinion" not tolerating the
considered opinions of others regarding a well-known historical
figure, without offering any substantive reasons why people
should change their minds, other than cryptic and confusing
comments about being a "relation".
So, on another subject -- it's curious that, other than the user
name you're posting (ot: posing) under, BeaSunshine[1], your
article headers [2] bear a *striking* resemblance to
LisaRainbow's.
Just an fascinating coincidence, I guess! [3]
Ron
[1] Which email address has never been posted under before.
[2] Such as the Path, the NNTP-Posting-Host, the X-Trace, and
the X-Originating-Host header lines.
[3] I'm posting this through ReMarq, too, just for fun!
the flowers cover everything
>"not to tolerate it." besides splitting your infinitive, you used the
>wrong verb form of "tolerate."
to be really really picky, the correct phrase would be "to not be tolerant".
never end a sentence with a preposition.
<wink>
*~*~
http://www.angelfire.com/md/RoadSafety
---
"go build yourself another dream, this choice isn't mine"
{r.e.m.-- "so.central rain"}
»Q«
"the flowers cover everything" <pulps...@aol.completely> wrote in message news:20000612152834...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> >4) "to not tolerating it" is grammatically incorrect. it should be,
> >"not to tolerate it." besides splitting your infinitive, you used the
> >wrong verb form of "tolerate."
>
> to be really really picky, the correct phrase would be "to not be tolerant".
> never end a sentence with a preposition.
How fitting that this thread now has a branch on grammar. I am not happy with the rules that prohibit splitting infinitives and ending phrases with prepositions. If the infinitive rule is to be followed, though, "to not be tolerant" is out. "To be intolerant" is fine, as was "not to tolerate it." There aren't any ending prepositions in sight; "it" is a noun.
»Q«
--
If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the precipitate.
- S. Wright
AMYSA
>now go write on the board 100 times, "i will not comment on grammar
>until i learn it myself" before i am forced to get rude with you.
my god...i forgot how much i love dez.
amy (off to write, "i will not forget how much i love dez" 100 times on the
blackboard...)
"i can't believe i came out of the coma for this shit!!!"--dave/tom, 4/20/00
Vedran Dracic
the flowers cover everything <pulps...@aol.completely> wrote in message
news:20000612152834...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
>
tolerant".
> never end a sentence with a preposition.
>
As someone to who English is a foreign language, I heard about that rule
with prepositions soem time ago and wondered what of it all is true and not,
because I was just noticing too many instances of this "rule" being
violated. Can anyone enlighten me?
I only read this in Webster's dictionary:
"The often heard but misleading "rule' that a sentence should not end with a
preposition is transferred from Latin, where it is an accurate description
of practice. But English grammar is different from Latin grammar, and the
rule does not fit English. In speech, the final preposition is normal and
idiomatic, especially in questions: What are we waiting for? Where did he
come from? You didn't tell me which floor you worked on. In writing, the
problem of placing the preposition arises most when a sentence ends with a
relative clause in which the relative pronoun (that; whom; which; whomever;
whichever; whomsoever) is the object of a preposition. In edited writing,
especially more formal writing, when a pronoun other than that introduces a
final relative clause, the preposition usually precedes its object: He
abandoned the project to which he had devoted his whole life. I finally
telephoned the representative with whom I had been corresponding. If the
pronoun is that, which cannot be preceded by a preposition, or if the
pronoun is omitted, then the preposition must occur at the end: The
librarian found the books that the child had scribbled in. There is the
woman he spoke of."
kfj
> I killfiled the offending thread long before I got to the end of it because
> it just made me feel so sorry that an otherwise tolerant and intelligent
> bunch of people in rmr saw fit to just let loose with an absolute bunch of
> twaddle!!!
it's sad but true but one's "success" on usenet has everything to do with one's
ability to communicate in the language spoken by the users. Maybe the poster in
question made the mistakes they made because of difficulties with english, but
really, even a quick read of their initial posts shows pretty inflammatory
assertions. Notably, having re-read thru all the initial posts on the whole
thing, no one brought up grammar (tho people were harping on basic netiquette)
until the initial poster made their apology and was defended by an alleged sock
puppet.
i mean, come on. 2 people responded immediately with simple, straightforward
answers, and the imbroglio that followed was prompted by a fairly inflammatory,
inarticulate post by the original poster. Good for them if they want to continue
to participate - and they seem to have somewhat got the message about quoting
and other parts of netiquette, but really . . . i don't see no twaddle.
-k
okay, the colostomy bag thread was twaddle. :)
--
All my early sexual experiences occurred to ZZ Top songs playing in the
background. - Peter Buck, R.E.M.
karenfj at hotmail dot com is the correct address.
BENJAMIN ROGERS
"it" is a pronoun, not a preposition. If you want to break out your grammar
flamethrower over ending a sentence with "it," you need to use the vague
pronoun attack -- but make sure "it" is vague first :-).
In English, many rules of grammar are frequently broken. Most of the time
the cause is bad writing, but sometimes the writer has a perfectly valid
reason. The classic example is the split infinitive "to boldy go where . .
. ." Strictly speaking, the construction should be "to go boldy" but that
doesn't sound nearly as impressive :-).
In any case, usenet is not on the same level as academic writing; one should
strive to be clear, but it is not necessary to embrace all of the myriad,
mystifying rules of English if clarity suffers.
Note that many, if not all, of Webster's examples that you quote below can
be re-stated more elegantly, and in most cases the preposition is extraneous
and adds no information. I suppose I had better provide examples now.
Vedran Dracic <vdr...@foi.hr> wrote in message
news:8i3u69$5ll$6...@as102.tel.hr...
>What are we waiting for?
Why are we waiting?
>Where did he come from?
I'm not sure how to re-state this one, but you would not say it this way "in
scholarly writing."
>You didn't tell me which floor (you worked on).
This could easily be a response, thus the phrase ending the sentence is
unnecessary.
In writing, the
> problem of placing the preposition arises most when a sentence ends with a
> relative clause in which the relative pronoun (that; whom; which;
whomever;
> whichever; whomsoever) is the object of a preposition. In edited writing,
> especially more formal writing, when a pronoun other than that introduces
a
> final relative clause, the preposition usually precedes its object: He
> abandoned the project to which he had devoted his whole life. I finally
> telephoned the representative with whom I had been corresponding. If the
> pronoun is that, which cannot be preceded by a preposition, or if the
> pronoun is omitted, then the preposition must occur at the end: The
> librarian found the books that the child had scribbled in. There is the
> woman he spoke of."
I cannot really argue with these, except to point out that both of them can
be re-written so that they fit the first form. "The librarian found the
books in which the child had scribbled." OR "The child scribbled in the
books. The librarian then found them." (Uh-oh, vague pronoun!) "There is
the woman of whom he spoke."
I have probably made a few mistakes, mea culpa. I defer to Dez.
--
Benjamin Rogers
Arundel High, Class of '95
VPI&SU, BSEE '99
"hey i guess i love you to no avail at all" -- Madder Rose
benjaminIII at e-mail dot msn dot com is the correct address
the flowers cover everything
>with prepositions soem time ago and wondered what of it all is true and not,
>because I was just noticing too many instances of this "rule" being
>violated.
as my dad is fond of saying, it is improper, but not necessarily wrong.
he was an english major in college.
MysterPB
Grandfather! That is really cool if you ask me, he is definately a historical
figure in American History.
Font of All Important Info
compelled by mysterious forces to say:
>dez said:
>
>>now go write on the board 100 times, "i will not comment on grammar
>>until i learn it myself" before i am forced to get rude with you.
>
>my god...i forgot how much i love dez.
>
>amy (off to write, "i will not forget how much i love dez" 100 times on the
>blackboard...)
aww, you don't have to do that :) just come give me a big hug!!
--dez, exhuming Strunk & White
Font of All Important Info
<benja...@email.msn.com> felt compelled by mysterious forces to
say:
>The rule is irrelevant in this case, because, as has been noted elsewhere,
>"it" is a pronoun, not a preposition. If you want to break out your grammar
>flamethrower over ending a sentence with "it," you need to use the vague
>pronoun attack -- but make sure "it" is vague first :-).
>
>In English, many rules of grammar are frequently broken. Most of the time
>the cause is bad writing, but sometimes the writer has a perfectly valid
>reason. The classic example is the split infinitive "to boldy go where . .
>. ." Strictly speaking, the construction should be "to go boldy" but that
>doesn't sound nearly as impressive :-).
in creative writing, rules are frequently (and purposefully) broken.
as you say below, it's only in scholarly writing that perfect English
(i.e. Standard Written English) is required, and then, only if you're
getting graded on it ;)
>In any case, usenet is not on the same level as academic writing; one should
>strive to be clear, but it is not necessary to embrace all of the myriad,
>mystifying rules of English if clarity suffers.
i agree.
<snip Benjamin's re-writes of the Webster's examples>
>I have probably made a few mistakes, mea culpa. I defer to Dez.
no need to defer--your writing is better than mine :)
--dez, The Grammar Lady, just dial 555-GRMR, hee hee!
Font of All Important Info
<r...@wishcity.freeserve.co.uk> felt compelled by mysterious forces to
say:
>Respect to Lisa for having the guts to admit she may have made a mistake AND
>to apologise. I notice that no one else hare has taken that stance.
>
>One of the worst things about all this was the pathetic rantings about the
>correct use of English. I teach IT and one of the first things I teach my
>students about Usenet and E-Mail posting is that it is *very bad netiquette*
>to bicker about such trivial matters as spelling, grammar, etc. Firstly, not
>everyone speaks English as their first language, and secondly, even if they
>do, many people are not great at using it, either in written form or
>verbally.
as an English teacher, you should be very sad that native English
speakers can't even command their own language.
> Everyone has their weakness. Mine is Maths. I don't expect people
>to get on their high horse just because I can't figure out some basic
>trigonometry or algebra calculation, so it's unfair to criticise people for
>not using perfect English.
it's not unfair when critising a troll's English usage. in fact, it's
downright fun :D
>I killfiled the offending thread long before I got to the end of it because
>it just made me feel so sorry that an otherwise tolerant and intelligent
>bunch of people in rmr saw fit to just let loose with an absolute bunch of
>twaddle!!!
the only twaddle was emanating from Lisa & her sock puppet(s). the
rest of us were either throwing out facts or just having a spot of
fun. lighten up, Francis.
>I pray it doesn't happen again.
i suspect you will be praying for a very long time....
--dez
Font of All Important Info
felt compelled by mysterious forces to say:
>
>"the flowers cover everything" <pulps...@aol.completely> wrote in message news:20000612152834...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
>> >4) "to not tolerating it" is grammatically incorrect. it should be,
>> >"not to tolerate it." besides splitting your infinitive, you used the
>> >wrong verb form of "tolerate."
>>
>> to be really really picky, the correct phrase would be "to not be tolerant".
>> never end a sentence with a preposition.
>
>How fitting that this thread now has a branch on grammar.
>I am not happy with the rules that prohibit splitting infinitives and ending phrases
>with prepositions. If the infinitive rule is to be followed, though, "to not be tolerant" is out.
>"To be intolerant" is fine, as was "not to tolerate it." There aren't any ending prepositions in sight;
> "it" is a noun.
well, technically, "it" is a pronoun ;) but thanks for the back-up!
--dez, a preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence
with...er...um....
Hank
cover everything) yelled out "We accept you - one of us!" before
typing:
>to be really really picky, the correct phrase would be "to not be tolerant".
>never end a sentence with a preposition.
To be really really *really* picky, "to not be tolerant" still splits
an infinitive but you're absolutely right in saying that you should
never use a preposition to finish a sentence off with.
Doh :-)
Hank
***
Ready everybody? Mambo!
Remove the obvious SPAMZAPPER to reply to me by e-mail
Vedran Dracic
BENJAMIN ROGERS <benja...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#mbWrPN1$GA.240@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
> In any case, usenet is not on the same level as academic writing; one
should
> strive to be clear, but it is not necessary to embrace all of the myriad,
> mystifying rules of English if clarity suffers.
And in Webster's dictionary it says it is a "rule" (in quotation marks),
what implies that it's not really a rule! ("Often heard, but misleading
'rule' ").
> Note that many, if not all, of Webster's examples that you quote below can
> be re-stated more elegantly, and in most cases the preposition is
> extraneous
> and adds no information. I suppose I had better provide examples now.
> Vedran Dracic <vdr...@foi.hr> wrote in message
> news:8i3u69$5ll$6...@as102.tel.hr...
> >What are we waiting for?
>
> Why are we waiting?
But it it really the same question then? The way I see it, "What are we
waiting for?" should imply a reply starting with "We're waiting for
(something)" and "Why are we waiting" could give different replies, more
like "We're waiting because we've come too early" or something like that.
> >Where did he come from?
>
> I'm not sure how to re-state this one, but you would not say it this way
"in
> scholarly writing."
Can a question start with pronoun? You know like, "To whom...?", "For
what...?", "From where...?" Can you say "From where is this coming"? I guess
no.
How would you re-state a question like "Who are you listening to?"
Or "What is this made of?"
> >You didn't tell me which floor (you worked on).
>
> This could easily be a response, thus the phrase ending the sentence is
> unnecessary.
What about saying something like "He does something he doesn't want to"?
> > pronoun is omitted, then the preposition must occur at the end: The
> > librarian found the books that the child had scribbled in. There is the
> > woman he spoke of."
>
> I cannot really argue with these, except to point out that both of them
> can be re-written so that they fit the first form. "The librarian found
> the books in which the child had scribbled." OR "The child scribbled
> in the books. The librarian then found them." (Uh-oh, vague pronoun!)
> "There is the woman of whom he spoke."
Thanks for help on this! I can only say that, the way I (as a foreigner) see
it, every example of these sentences with prepositions at the end sounds
simpler and, like you say, more elegant than all those with "to whom", "in
which" and so on (they sound so uncool :-) ). But of course, that's me and
English is not my language, so...
M1ahearn
E-Mail posting is that it is *very bad netiquette*
to bicker about such trivial matters as spelling, grammar, etc. <<
I would agree with you up to a point, that point being when poor spelling
and grammar make a post totally incomprehensible (and I saw some posts in this
thread that matched that description), it's fair game to point this out to the
poster.
MFA
Jeff Raymond
Very true, and I've always been taught that it's bad netiquette to HAVE such bad
grammar and spelling and whatnot. Thank the higher powers we don't have people
posting like Prince, saying "Id like 2 buy ur rem bootleg." It would drive me
up a wall. So who knows...
-Jeff
--
Name : Jeff Raymond
WWW : http://evilcow.dualsync.com
e-mail: evi...@cybercom.net
quote : "I'll probably just vote for whoever my parents tell me to"
- Britney Spears on the upcoming election
Driver
Well...Mr.Grammar.I must say that your instant corrections
strikes me as most annoying.Which again is the pictorial I am
getting of your person in general.
But then again...I guess that was your intention.
Ron Henry
naked before an audience and saying:
>Respect to Lisa for having the guts to admit she may have
>made a mistake AND to apologise. I notice that no one else
>hare has taken that stance.
Wait just a minute, Rob. Who else, exactly, are you implying has
something to apologize for? If you're not willing to name names,
then your criticism implies that all of us in the thread are at
fault. As someone who posted to this thread and doesn't believe
he has anything to apologize to you or anyone else for, I object
to this.
Your sweeping generalization here is bound to annoy people
further who were reacting to what they perceived as the original
poster's unfair, unfounded, and unprovoked attacks both on
Stipe's integrity and respondants' typical understanding of a
well-known historical figure.
>One of the worst things about all this was the pathetic
>rantings about the correct use of English. I teach IT and one
>of the first things I teach my students about Usenet and E-Mail
>posting is that it is *very bad netiquette* to bicker about
>such trivial matters as spelling, grammar, etc.
One of the characteristics of these posts was not simply her
basic problem with composing English sentences. The posts also
displayed serious problems with logical thinking and frequently
contradicted themselves. Further, none of them offered any
rationale at all supporting the poster's absurd assertions
that "Stipe believes in communism" because he wrote a song that
can be interpreted as critical of the Communist witch hunts,
or "McCarthy is mis-understood" because not everyone is related
to him.
Finally, the poster several times took people's poor opinions of
McCarthy as criticisms of herself (all this before she had
explained the "relations" thing). Only much later in the thread
did the poster confess she was upset about this issue for purely
personal reasons.
Frankly, I saw more people criticizing her confusing and non-
standard method of quoting other posters, confusing their
statements with each others' and her own, than I did anyone
commenting on her "grammar" per se. In fact, I am not sure I
recall anyone commenting on her spelling and poor syntax until
she herself complained about being persecuted for her grammar.
Having someone who is reasoning and communicating so poorly
begin a thread by asking a seemingly-innocent question, and then
post inflammatory criticisms about members of this group as well
as about the band this group discusses when responded to -- this
understandably frustrated regulars of the group.
Also, if you're well-versed in Usenet culture, Rob, you are
surely aware that the strategy of naive solicitation followed by
attack, when combined with absurd logic and spelling errors, and
finally when seemingly compounded with the use of an alias
posting to garner support for the original poster -- all of this
smells like trolling to some of us. Weighing all the facts, I
think this person was not, in fact, a troller. But it's easy to
see why some might have attacked her as if she were insincere
and merely looking to cause trouble.
Look, netiquette is a two-way street, Rob, and if she wanted a
rewarding conversation on r.m.r about a topic of an R.E.M. song,
she also had an obligation both to communicate her ideas
coherently and concisely, and to be straightforward about her
motivations, both of which counts she failed at.
>Firstly, not
>everyone speaks English as their first language,
I know this has been brought up a couple times, but I still
don't have any reason to think this is the case for the poster
in question. Part of a possibly foreign-descended last name in
an email address means little to speakers of Englishy in the US,
where I for one find people with non-anglo last names speaking
perfect English every day. My cubicle neighbor here at work has
a last name no one in the company seems able to spell (it's
Polish originally), but is one of the most graceful writers of
English I know.
No post I read by her in the thread asked for consideration of
her poor writing skills on this account.
>and secondly, even if they
>do, many people are not great at using it, either in
>written form or verbally. Everyone has their weakness. Mine
>is Maths.
Fine -- I would therefore not expect you to start trying to
prove theorems in a mathematics forum, in this case. If she's
so poor at English, she shouldn't try to debate others publicly.
Especially without facts or more reasonable rationales to
support her assertions.
>I don't expect people
>to get on their high horse just because I can't figure
>out some basic trigonometry or algebra calculation, so
>it's unfair to criticise people fornot using perfect English.
Sorry, Rob, this is a faulty analogy. If you were trying to use
faulty mathematics to prove a point, people would surely
criticize you for it. People have no *right* to be understood
regardless of the coherence of their writing. If you want to
debate issues using language, improve your language skills.
>I killfiled the offending thread long before I got to
>the end of it
..which means you don't know the whole story, even as you're
condemning newsgroup regulars...
>because it just made me feel so sorry that
>an otherwise tolerant and intelligent bunch of people
>in rmr saw fit to just let loose with an absolute bunch of
>twaddle!!!
And I think you're unfairly judging people on this newsgroup who
responded to the original poster's unfair, vague, confusedly-
formatted, and semi-coherent reactions to their solicited
opinions on McCarthy with a combination of exasperation,
sarcasm, annoyance, and taken-aback sincerity. Frankly, none of
these seem inappropriate responses to this situation, to me.
Ron
Chris Piuma, etc.
<henry...@SPAMZAPPERvirgin.net> wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2000 19:28:34 GMT, pulps...@aol.completely (the flowers
> cover everything) yelled out "We accept you - one of us!" before
> typing:
> >to be really really picky, the correct phrase would be "to not be tolerant".
> >never end a sentence with a preposition.
> To be really really *really* picky, "to not be tolerant" still splits
> an infinitive but you're absolutely right in saying that you should
> never use a preposition to finish a sentence off with.
To be superduperhyperpickissimo: both those "rules" -- the "never end
with a preposition" and "never split an infinitive" -- were invented by
proscriptive grammarians in the 19th Century who wanted English to be
like that most logical and eloquent of languages, Latin, and were never
used widely by native English speakers, even those considered quite
fluent and able in their use of the written English language. But the
rules were adopted by pendantic teachers and others who like to have
such rules in order to feel smugly superior to the hoi polloi. And then
followed by those browbeaten by such persnickyletizers.
But they're very silly. Of course you can, and should (sometimes), end
sentences with prepositions and split infinitives. To not do these
things would mean failing to take advnatage with some of the suppleness
and possibility that English is imbued with. English lets you do all
sorts of crazy things that Latin wouldn't allow, and you can use these
effects to good effect.
Now, admittedly, it's sometime best to _avoid_ splitting your infinives
or ending with prepositions, in order to maintain clarity, but such
situations come up much less often than advertised.
--
Chris Piuma, etc.
For further examples of crazy things the English language permits:
http://www.flim.com
Hank
<beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> yelled out "We accept you
- one of us!" before typing:
>Ok...what is up with you people and grammar?
>It`s getting kinda creepy...really.
>It`s like being stucked in the teacher aide convention.
>
>
>
Y'know, we don't normally behave like this. It's just that it's been
a year since the last tour, about 18 months since Up came out, any
excitement surrounding 'Man on the moon' has come and gone, there's no
prospect of the new album coming out in the next few months, only the
vaguest rumour of any live dates, almost all of the gaps in my 1999
Up Tour bootleg collection have been filled, it's been a long time
since we worked out the lyrics to Sitting Still, Ben Tolsky hasn't
posted here in months...
Maybe we're just bored :-)
Driver
It`s getting kinda creepy...really.
It`s like being stucked in the teacher aide convention.
"Screw you guys I`m going home"- Eric...My beloved big-boned
friend.
»Q«
"Chris Piuma, etc." <edi...@flim.com> wrote in message news:130620000906153144%edi...@flim.com...
> In article <vpnaksspll62p28e6...@4ax.com>, Hank
> <henry...@SPAMZAPPERvirgin.net> wrote:
> > On 12 Jun 2000 19:28:34 GMT, pulps...@aol.completely (the flowers
> > typing:
> > >to be really really picky, the correct phrase would be "to not be tolerant".
> > >never end a sentence with a preposition.
> > To be really really *really* picky, "to not be tolerant" still splits
> > an infinitive but you're absolutely right in saying that you should
> > never use a preposition to finish a sentence off with.
>
> To be superduperhyperpickissimo: both those "rules" -- the "never end
> with a preposition" and "never split an infinitive" -- were invented by
> proscriptive grammarians in the 19th Century who wanted English to be
> like that most logical and eloquent of languages, Latin, and were never
> used widely by native English speakers, even those considered quite
> fluent and able in their use of the written English language. But the
> rules were adopted by pendantic teachers and others who like to have
> such rules in order to feel smugly superior to the hoi polloi. And then
> followed by those browbeaten by such persnickyletizers.
>
Thanks, Chris. I thought so, but was a bit unsure. Searching the web I was disappointed to find tons of sites which list these rigid rules of grammar but _none_ which cover the history of English grammar. Do any of you grammarians know of any?
»Q«
--
Luck is the residue of design.
- B. Rickey
M1ahearn
sentences with prepositions and split infinitives. To not do these things would
mean failing to take advnatage with some of the suppleness and possibility that
English is imbued with. English lets you do all
sorts of crazy things that Latin wouldn't allow, and you can use these effects
to good effect. <<
In other words - not that Chris's weren't good enough, it's just that I
haven't gotten my recommended minimum amount of posting for the month in and
there are only 18 shopping days left! - it would be like sticking to the rules
of Basic when programming in C++. But not exactly, of course.
MFA
Chris Piuma, etc.
<beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> TO "FONT OF ALL IMPORTANT INFO"
> Well...Mr.Grammar.I must say that your instant corrections
> strikes me as most annoying.Which again is the pictorial I am
> getting of your person in general.
>
> But then again...I guess that was your intention.
Ah, again with the no quoting. Or, oh, I'm sorry, that was _Lisa's_
habit. I was confused there for a moment!
Anyway, "FONT" is a Ms. Grammar, thankyewverrymuch.
Not far away, in article <05ffe24e...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
Driver <beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Ok...what is up with you people and grammar?
> It`s getting kinda creepy...really.
> It`s like being stucked in the teacher aide convention.
Some people know about English grammar and find it interesting, and
some don't. Why would you pick on someone for having an interest in
grammar? And what's creepy about it? An affection for grammar strikes
me as far less creepy than, say, a blind affiliation for the ideals of
long-deceased family relations. To pick an example out of a hat. It's
also less creepy than, say, sexual inclinations towards hamsters. [1]
--
Chris Piuma, etc.
Land of grammar abuse:
http://www.flim.com
[1] Oh, now I'm just being silly. Spring fever, that's what this is.
Font of All Important Info
<beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> felt compelled by mysterious
forces to say:
>TO "FONT OF ALL IMPORTANT INFO"
>Well...Mr.Grammar.I must say that your instant corrections
>strikes me as most annoying.Which again is the pictorial I am
>getting of your person in general.
i rate a pictorial? woohoo, Playboy, here i come!
>But then again...I guess that was your intention.
whatever you say, my little illiterate.
--dez (and that's *Ms.* Grammar to you)
Chris Piuma
dez...@ix.netcom.com (Font of All Important Info) wrote:
> 2) the word "grammar" doesn't take the plural form ("grammars"? what
> the hell is that? both your grandmothers said in a colloquial tone?);
Well, a "grammar" is also a book that you learn grammar from. A grammar
textbook. So it can take the plural form.
Not the way the original poster meant it, of course. But whatever. ;-)
--
Chris Piuma, etc.
http://www.flim.com
Grammar got run over by a reindeer....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Font of All Important Info
compelled by mysterious forces to say:
>Well, a "grammar" is also a book that you learn grammar from. A grammar
>textbook. So it can take the plural form.
>
>Not the way the original poster meant it, of course. But whatever. ;-)
this is why i stick disclaimers at the end of my grammar posts ;)
--dez
Chris Piuma
"»Q«" <Dodgeball...@usa.net> wrote:
> Thanks, Chris. I thought so, but was a bit unsure. Searching the
> was disappointed to find tons of sites which list these rigid rules
> grammar but _none_ which cover the history of English grammar. Do
> of you grammarians know of any?
A book on the history of grammar would be really interesting. I can't
think of any off the top of my head.
A book on the history of English in general that I read a long time ago
and remember as being fun to read is "The Mother Tongue: English and
How It Got That Way" (English and How to Live It?) by Bill Bryson.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380715430/flim
That'll get ya started.
--
Chris Piuma, etc.
http://www.flim.com
Maggie
<benja...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>In English, many rules of grammar are frequently broken.
Exactly! The English language is constantly changing, some old rules
no longer make sense today, just as new words are constantly being
coined every day, which is a healthy sign, unlike some languages which
are ailing and struggling to survive. As an English teacher my pet
hate on the net is when people use i instead of I, laziness I suppose,
and I hate it when people write about English or any language, or
proper noun for that matter, using the lower case. But (defiantly
using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence - a carnal sin when
I was at at school) I don't feel there is any harm in breaking the
rules of grammar when one isn't writing academically, or formally, as
long as the meaning is expressed with clarity.
>the cause is bad writing, but sometimes the writer has a perfectly valid
>reason. The classic example is the split infinitive "to boldy go where . .
>. ." Strictly speaking, the construction should be "to go boldy" but that
>doesn't sound nearly as impressive :-).
>
Write to impress :)
>In any case, usenet is not on the same level as academic writing; one should
>strive to be clear, but it is not necessary to embrace all of the myriad,
>mystifying rules of English if clarity suffers.
>
Exactly! I find some of the most interesting posts, are the ones that
are casually written, I sometimes feel I write too formally and
sound much more serious than I really am - those who know me
can confirm this :)
Maggie
Maggie
>
>I killfiled the offending thread long before I got to the end of it because
>it just made me feel so sorry that an otherwise tolerant and intelligent
>bunch of people in rmr saw fit to just let loose with an absolute bunch of
>twaddle!!!
>
>I pray it doesn't happen again.
>
>Rob
Unless someone mentions the Corrs ;)
Maggie
OK! I'm bored and just shit stirring :)
>
the flowers cover everything
>and remember as being fun to read is "The Mother Tongue: English and
>How It Got That Way" (English and How to Live It?) by Bill Bryson.
i HIGHLY recommend this and every other bryson book ever written. the man is a
genius.
»Q«
"the flowers cover everything" <pulps...@aol.completely> wrote in message news:20000615172628...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >A book on the history of English in general that I read a long time ago
> >and remember as being fun to read is "The Mother Tongue: English and
> >How It Got That Way" (English and How to Live It?) by Bill Bryson.
>
> i HIGHLY recommend this and every other bryson book ever written. the man is a
> genius.
Thanks to both of you for the recommendation. :-) I think I have afriend who has it, so I'll check it out.
»Q«
--
Philosophy is useless;
Theology is worse.
- M. Knopfler, 'Industrial Disease'
BENJAMIN ROGERS
news:394932cf...@news2.dnet.co.uk...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:11:27 -0400, "BENJAMIN ROGERS"
> <benja...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >In English, many rules of grammar are frequently broken.
(Snip general agreement)
>But (defiantly using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence - a
carnal sin
^^^^^
Um. I do hope you meant cardinal sin. I can't think of any way to make
grammar rebellion a carnal sin, and I'm pretty sure I don't want to :-).
>when I was at at school) I don't feel there is any harm in breaking the
> rules of grammar when one isn't writing academically, or formally, as
> long as the meaning is expressed with clarity.
Reading Strunk and White reveals just how important clarity was to those
grammar gurus. And _The Elements of Style_ is highly entertaining.
> >the cause is bad writing, but sometimes the writer has a perfectly valid
> >reason. The classic example is the split infinitive "to boldy go where .
.
> >. ." Strictly speaking, the construction should be "to go boldy" but
that
> >doesn't sound nearly as impressive :-).
> Write to impress :)
Hm, I would say, write first to communicate, then to impress. Nobody will
be impressed with your exhaustive vocabulary if you are the only one who
knows those words.
> >In any case, usenet is not on the same level as academic writing; one
should
> >strive to be clear, but it is not necessary to embrace all of the myriad,
> >mystifying rules of English if clarity suffers.
> Exactly! I find some of the most interesting posts, are the ones that
> are casually written, I sometimes feel I write too formally and
> sound much more serious than I really am - those who know me
> can confirm this :)
Use more smilies :-). Tone is hard to communicate in most writing, harder
in excerpts as short as e-mail and usenet posts tend to be (the never-ending
long-winded tirade posts notwithstanding). For that reason alone,
re-reading what you wrote is usually worth it.
On one point I differ, though perhaps only in extreme cases. The English
language is highly adaptive, true, but the laziness of its native speakers
sometimes induces the language to adopt more convoluted words where shorter,
simpler words will do. The most noteable example of this phenomenon is the
"word" "irregardless" which means . . . exactly the same thing as
"regardless." What was wrong with "regardless"?
Work has given me a new appreciation for just how ridiculous the words
"utilize" (prefer use) and "definitize" (for heaven's sake, I implore you,
use define!) are.
--
Benjamin Rogers
Arundel High, Class of '95
VPI&SU, BSEE '99
"hey i guess i love you to no avail at all" -- Madder Rose
Chris Piuma, etc.
wrote:
> Although I'd like to point out that Mother Tongue contains some fairly
> basic errors regarding linguistics in general. And if you want me to
> point them out, I'll just post my linguistics professor's lecture
> notes...
This is probably true; I remember catching a few things that were
contrary to other things I'd heard, or just seemed misguided. But it's
a good starting place, nonetheless.
What, surely I'm not the only person here who devoured Mario Pei books
when he was a teenager? [1]
--
Chris Piuma, etc.
http://www.flim.com
[1] My French prof, in college, who was very cool, had studied under
Pei at one point. I was the only person in the class to register shock
and excitement when he told us this.
Ed Morrish
Although I'd like to point out that Mother Tongue contains some fairly
basic errors regarding linguistics in general. And if you want me to
point them out, I'll just post my linguistics professor's lecture
notes...
Ed
Ed Morrish
> using a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence - a carnal sin when
> I was at at school)
Um... are you quite sure it wasn't a *cardinal* sin...? A carnal sin
would be interesting... I'd like to see a priest explain it, anyhoo...
Ed
Rob Baker
Maggie wrote in message
>Unless someone mentions the Corrs ;)
You said it. ;-)
>OK! I'm bored and just shit stirring :)
I know exactly how you feel.
Rob
the flowers cover everything
>"word" "irregardless" which means . . . exactly the same thing as
>"regardless." What was wrong with "regardless"?
that's the thing,though... it's not that people say irregardless because of
laziness, but moreso that they just don't know what regardless actually means.
isra
>of mature conversation.
>Besides,her only "crime" was to express her opinions.Your crime
>was to not tolerating it.
I don't recall anyone being "intolerant" of Lisa's opinion. From what i read,
most posters replied in an intelligent fashion. They *questioned* her opinion
and challenged her beliefs, but it seemed to be in the spirit of mature
discussion about the topic.
And as for criticizing grammer or netiquette...welcome to usenet.
isra
**************************************
*remove clothes to reply*
http://isra.diaryland.com
"Y'all take what God gave ya, put a couple of sequins on it,
and you've got a star"
--Milly at Lounge Ax's last call
isra
>It`s getting kinda creepy...really.
>It`s like being stucked in the teacher aide convention.
Is is just me, or would "It's getting kinda creepy...really" be a really funny
motto for r.m.r.?
isra
>
>TO "FONT OF ALL IMPORTANT INFO"
>Well...Mr.Grammar.I must say that your instant corrections
>strikes me as most annoying.Which again is the pictorial I am
>getting of your person in general.
>
Dude. Dez has been around for ages. She can post whatever she wants. and what
brings you to the assumption that Dez is a Mr.??
MysterPB
Hank
out "We accept you - one of us!" before typing:
>>Ok...what is up with you people and grammar?
>>It`s getting kinda creepy...really.
>>It`s like being stucked in the teacher aide convention.
>
>Is is just me, or would "It's getting kinda creepy...really" be a really funny
>motto for r.m.r.?
If I ever get round to doing another rec.music.rem t-shirt, this
*will* be included in the design.
Driver
that the people who has been here a long time are exemt for
normal decorum. That`s fine by me.We should have an "diss the
pope"- section for her and her free-spoken self then.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
jeff reichman
>think of any off the top of my head.
Neither can I but I did read an interesting book about the creation of the
Oxford English Dictionary called "The Professor and the Madman."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006099486X/o/qid=961157527/sr=8-1/r
ef=aps_sr_b_1_3/102-8179675-4997729
jeff
* * *
http://www.jeffreichman.com
music, writing and more.
BrgmtNVtvr
Ahem. The study of one's family history is "genealogy," with an "a," MYSSS-ter
PB! Perhaps you would like to write it 100 times on the board for us? And is
that gum you're chewing? -- Bergie
Ed Morrish
> Oxford English Dictionary called "The Professor and the Madman."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006099486X/o/qid=961157527/sr=8-1/r
> ef=aps_sr_b_1_3/102-8179675-4997729
Is that the one by Simon Winchester? Over here it's called, "The Surgeon
of Crowthorne". Very good book, my parents got it for me last Christmas.
Ed
Ron Henry
an audience and saying:
>Oh...She can type what ever she wants? I`m sorry I didn`t know
>that the people who has been here a long time are exemt for
>normal decorum. That`s fine by me.We should have an "diss the
>pope"- section for her and her free-spoken self then.
Look, you won't win friends and influence people by insulting members of a
social group you're trying to start up a conversation with. Many people in
rec.music.rem have been having extended conversations with each other here for
many *years*; they have come to know each other pretty well, have met others
from rec.music.rem in real life, generously trade R.E.M. tapes and other
memorabilia with each other (which engenders a lot of good will), and often
consider each other actual, honest-to-goodness *friends*.
So -- when you insult someone like dez offhandedly, you tend to alienate
everyone who is friendly to the person you insulted. Which in the case of
dez is a fair number of folk on this group.
And it's not so much a matter of "regulars can post whatever they want and
newbies can't" as a case where many of us *know* dez, we understand and
enjoy her sharp and often sarcastic sense of humor, and are shaking our heads
sadly as we watch you march deliberately and arrogantly into her line of
rhetorical fire.
Advice in general: lurk and get to know a newsgroup, its regulars, the kinds
of conversations it's having, for at least a couple weeks before posting --
and especially before fighting with its members. As an analogy, would you go
up to a group of people at a party you don't know, but who mostly seem to know
each other, and say to them the sorts of things you have said to us? Think
about it as you ponder the sorts of reactions you have gotten here. (That's
assuming of course you are reflecting at all on your spectacular lack of
success in communicating constructively with people on this group.)
Making friends and having rewarding conversations is not a *right* you are
passively entitled to -- it's something you have to work at, and which
requires social skills and experience.
Ron
--
Ron Henry ronh...@clarityconnect.com
http://people2.clarityconnect.com/webpages6/ronhenry/
Driver
I am sorry that I am not up to speed with the members internal
"humor" revelations.
I am sorry that my first impression of this message board was
everything but good.It striked me as captius,biased and
unfriendly.
I am sorry that me sticking up for myself was interpret as
rudeness.
I am sorry that I didn`t understand that your grammar
corrections was your own little way of giving me a warm welcome.
I am sorry that you have in a most peculiar way made me the bad
guy and Ms.Grammar and that "she can type whatever she want`s"-
person the saints.
And most of all I`m sorry that I have to explain myself like
this.
It should be unnecessary.
Ron Henry
an audience and saying:
>And most of all I`m sorry that I have to explain myself like
>this. It should be unnecessary.
Yeah. People really really suck when they can't read your mind, and
therefore only know what you typed instead of what you meant, don't they?
Sigh. God forbid you should ever have had to make an effort to get along with
anyone online.
kfj
news:8idhgd$abd$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Sigh. God forbid you should ever have had to make an effort to get along with
> anyone online.
well, as i recall, in my first post i said ron was a big goofball and then
insulted amy and dez and ed morrish to boot! in my second post i accused rob
baker of liking the corrs and pulpstress of thinking damon albarn is a nice guy.
it's really only the fact that my RL identity is Peter Buck that makes people be
nice to me. ;) [1]
-peter. OOPS! i mean,
- the poster also known as "hank" [2]
[1] just kidding.
[2] i'm that fucking clever. not only can i pretend be a 27 yr old female living
in a pit called Santa Barbara, i can also skillfully impersonate an older than
27 englishman living in scotland! and still be the amazing workaholic guitar
maestro and husband and father of two that i am in real life. [3]
[3] note to anyone not getting it: completely kidding! [4]
[4] we all know ONLY Hank is secretly peter buck.
--
All my early sexual experiences occurred to ZZ Top songs playing in the
background. - Peter Buck, R.E.M.
karenfj at hotmail dot com is the correct address.
Hank
<kar...@dontlikebelong.comma> yelled out "We accept you - one of
us!" before typing:
>[4] we all know ONLY Hank is secretly peter buck.
I'd make some response to this but it's my turn to take Z & Z to
pre-school this afternoon, then Microwave wants to ask me some stuff
about Rickenbacker 360s so that he can answer the questions that have
been posted to him in the Q&A section on the Murmurs webboard.
Gotta dash.
kfj
um, and then i decided to respond with absolutely none of the serious calm
wisdom that ron demonstrates.
> Look, you won't win friends and influence people by insulting members of a
> social group you're trying to start up a conversation with. Many people in
> rec.music.rem have been having extended conversations with each other here for
> many *years*; they have come to know each other pretty well, have met others
> from rec.music.rem in real life, generously trade R.E.M. tapes and other
> memorabilia with each other (which engenders a lot of good will), and often
> consider each other actual, honest-to-goodness *friends*.
i like to give away stuff free to win friends. it makes up for my lack of
capitalization and the way i occasionally forget to type important words.
>
> So -- when you insult someone like dez offhandedly, you tend to alienate
> everyone who is friendly to the person you insulted. Which in the case of
> dez is a fair number of folk on this group.
even mike mills likes dez. sigh. when we were all waiting after the Po5 show and
mike mills came out, he shook everyone's hand and then got involved in this
whole conversation with dez before he shook mine - and so he never did shake my
hand that night, sigh. because dez is more interesting.
>
> And it's not so much a matter of "regulars can post whatever they want and
> newbies can't" as a case where many of us *know* dez, we understand and
> enjoy her sharp and often sarcastic sense of humor, and are shaking our heads
> sadly as we watch you march deliberately and arrogantly into her line of
> rhetorical fire.
now i have this image of dez with a flamethrower. maybe next some poster will
insult r.e.m. and russell crowe. then we'll have first blood: dez unleashed.
>
> Advice in general: lurk and get to know a newsgroup, its regulars, the kinds
> of conversations it's having, for at least a couple weeks before posting --
> and especially before fighting with its members. As an analogy, would you go
> up to a group of people at a party you don't know, but who mostly seem to know
> each other, and say to them the sorts of things you have said to us? Think
> about it as you ponder the sorts of reactions you have gotten here. (That's
> assuming of course you are reflecting at all on your spectacular lack of
> success in communicating constructively with people on this group.)
i find the best way to act at parties is to get uproariously drunk and puke on
the host. are you disagreeing ron?
> Making friends and having rewarding conversations is not a *right* you are
> passively entitled to -- it's something you have to work at, and which
> requires social skills and experience.
social skills on usenet are seriously over-rated, d00d. ;)
-k
Ron Henry
and saying:
>Ron Henry <ronh...@clarityconnect.com> wrote:
>> Sigh. God forbid you should ever have had to make an effort to get along with
>> anyone online.
>
>well, as i recall, in my first post i said ron was a big goofball
So, is that the way you people treat others? Are you some kind of elite who
can post anything? And why don't you capitalize, Mr. k?
I don't know why I waste my time insulting you all back over and over!
Ron "not Peter Buck, but tried to look as scruffy as him during one phase of
my life" Henry
Ron Henry
>i find the best way to act at parties is to get uproariously drunk and puke on
>the host. are you disagreeing ron?
Heh. Well, I wish I could say that I haven't tried that approach a few times
in my impetuous youth. "You've ghot sush a cool *urp* mussic colleshun, I, uh,
*uulrurghhg*--"
Ron
Maggie
It was definitely carnal at my school , everything was blamed on
carnal knowledge, no priests, though lots of hell and brimstone
preachers, which amounts to much the same thing anyway ;)
Maggie
Driver
I don`t want to irritate you.
Im not here to annoy you.
I would lick your feets but is that the sickest move?
*
(Not literal but it made more sense...)
Driver
fight against everyday Brittney Spears tunes.
I thought that this was a good board for it...
But noooo...We have to pick on each other and get all exited
over statements that,if one actually took the time to read them
proper,is not either offensive or hostile.
Driver
correcting a typing mistake myself.
I wrote:
I MAKES ME...
Correction:
IT MAKES ME...
Looks like I beat you all to it ey?
Georgiana Cohen
: I makes me sad that R.E.M. fans don`t stick together in the
: fight against everyday Brittney Spears tunes.
Dude, who's fighting? The day R.E.M. is at the top of TRL's list and a little
message scrolls across the bottom of the screen from Jessica who's 12 and
lives in Santa Monica CA saying "I picked R.E.M. b/c Peter Buck is sooooo
hot! I love you guys!!!!!!" will probably be the day I retire from the
human race.
: I thought that this was a good board for it...
Brittney Spears = MTV's whore. Ooh, let's 'fight' against her and hope that
R.E.M. can claim that spot!!!
We're lucky. R.E.M. is not only a great band that produces quality music,
but they're successful too. We don't have to watch one of our favorite bands
die due to lack of commercial success or get swallowed up or ignored. What
else could we hope for? To be Carson Daly's little bitchmonkeys? I think not.
: But noooo...We have to pick on each other and get all exited
: over statements that,if one actually took the time to read them
: proper,is not either offensive or hostile.
Uh, you just repeated what a bunch of people said to you about your comments.
Think about it.
--
*------------------------[ http://rhysa.8m.com ]-------------------------*
| Georgiana Cohen "What would replace |
| gvc...@bu.edu the rent with |
| Boston University the stars above..." |
| College of Communication, 2001 --Indigo Girls |
| AOL: Rhysa814 | ICQ:7297847 "Kid Fears" |
*-------[ http://neverforget.8k.com | http://rhysa.diaryland.com ]-------*
Ron Henry
>social skills on usenet are seriously over-rated, d00d. ;)
k, I think you meant to type:
"5oC¡4L 5I<¡LLz oN U53N37 4r3 53r¡o5L¥ oV3r-r4T3D, d00d!!!"
HTHTH,
Ron Henry
an audience and saying:
>oh...before any of the beloved board humorists does it,I am
>correcting a typing mistake myself.
>
>I wrote:
>I MAKES ME...
>Correction:
>IT MAKES ME...
>
>Looks like I beat you all to it ey?
Yep. Correct yourself seven more times like that and we can all say
"Board/bored humorists - 0, Driver - 8".
Ron "at last, an oblique ObR.E.M.!!!!!" Henry
Rob Baker
kfj wrote in message ...
>in my second post i accused rob
>baker of liking the corrs
Yes, and didn't you feel every iota of my wrath? NO-ONE accuses me of such a
horrible and unforgivable crime and gets away with it, I can tell you!!!
Rob
Rubric the Grading System
>*will* be included in the design.
There's a t-shirt? Can I buy one?
--Lex
The Enlightened Monkeys Dial-A-Dirge and Lex's Voicemail
toll-free number : 1-877-394-0201 ext. 538
Currently playing: "My sad attempt to parody R.E.M."
There's a new number for every song!
Rubric the Grading System
use whatever grammar you want as long as you can clearly get your idea across.
Driver
>
>Dude, who's fighting? The day R.E.M. is at the top of TRL's
list and a little
>message scrolls across the bottom of the screen from Jessica
who's 12 and
>lives in Santa Monica CA saying "I picked R.E.M. b/c Peter Buck
is sooooo
>hot! I love you guys!!!!!!" will probably be the day I retire
from the
>human race.
>Brittney Spears = MTV's whore. Ooh, let's 'fight' against her
and hope that
>R.E.M. can claim that spot!!!
No,that was not what I meant.You are mistaken.Sorry to say it.
>We're lucky. R.E.M. is not only a great band that produces
quality music,
>but they're successful too. We don't have to watch one of our
favorite bands
>die due to lack of commercial success or get swallowed up or
ignored. What
>else could we hope for? To be Carson Daly's little
bitchmonkeys? I think not.
I think not either.Now are you ready to hear what I actually
meant?
I meant that there should be far more people liking quality
music such as what R.E.M. puts out.I`m sick of all the boybands
all they do is annoy me so What I Was aiming toward was that if
more people liked the good music,then the comersial
girl/boybands would no longer exist.Capiche?
By the way it was just an example anyway .
Pointing out that I think that R.E.M. fans should consentrate on
the things that they do agree on and let the rest pass.And in
that way one can have a more friendly ambience.
In one of my previous postings I wrote:
>: But noooo...We have to pick on each other and get all exited
>: over statements that,if one actually took the time to read
them
>: proper,is not either offensive or hostile.
I was here refering too people like you who constantly
misunderstands me and makes such a big deal out of it and keeps
nagging about how wrong I am when I in reality means the same
thing you do.
How can you disagree with me agreeing???
you guys can pull off the weirdest things...
>Uh, you just repeated what a bunch of people said to you about
your comments.
>Think about it.
If there where a Olympics in "Misinterpretation and jumping at
conclusions ".You would make America really proud.
Think about THAT.
kfj
news:20c316d3...@usw-ex0104-026.remarq.com...
> I makes me sad that R.E.M. fans don`t stick together in the
> fight against everyday Brittney Spears tunes.
fight fiercely, rmr, fight! [1]
so, i finally got a cd of Tom Lehrer which has me way thrilled, since i was
previously relying on my memory of his songs from high school. Has anyone got
the new box set of his?
-k
[1] or have i lost everyone but Helen at this point?
kfj
> Driver <beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> dreamed of being naked before
> an audience and saying:
>
> >oh...before any of the beloved board humorists does it,I am
> >correcting a typing mistake myself.
> >
> >I wrote:
> >I MAKES ME...
> >Correction:
> >IT MAKES ME...
> >
> >Looks like I beat you all to it ey?
>
> Yep. Correct yourself seven more times like that and we can all say
> "Board/bored humorists - 0, Driver - 8".
>
> Ron "at last, an oblique ObR.E.M.!!!!!" Henry
take a break, ron, you're just being mean. ;)
you've been on this thread too long!
children look up, all they hear is sky-blue complaints ringing down on
(everybody sing along!)
driver (8) driver (8) take a break! you've been on this shift too long!
-k
kfj
news:8idtbi$kh9$1...@news3.bu.edu...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:43:56 -0700, Driver
<beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> brought a guitar into rec.music.rem
and sang this song:
> : fight against everyday Brittney Spears tunes.
>
> message scrolls across the bottom of the screen from Jessica who's 12 and
> lives in Santa Monica CA saying "I picked R.E.M. b/c Peter Buck is sooooo
> hot! I love you guys!!!!!!" will probably be the day I retire from the
> human race.
why? one, let's hear it for Jessica in Santa Monica for recognizing what a
hottie Peter is. At 12, you'd think she'd be blinded by the michael-centric
thing and mooning over Stipe. Good move, jessica, but really, i think Mike Mills
is hotter.
i mean, c'mon, there's nothing wrong with r.e.m. being loved by the masses.
>
> : I thought that this was a good board for it...
>
> Brittney Spears = MTV's whore. Ooh, let's 'fight' against her and hope that
> R.E.M. can claim that spot!!!
Look, Brit has more problems than being MTV's whore. And she really isn't, it's
just that the demographic that MTV loves loves Britney, so they have her on as
often as possible so they can get higher ratings and sell their commercial spots
for more. Brit does it so more people buy her albums and she has $$ for when her
career collapses. I don't feel any need to fight against her, i just wish she
were, you know, smarter.
>
> We're lucky. R.E.M. is not only a great band that produces quality music,
> but they're successful too. We don't have to watch one of our favorite bands
> die due to lack of commercial success or get swallowed up or ignored. What
> else could we hope for? To be Carson Daly's little bitchmonkeys? I think
not.
well, let's be real here. the promotional stuff we got for Up in the US would
have been even more if Up had done better. If the next album follows Up's sales,
we won't be seeing R.E.M. as much on TV, we won't be seeing their videos on VH1
and the like. really, i'd like them to sell more because i think they're great,
and i think people should hear great music more often.
Georgiana Cohen
:>
:>Dude, who's fighting? The day R.E.M. is at the top of TRL's
: list and a little
:>message scrolls across the bottom of the screen from Jessica
: who's 12 and
:>lives in Santa Monica CA saying "I picked R.E.M. b/c Peter Buck
: is sooooo
:>hot! I love you guys!!!!!!" will probably be the day I retire
: from the
:>human race.
: I will retire with you.and by the way...It`s dudette...
"Dude", in the Georgiana Cohen Book of Standard Casual Grammar, is nongendered.
:>Brittney Spears = MTV's whore. Ooh, let's 'fight' against her
: and hope that
:>R.E.M. can claim that spot!!!
: No,that was not what I meant.You are mistaken.Sorry to say it.
OK, well, that was my interpretation of what you said...
:>We're lucky. R.E.M. is not only a great band that produces
: quality music,
:>but they're successful too. We don't have to watch one of our
: favorite bands
:>die due to lack of commercial success or get swallowed up or
: ignored. What
:>else could we hope for? To be Carson Daly's little
: bitchmonkeys? I think not.
: I think not either.Now are you ready to hear what I actually
: meant?
Sure, why not?
: I meant that there should be far more people liking quality
: music such as what R.E.M. puts out.I`m sick of all the boybands
: all they do is annoy me so What I Was aiming toward was that if
: more people liked the good music,then the comersial
: girl/boybands would no longer exist.Capiche?
Unfortunately -- and this isn't a hit on you, it's just the way I think
things are -- this won't happen. Too many people out there are only after
what's hot, and what is 'hot' is what sells, and that's stuff that doesn't
make people think too much and is relatively harmless. I agree, I wish
more people liked the bands that deserve appreciation the most, like R.E.M.
But I think that trashy music like the boybands and slutstars will, tragically,
always have its place with casual pop music fans and teenagers aching to hop
on some sort of acceptable bandwagon.
: By the way it was just an example anyway .
: Pointing out that I think that R.E.M. fans should consentrate on
: the things that they do agree on and let the rest pass.And in
: that way one can have a more friendly ambience.
I never sensed an unfriendly ambience here... and I'm not one of the more
'prominent' or loved faces/names in the group either.
: In one of my previous postings I wrote:
:>: But noooo...We have to pick on each other and get all exited
:>: over statements that,if one actually took the time to read
: them
:>: proper,is not either offensive or hostile.
: I was here refering too people like you who constantly
: misunderstands me and makes such a big deal out of it and keeps
: nagging about how wrong I am when I in reality means the same
: thing you do.
: How can you disagree with me agreeing???
: you guys can pull off the weirdest things...
But you make it so easy!
Dude, you're the one making a big deal out of it. Usenet requires a thick
and discerning skin and, since it is a written form of communication, an
acceptable presentation of your words. Reading text laced with typos and
poor formatting is like listening to someone speak in a screechy or atonal or
cracking voice. Not too fun.
:>Uh, you just repeated what a bunch of people said to you about
: your comments.
:>Think about it.
: If there where a Olympics in "Misinterpretation and jumping at
: conclusions ".You would make America really proud.
: Think about THAT.
Woo! Can I also run the 500m circular reasoning race? :)
the flowers cover everything
>use whatever grammar you want as long as you can clearly get your idea
>across.
>--Lex
i totally agree with that statement..however..it was rather difficult to get an
understanding of lisa's comments, because she wasn't getting her idea across
very coherently. and that's why this thread turned into what it did.
i'm rather suspicious here..lisa hasn't said a word in days.. so she was
obviously a troll..probably scouring newsgroups to find out what people had to
say about senator mccarthy. that's my theory, anyway.
*~*~
http://www.angelfire.com/md/RoadSafety
---
"go build yourself another dream, this choice isn't mine"
{r.e.m.-- "so.central rain"}
kfj
> I think not either.Now are you ready to hear what I actually
> meant?
you know, if you have to clarify every post you make with a follow up about what
you really meant, it's prolly time to look at how you're articulating your
thoughts.
> I meant that there should be far more people liking quality
> music such as what R.E.M. puts out.I`m sick of all the boybands
> all they do is annoy me so What I Was aiming toward was that if
> more people liked the good music,then the comersial
> girl/boybands would no longer exist.Capiche?
"commercial" music will never go away. most people use music as wallpaper or
background and don't care to delve deeper. ergo, there will always be music that
aims for the lowest common denominator. When R.E.M. had a number 1 album, OOT,
they were knocked out of number 1 by Michael Bolton. our fave band's brief reign
as toppermost of the poppermost hardly knocked "commercial" music out of the
way.
> By the way it was just an example anyway .
> Pointing out that I think that R.E.M. fans should consentrate on
> the things that they do agree on and let the rest pass.And in
> that way one can have a more friendly ambience.
geez, but, um. am i missing something or are you the only poster not feeling our
quite friendly ambience?
> I was here refering too people like you who constantly
> misunderstands me and makes such a big deal out of it and keeps
> nagging about how wrong I am when I in reality means the same
> thing you do.
> How can you disagree with me agreeing???
> you guys can pull off the weirdest things...
we're amazing that way. you should see what we can do in real life.
whatever - if everyone you talked in real life completely misunderstood and
reacted with hostility to what you said, wouldn't you reconsider how you were
saying it? wouldn't you think, hmm, maybe i should change something? Maybe
Sometimes I Am Inarticulate. Maybe Sometimes I Speak Hastily.
tangent for the masses: i'm listening to Yield (Pearl Jam) right now, and I
really like Faithfull. It's been a while since i pulled this one out, and i'm
really liking it. okay, back to tilting at windmills!
> If there where a Olympics in "Misinterpretation and jumping at
> conclusions ".You would make America really proud.
> Think about THAT.
thinking, thinking. hmm. well, you certainly passed that Dale Carnegie course at
persuading people to see your side.
-k
<bitch mode> it's jumping TO conclusions. <bitch mode>
couldn't help myself! eek!
Font of All Important Info
<kar...@dontlikebelong.comma> felt compelled by mysterious forces to
say:
>Ron Henry <ronh...@clarityconnect.com> wrote in message
>news:8idf7u$9m5$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>um, and then i decided to respond with absolutely none of the serious calm
>wisdom that ron demonstrates.
<le snip>
>> So -- when you insult someone like dez offhandedly, you tend to alienate
>> everyone who is friendly to the person you insulted. Which in the case of
>> dez is a fair number of folk on this group.
>
>even mike mills likes dez. sigh. when we were all waiting after the Po5 show and
>mike mills came out, he shook everyone's hand and then got involved in this
>whole conversation with dez before he shook mine - and so he never did shake my
>hand that night, sigh. because dez is more interesting.
nah, it's only because he thought i was too young to have been at
their shows in 1982 - 84. i think he was trying to figure out my real
age (which, if he had cut me off at the the knees and counted the
rings, would have been easy to determine!) ;)
>>
>> And it's not so much a matter of "regulars can post whatever they want and
>> newbies can't" as a case where many of us *know* dez, we understand and
>> enjoy her sharp and often sarcastic sense of humor, and are shaking our heads
>> sadly as we watch you march deliberately and arrogantly into her line of
>> rhetorical fire.
>
>now i have this image of dez with a flamethrower. maybe next some poster will
>insult r.e.m. and russell crowe. then we'll have first blood: dez unleashed.
the flamethrower's what i use to clean up my messy abode. for insults
to Russell, i will delve into my Gladiator collection and use a mace!
<le snip #2>
--dez (a.k.a. "Rambette"?)
...a pistol-hot cup of Dez...
"Chef of chicanery, your buns are mine!"
--the Tick
Font of All Important Info
Henry) felt compelled by mysterious forces to say:
>"kfj" <kar...@dontlikebelong.comma> dreamed of being naked before an audience and saying:
>
>>i find the best way to act at parties is to get uproariously drunk and puke on
>>the host. are you disagreeing ron?
>
>Heh. Well, I wish I could say that I haven't tried that approach a few times
>in my impetuous youth. "You've ghot sush a cool *urp* mussic colleshun, I, uh,
>*uulrurghhg*--"
whoa, are you really Huey Lewis in disguise, Ron??
--dez (a FOAF of mine once met Huey at a party in the '80s [you know,
when he was famous!]. as he was attempting to hit on her, he made the
grievous error of puking on her new shoes. needless to say, his
attempts at scoring strange failed)
Ron Henry
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:59:06 GMT, ronh...@clarityconnect.com (Ron
>Henry) felt compelled by mysterious forces to say:
>
>>Heh. Well, I wish I could say that I haven't tried that approach a few times
>>in my impetuous youth. "You've ghot sush a cool *urp* mussic colleshun, I, uh,
>>*uulrurghhg*--"
>
>whoa, are you really Huey Lewis in disguise, Ron??
Well, uh, we both went to Cornell. I'll let you draw what conclusions you will
from that.
Ron "perhaps I am also Ed Marinaro and Kurt Vonnegut as well" Henry
M1ahearn
shows in 1982 - 84. i think he was trying to figure out my real age (which, if
he had cut me off at the the knees and counted the rings, would have been easy
to determine!) <<
No, you can only count the rings from a cross-section of a bone; at the
knees, you're just separating two bones at a joint, and, well, there aren't any
rings there to count. So he would have thought you were 0.
MFA
Driver
>"Dude", in the Georgiana Cohen Book of Standard Casual Grammar,
is nongendered.
Heres a good one: ok...whatever...
>
>I never sensed an unfriendly ambience here...
>
You`re lucky.I haven`t heard a friendly word since I got here.
And so far all I have been giving are replies to postings aimed
towards me.So if I have had a...well...moody tone then that is
as an result to the previous postings which required me
recoiling to the somewhat negative postings I have gotten .
>Woo! Can I also run the 500m circular reasoning race? :)
>
Yeah if you want to...
M1ahearn
Well, uh, we both went to Cornell. I'll let you draw what conclusions you will
from that.
Ron "perhaps I am also Ed Marinaro and Kurt Vonnegut as well" Henry <<
Nope, can't be Kurt Vonnegut - you graduated!
MFA
jeff reichman
>meant?
Why is it that you always have to make a post to explain a post? This should
clue you into your communication skills--and instead of blaming others, just
say what you mean.
>I`m sick of all the boybands
>all they do is annoy me so What I Was aiming toward was that if
>more people liked the good music,then the comersial
>girl/boybands would no longer exist.Capiche?
LOL. Right. Think of it this way-- when the Beatles were in their prime, the
Monkees were very successful. When R.E.M. was beginning their commercial peak
(Green/OOT), there was New Kids on the Block selling millions of records. And
Milli Vanilli. And Vanilla Ice. And... do you want me to go on? This is a
tired, tired argument. Boy bands will *always* exist-- there is a distinct
marketing niche for them. R.E.M. does not compete with them. Record companies
know this. For them, its Christina Aguleria vs. Britney Spears, or N'Sync vs.
Backstreet Boys, not R.E.M. vs. 98 Degrees.
>Pointing out that I think that R.E.M. fans should consentrate on
>the things that they do agree on and let the rest pass.
You're just pissed cause you made some comments that got you all redfaced.
Live with it--- it's happened to all of us at some point.
>And in
>that way one can have a more friendly ambience.
I think it's pretty friendly in here-- not too bad.
jeff
* * *
http://www.jeffreichman.com
music, writing and more.
Hank
<r...@wishcity.freeserve.co.uk> yelled out "We accept you - one of
us!" before typing:
Darn tootin' right - accuse the Hankster of liking Ruduuhuud before
you accuse Rob of liking Th* C*rrs :-)
Hank
***
Ready everybody? Mambo!
Remove the obvious SPAMZAPPER to reply to me by e-mail
Ron Henry
Actually, I don't think Huey graduated either, now that I think about it. Too
busy playing his harmonica or something to study.
Ron
Driver
>>Pointing out that I think that R.E.M. fans should consentrate
on
>>the things that they do agree on and let the rest pass.
>
>You're just pissed cause you made some comments that got you
all redfaced.
Oh I`m feeling the warmth here...real cosy
>Live with it--- it's happened to all of us at some point.
On this board here it is no doubt it will.I have figured that
much.
>Why is it that you always have to make a post to explain a
post? This should
>clue you into your communication skills--and instead of blaming
others, just
>say what you mean.
Come on! Give me a break!Don`t you think I am trying to?What
ever I say you guys always seem to find some twisted way to
misunderstand me.
Hank
<kar...@dontlikebelong.comma> yelled out "I hold your hand in mine!"
before typing:
>Driver <beasunshi...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:20c316d3...@usw-ex0104-026.remarq.com...
>> I makes me sad that R.E.M. fans don`t stick together in the
>> fight against everyday Brittney Spears tunes.
>
>fight fiercely, rmr, fight! [1]
>
>[1] or have i lost everyone but Helen at this point?
Hah! As if.
Side 1. Track 5.. Songs by Tom Lehrer 1958. Released in the UK on
the Decca label :-)
M1ahearn
>
>Well, uh, we both went to Cornell. I'll let you draw what conclusions you
>will from that.
>
>Ron "perhaps I am also Ed Marinaro and Kurt Vonnegut as well" Henry <<
>
> Nope, can't be Kurt Vonnegut - you graduated!
Actually, I don't think Huey graduated either, now that I think about it. Too
busy playing his harmonica or something to study. <<
Then by the process of elimination, you are Ed Marinaro. Loved ya on
'Hill Street Blues', man!
MFA
»Q«
"the flowers cover everything" <pulps...@aol.completely> wrote in message news:20000616160819...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> i'm rather suspicious here..lisa hasn't said a word in days.. so she was
> obviously a troll..probably scouring newsgroups to find out what people had to
> say about senator mccarthy. that's my theory, anyway.
Driver, could you either confirm or deny being Lisa? (If you've already addressed that issue, I missed it.)
»Q«
--
Luck is the residue of design.
- B. Rickey
Driver
I don`t know why you feel the need to express your displeasure
with me.
I don`t know why you should have anything to say to me at all.
I dont know how you possible can feel injured enough to post
the message you just did.
Plese ....enlighten me.
Jeff Raymond
>
> Look, Brit has more problems than being MTV's whore. And she really isn't, it's
> just that the demographic that MTV loves loves Britney, so they have her on as
> often as possible so they can get higher ratings and sell their commercial spots
> for more. Brit does it so more people buy her albums and she has $$ for when her
> career collapses. I don't feel any need to fight against her, i just wish she
> were, you know, smarter.
>
I think the quote in my sig covers this topic plenty...
-Jeff
--
Name : Jeff Raymond
WWW : http://evilcow.dualsync.com
e-mail: evi...@cybercom.net
quote : "I'll probably just vote for whoever my parents tell me to"
- Britney Spears on the upcoming election
Hank
System) yelled out "We accept you - one of us!" before typing:
>>If I ever get round to doing another rec.music.rem t-shirt, this
>>*will* be included in the design.
>
>There's a t-shirt? Can I buy one?
You're about a year too late :-(
We/I got a bunch made up so that we could recognise each other at the
1999 shows. After sending the REM office some freebies and everything
was paid for, I had close to £200 that I donated on our behalf to the
UNICEF & Red Cross appeals for the Kosovo refugees.
http://freespace.virgin.net/henry.race/tshirt.htm will take you to
some pics if they're still there - yes they are - but ignore the
directions about how to get one. You can't. They're gone for all
time.
Maybe next time REM tour I'll get another t-shirt made up for us all.
Who knows....
On a slightly related note, I just bought a scanner which I actually
got to work. Over the next few weeks/months I'll scan some of the
early mailings and items from the REM FunClub (as it was then) and
post them on the web for y'all to see.
Who else has ever seen the Bingo Hand Job face cloth for example?
No really, it exists, I've dot one. I've got a bunch of unpublished
pics too from the Mountain Stage show in 1991 and, if I can find them,
from their trip to Holland that year.
kfj
> I don`t know why everybody is so mean to me.
mean? mean is saying "you're fat! no one will ever love you!" mean is what i
want to do to my coworker, but lack the amorality to actually do. mean is, well,
mean is something different from the remarks we've made.
> I don`t know why you feel the need to express your displeasure
> with me.
um, well, i keep hoping you'll get the message and express yourself better.
> I don`t know why you should have anything to say to me at all.
oh, well. work is kinda slow and this is the happenin' thread on rmr right now.
> I dont know how you possible can feel injured enough to post
> the message you just did.
injured? i don't feel injured at all. um. okay, i've reviewed my post. 1
paragraph that addressed your comments about commercial music - same as i would
have posted to anyone, really. two paragraphs pointing out with a little
asperity but not any actual venom that if you have to keep explaining yourself,
you prolly aren't articulating yourself very well. 1 bitchy correction which i
marked as nitpicking. and one sarcastic comment after you insulted Georgianna.
i can't really see myself ever being injured by what someone i don't even know
and only respect in the abstract posted on USENET. now, if ron, whom i consider
a friend, posted something calling me a big ol fat windbag, i'd be injured. but
ron would say it better than that. anyway, for the record: the tone of this post
is amused and flabbergasted that you would think anything that happens on rmr
involving lisa/driver could injure anything besides my faith in humanity and the
value of secondary education in this fine country.
damn, that was an overly long sentence. :)
>
>
> Plese ....enlighten me.
trying! trying! hey, lisa/driver, could you go back to quoting - i'm really
wanting to know what made you think i felt injured.
-k
kfj
news:394AA40D...@cybercom.net...
> kfj wrote:
> >
> > Look, Brit has more problems than being MTV's whore. And she really isn't,
it's
> > just that the demographic that MTV loves loves Britney, so they have her on
as
> > often as possible so they can get higher ratings and sell their commercial
spots
> > for more. Brit does it so more people buy her albums and she has $$ for when
her
> > career collapses. I don't feel any need to fight against her, i just wish
she
> > were, you know, smarter.
> >
>
> I think the quote in my sig covers this topic plenty...
> quote : "I'll probably just vote for whoever my parents tell me to"
> - Britney Spears on the upcoming election
that's exactly what i was thinking of! :)
kfj
> ever I say you guys always seem to find some twisted way to
> misunderstand me.
c'mon baby, let's do the twist! come on baaaaaaaby, let's do the twist! twist a
little closer . . .
hank, how many version of that song have been released by different artist?
what's your fave? the beatles one is pretty stylin' - i think. but i've yet to
hear the Wombles attempt it. ;)
Ed Morrish
> a friend, posted something calling me a big ol fat windbag, i'd be injured.
RON! YOU MISSED YOUR CUE!!!
Ed
Ed Morrish
> use whatever grammar you want as long as you can clearly get your idea across.
Lex, you can use whatever language you like, and as long as you get your
ideas across it's working. First thing they taught us in French, German,
Spanish and Japanese lessons was that if you manage to get out the
equivalent of "Fish. Please. Three. Give" with a great big smile on your
face, the monsieur/herr/senor/hito will give you three fish, and wish
you a pleasant day.
Conversely, it don't matter if your grammar is perfect and the words
especially evocative of your feelings, the Singaporean market trader is
*still* going to try to make you buy that coconut. I speak from
experience.
Look at the footballers in Euro 2000. I don't think many refs speak
Czech, but when Pavel Nedved got clipped from behind and there wasn't a
foul given, I think Mr. Poll understood...
</rant>
Ed
helen looker
M1ahearn <m1ah...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Then by the process of elimination, you are Ed Marinaro. Loved ya on
> 'Hill Street Blues', man!
I'm about a third of the way of checking through the newsgroup posts and
have found references to the Wombles and Hill Street Blues, I feel oddly
cheerful because of this.:)
--
Helen
'I've had sex, and lots of it, and enjoyed every minute of it, too." Mike
Mills 1996
helen looker
kfj <kar...@dontlikebelong.comma> wrote in message
> fight fiercely, rmr, fight! [1]
Let's try not to injure them,
but fight fight fight
> so, i finally got a cd of Tom Lehrer which has me way thrilled, since i
was
> previously relying on my memory of his songs from high school. Has anyone
got
> the new box set of his?
Yes I have and love it naturally.For reasons that I blame on another list
I've been humming Bright College Days for most of the day.
> [1] or have i lost everyone but Helen at this point?
So you knew I would be suitably in tune with this line.:)
Chris Piuma, etc.
cover everything <pulps...@aol.completely> wrote:
> >The most noteable example of this phenomenon is the
> >"word" "irregardless" which means . . . exactly the same thing as
> >"regardless." What was wrong with "regardless"?
> that's the thing,though... it's not that people say irregardless because of
> laziness, but moreso that they just don't know what regardless actually means.
Nah -- people say "irregardless" because (a) it sounds stronger and
more potent than "regardless", and (b) you get two accented syllables,
so you can really drive home just how IRreGARDless the other person's
point must be.
--
Chris Piuma, etc.
http://www.flim.com