― Homosexual II (Homosexual II), Thursday, 18 August 2005 17:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Thursday, 18 August 2005 17:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― chupa-cabra, Thursday, 18 August 2005 17:49 (nineteen years ago) link
STOP TRYING TO BE COOL WITH VEGETABLES
― chrisco (chrisco), Thursday, 18 August 2005 17:52 (nineteen years ago) link
yep, did you know that toronto has the EXACT SAME CLIMATE as ellesmere island?
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 17:55 (nineteen years ago) link
Don’t even get me started on how Ebonics should simply be accepted in schools and not corrected by educators as a politically correct cultural acceptance.
Do you think I feel strongly about this topic? You bet. However, I find myself hypocritical since I use shortcuts in emails and on these posts often; however I would not think of doing it in a business email or conversationally. I'll stand down from my soap-box now.
― Wiggy (Wiggy), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― andrew m. (andrewmorgan), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:46 (nineteen years ago) link
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:47 (nineteen years ago) link
this doesn't bother me, but it's a little obnoxious when people linger on the "ccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhh" sound at the end.
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 18:51 (nineteen years ago) link
whatknot
― fauxhemian (fauxhemian), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:02 (nineteen years ago) link
'whatnot'
― fauxhemian (fauxhemian), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:03 (nineteen years ago) link
― Outsider Enter Port City (sexyDancer), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:04 (nineteen years ago) link
There's actually a certain economy to "Can I help who's next?" that makes sense, I think, given the circumstances in which it's usually used. Plus, it allows you to put the stress on the next, since it's at the end, so that if the addressee isn't really paying attention, they'll at least hear "blah blah blah blah NEXT?"
― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:06 (nineteen years ago) link
― M. V. (M.V.), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:08 (nineteen years ago) link
every day is a struggle for survival. < /puts hand to forehead and faints>
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:20 (nineteen years ago) link
Also, the word "manchild" makes me uncomfortable.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:24 (nineteen years ago) link
I've never heard this, but I kind of despise "brain fart."
― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:32 (nineteen years ago) link
the stressed-"NEXT" part makes sense, it's just the "can i help who's" that makes me tear my hair out.
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― Outsider Enter Port City (sexyDancer), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:42 (nineteen years ago) link
This is great if the next person in line happens to be Pete Townshend.
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:44 (nineteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:46 (nineteen years ago) link
You used "thing"!
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Milkmaid (of Human Kindness) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:55 (nineteen years ago) link
― Outsider Enter Port City (sexyDancer), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:57 (nineteen years ago) link
cooler-than-thou disinterest in the event
A *lot* of people get this wrong. To be disinterested is not to be uninterested. It's to have a lack of stock in the outcome (ie, "Jack, not a taxpayer himself, remains politically disinterested is this issue."). This does not mean that Jack is uninterested in the issue, but just that he has nothing to gain or lose from it.
― paulhw (paulhw), Thursday, 18 August 2005 19:58 (nineteen years ago) link
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:11 (nineteen years ago) link
― spontine (cis), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:12 (nineteen years ago) link
Then, you're implying that you do care, if not just a little.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:13 (nineteen years ago) link
especially since it's an adjective of "ridicule," which i've never seen ANYONE spell "redicule."
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:18 (nineteen years ago) link
i like "if you'll allow" better.
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― Beth Parker, Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 18 August 2005 20:48 (nineteen years ago) link
i will also echo the "rediculous" hatred and submit "definately" and all related butcherings of D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y, PEOPLE, for the love of...
― joseph (joseph), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:10 (nineteen years ago) link
― estela (estela), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:14 (nineteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:20 (nineteen years ago) link
1. Seeing "could of" or "should of" or "would of"2. "The hell with..." - this can't be right. It must be "to hell with...", but I've seen the former version in print so many times I'm starting to wonder. But even if "the hell with..." is somehow correct, I still despise it with all my soul.
― zayats, Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:26 (nineteen years ago) link
here here! (sic)
― s/c (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:42 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:47 (nineteen years ago) link
Geoffrey Nunberg in The Atlantic:
Unbiased and impartial will not do the work that disinterested used to be reserved for. But there is no point making a fuss about this change, because it was forgone that disinterested would lose its older sense once interested lost the sense of "having a stake in," which we retain only in the fixed phrase interested party. Even if disinterested had survived intact, therefore, it would eventually have become one of those curious asymmetric negatives like untoward and disgrace, whose senses are not recoverable as the sum of their parts. Invoking the second criterion, we should be prepared to admit that the fight on behalf of disinterested is a "lost cause," as Trilling described it. This may be an occasion for regret, but indignation would be out of place. Isaac Asimov writes, "I'm very proud of knowing the distinction, and insist on it, correcting others freely." The fact that being familiar with a distinction can be a cause for self-congratulation is, however, reason to eliminate it from the canons of standard usage, which should not be repositories of grammatical arcane.
― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:52 (nineteen years ago) link
― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 18 August 2005 23:53 (nineteen years ago) link