Agreed, LCT. Whenever I see "ur", I want to pronounce it "uhr", like as in
"Ruhr".

That said which is worse, your as ur, or you're as ur?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right


"LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:K1OWc.52877$Fg5.30502@attbi_s53...
> I can't stand when your is spelled ur.
>
> --
> "Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
> www.LCTPaintball.com
> www.LCTProducts.com
>
>
> "Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> news:1ac3.412b8871.d9793@shadowspar...
> > (Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> uttered
> > > ...It might have to do with a distinction made in queen's english or
> > > something, sentence being a structure of words, sentance being a
> > > jail term, so both spellings might be english, > but I might have
> > > simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america, I'll just
> > > take it as "wrong" and move on.
> >
> > *nod* Yeah, I don't see `sentance' in the dictionary.
> >
> >
> >
> > > My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> > > an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".
> >
> > This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying
> > because over the past year I've occasionally caught myself making it.
> > Now *that's* infuriating. =)
> >
> > Canonical reference: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "it's" is, of course, the contraction of "it is", and "its"
> > > indicates possesiveness, as in "its stuff", whatever it refers to in
> > > regard to the stuff. I'll often say "it's stuff", incorrectly.
> >
> > That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> > shit is stuff! =)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Since I am willing to admit these two errors as ones that I commonly
> > > make, I'd appreciate it if those specific mistakes weren't used
> > > against me.
> > >
> > > I will not admit to ever being 100% completely accurate 100% of the
> > > time with regard to grammar and spelling, but I can say this much:
> > > I'm a hell of a lot better at that sort of thing than the vast
> > > majority of the tards who post on usenet.
> >
> > Yes, the fact that you are able to form a coherent thought seems to
> > place you head and shoulders above the vast majority of the
> > internet-using populace these days. Your ability to construct a
> > rational argument also helps obviate my strong temptation to flame
> > you for minute spelling and grammatical errors.
> >
> >
> > As for myself, I too often fall prey to typos. I usually notice them
> > not long after I post the article in question, and occasionally
> > consider cancelling them in an effort to wipe the egg off my face,
> > but I have qualms about cancelling articles strictly based on content.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick
> > --
> > key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
> > Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
> > nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
> > :Ben Jonson
>
>

(Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> uttered
> "Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
>> shit is stuff! =)
>
> Much like your cult is a religion, but everyone elses religion is a
> cult.

Heh. There's a reason I get a kick out of Ambrose Bierce.
He was pointing this sort of thing out at a time when I think one
could have been drawn and quartered for it, and not merely critcized.

] SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion,
] as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
] all other faiths are based.
] :Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)



> When it starts to get dicey is in two specific situations.
> Personally, I can't stand butchering the english language for it's
> own sake, especially with regard to "leet speek" or whatever they
> call it, like when people start using "2", "r" and "u" as complete
> words, when "to/too", "are" and "you" are all very short english
> words to begin with. Do you *REALLY* lack the time to write out the
> words? Do you really think it makes you look cooler or something?
> Gah!

I used to ask these people why they used an ISP that charged by the
character, but I don't think that today's average Usenet denizen
appreciates that joke any more.



> The other situation is where someone thinks they make no mistakes,
> but even if you point them out, he goes "weres tha problim?". We
> had a guy hanging out like that a while back, annoying as ****, you
> might see him pop in from time to time. He acquired the name "Scum"
> for very good reason(it wasn't just for grammar and spelling).

Two things make me shake my head in both of these scenarios:

* You Are What You Write. This is exceptionally true on Usenet, where
the only way that other posters can form an opinion of you is through
evaluating the merits of what you post, but it's also true to a
significant extent out in the Real World.

* Your use of language is intimately intertwined with how you think.
If you can only form marginally coherent sentences, you can probably
only manage to form marginally coherent ideas. I think this grills me
most when someone sneers at me for my choice of words --
"Why y'all gots ta use smart-arse highfallutin' words like `gargantuan'?
Why can't ya just say `big'?" Well, my monosyllabic friend, `big'
doesn't exactly convey the grandeur, the titanic immensity, or the
overwhelming collosal magnitude of `gargantuan', does it? If I had
meant to convey a concept as bland and pedestrian as `big', I would have
elected to use that word instead.

When you expand your vocabulary, or learn a new language, you're
expanding the number of concepts you can toss about in your head, not
just the number of different words you can write on a page. Someone
who doesn't know the word `adamantine' can't easily conceive of that
concept, nor can they express it coherently. Contrasting it with
something that is merely `hard' is out of the question; they simply
don't have the mental building blocks necessary to make that
fine-grained distinction. I think it's sad -- rather pathetic,
actually -- that there are people who can't distinguish between, say,
`criticizing' someone and `excoriating' them, simply because they
never cared enough to learn the words necessary to draw such
distinctions.



Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
:Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)

"Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:2aa9.412d84cc.8fe4a@shadowspar...
> * You Are What You Write. This is exceptionally true on Usenet, where
> the only way that other posters can form an opinion of you is through
> evaluating the merits of what you post, but it's also true to a
> significant extent out in the Real World.

What's most important to note is that "power perceived is power achieved".
If people THINK you know what you're talking about, it doesn't matter
whether you actually DO know what you're talking about or not. People seem
to forget this little life truism all too often.

There's a buddy of mine who uses all sorts of flashy language and speaks
with such an air of authority that very few laypeople dare to question his
apparantly awesome intellect. However, scratch the surface of his
supposedly superior intellect, and you'll find that he's just a VERY good
bullshit artist. I will say this, however: it takes a decent amount of
innate intelligence to be a good bullshitter. He's actually incredibly
smart, a full on genius in every sense of the word. However, he makes
himself out to be a genius in EVERYTHING, which he is not. Catching him in
one of his displays of bullshit is remarkably difficult because of his
intelligence, which only serves to perpetuate the myth of his absolutely
stunning brilliance. Don't get me wrong, he's a smart guy, but he ain't
that smart! Myself and another friend know his routine backwards and
forwards (he's known Mr. Bullshit for his entire life, I've known Mr.
Bullshit for over a decade), and get a kick out of waiting for him to string
along some awestruck dimwits, and then collapse his house of cards with a
single deft blow of logic.

> * Your use of language is intimately intertwined with how you think.
> If you can only form marginally coherent sentences, you can probably
> only manage to form marginally coherent ideas. I think this grills me
> most when someone sneers at me for my choice of words --
> "Why y'all gots ta use smart-arse highfallutin' words like `gargantuan'?
> Why can't ya just say `big'?" Well, my monosyllabic friend, `big'
> doesn't exactly convey the grandeur, the titanic immensity, or the
> overwhelming collosal magnitude of `gargantuan', does it? If I had
> meant to convey a concept as bland and pedestrian as `big', I would have
> elected to use that word instead.

On the other hand, I would have used "big".

> fine-grained distinction. I think it's sad -- rather pathetic,
> actually -- that there are people who can't distinguish between, say,
> `criticizing' someone and `excoriating' them, simply because they
> never cared enough to learn the words necessary to draw such
> distinctions.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who use "them thar
highfallutin words" just to leave the person they are speaking to with an
inflated opinion of the speaker. I don't know if you're one of those kinds
of people. I certainly hope not.

The key to my internet writing is that I write how I speak. If you were to
hold this conversation with me face to face, I would use the same words I am
using right now. Some people intentionally beef up their internet posts
after the fact. My posts are rarely edited after the fact. From top to
bottom is how I write, and when I hit the bottom, I hit ctrl enter, and it's
done.

Like right about n...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

"Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:2aa9.412d84cc.8fe4a@shadowspar...
> (Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> uttered
> > "Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote:
> >> That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> >> shit is stuff! =)
> >
> > Much like your cult is a religion, but everyone elses religion is a
> > cult.
>
> Heh. There's a reason I get a kick out of Ambrose Bierce.
> He was pointing this sort of thing out at a time when I think one
> could have been drawn and quartered for it, and not merely critcized.
>
> ] SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion,
> ] as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
> ] all other faiths are based.
> ] :Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)
>

Drawn and Quartered in 1911? Hanged maybe or shot.

(Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> uttered
> "Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote:
> There's a buddy of mine who uses all sorts of flashy language and
> speaks with such an air of authority that very few laypeople dare to
> question his apparantly awesome intellect. However, scratch the
> surface of his supposedly superior intellect, and you'll find that
> he's just a VERY good bullshit artist. I will say this, however:
> it takes a decent amount of innate intelligence to be a good
> bullshitter.

The only reply to this that comes to mind originated with a computer
graphics guest lecturer from the University of Abertay Dundee.
The topic of discussion was what kind of staffing one would need to
put together a game development company. Having earlier made reference
assorted publishers, venture capitalists, and other suits the company
would have to interact with, someone interjected that having an MBA
type on staff might not be a bad idea. His reply went something like,
"Let me put it this way. If your enemy's a bullshitter, you kind of
need a bullshitter of your own to keep them in check."



> On the other hand, there is a group of people who use "them thar
> highfallutin words" just to leave the person they are speaking to
> with an inflated opinion of the speaker. I don't know if you're one
> of those kinds of people. I certainly hope not.

In general, there are two situations in which the syllable count
of my diction starts to rise. The first is when more common words
don't do justice to the precise idea that I'm trying to express
(ie, when calling something `wrong' doesn't quite convey the fullness
of my disparagement, that's when I start breaking out the terms like
`contemptible', `abominable', `abhorrent', etc.)

The second is when I deliberately opt for the impeccably polite,
inordinately verbose, overblown pompous diction so as to cultivate
sarcasm or irony:

---
(p8ntb@11@h <luser@example.net> uttered
> damn gun is a peice of crap!!11!!
> i only got it 6 months now its jammed and wont shoot!!11@@1!!

Surely, my good man, you have been fastidiously maintaining your
marker as per the manufacturer's explicit instructions, enumerated as
they are in the edifying manual which so conspicuously accompanied it?
---


> The key to my internet writing is that I write how I speak. If you
> were to hold this conversation with me face to face, I would use the
> same words I am using right now. Some people intentionally beef up
> their internet posts after the fact. My posts are rarely edited
> after the fact.

On the other hand, I write for usenet as though I were composing...
well, a written response. I tend to read over an article, then section
things up and compose my reply piecemeal. I often write these pieces
out-of-order, mulling over ideas from one section while composing
another. If the discussion merits it, I'll hit up the dictionary or
thesaurus while I compose my response, to make sure that the words I'm
using really do convey the meaning I intend, or to find the term that
best expresses the shade of meaning that I'm after. I won't go back
and inflate things after the fact, though -- I'm writing for precision,
not verbosity. I'd use the same terms in my everyday speech (and
often do), but for some reason I often end up grasping for words while
trying to finish a thought, and people don't want to be left standing
around all day while I struggle to complete a sentence. I think I do
a fairly good job of verbal communication, but there's no question
that my writing is more eloquent.



> From top to bottom is how I write, and when I hit the bottom, I hit
> ctrl enter, and it's done.

The flow of your writing communicates this. I've noticed that in
your replies, you won't address anything discussed below the section
to which you're responding. By way of contrast, I'll have made
several passes over the entire article, so I'll discuss any relevant
section of the original article in any relevant section of my reply.
Interesting difference.



Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
Read over your compositions, and whenever you meet with a passage
which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.
:Samuel Johnson

"Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:34ea.412e40ff.6cdf9@shadowspar...
> In general, there are two situations in which the syllable count
> of my diction starts to rise. The first is when more common words
> don't do justice to the precise idea that I'm trying to express
> (ie, when calling something `wrong' doesn't quite convey the fullness
> of my disparagement, that's when I start breaking out the terms like
> `contemptible', `abominable', `abhorrent', etc.)


On a side note, which category does this particular post fall into? cf:
disparagement, diction... hehe

It would seem a third situation category is in order: when talking to
someone who can actually understand you.

> The second is when I deliberately opt for the impeccably polite,
> inordinately verbose, overblown pompous diction so as to cultivate
> sarcasm or irony:

....my personal favorite time to use such language...

> On the other hand, I write for usenet as though I were composing...
> well, a written response. I tend to read over an article, then section
> things up and compose my reply piecemeal. I often write these pieces
> out-of-order, mulling over ideas from one section while composing

If I write out of order, what happens is that I forget that I meant to write
something in a paragraph above, and then it becomes intrinsic to the
following paragraphs, mainly because I had started thinking about it, so it
taints my thoughts until I express my view. That's the main reason I write
in consecutive order.

Luckily, I'm a person who doesn't have to do a lot of "mulling". My ideas
and opinions and views are fairly well established. Being a very
judgemental person, I know what I like, and I know what I don't, and I'm
happy to tell you which is which. What does this mean? Well, it means that
I don't have to go back over a post to make sure that what I said is what I
meant. I can be sure that it is.

> another. If the discussion merits it, I'll hit up the dictionary or
> thesaurus while I compose my response, to make sure that the words I'm
> using really do convey the meaning I intend, or to find the term that
> best expresses the shade of meaning that I'm after. I won't go back

Yikes. That's cheating! Everything I write is directly from my head. I
don't even spellcheck my posts!

Besides, you seem intelligent enough that if you put down the thesaurus, I
think you'd find that your vocabulary did ample justice to the thoughts you
were trying to convey.

> and inflate things after the fact, though -- I'm writing for precision,
> not verbosity. I'd use the same terms in my everyday speech (and

Not me, I write like I talk, and I talk a lot. I'm in love with MEEEEEEE!!!


> often do), but for some reason I often end up grasping for words while
> trying to finish a thought, and people don't want to be left standing
> around all day while I struggle to complete a sentence. I think I do

Luckily, I have very little trouble expressing myself, in either verbal or
written forms. I've run into a few people who I would consider otherwise
intelligent on the surface but who are so careful with what they say that
they end up sounding like retards, literally. That's something you might
want to watch out for. Instead of grasping for the best word to describe a
given thought, simply grab the best word you can think of at the time.

Specifically, there was a guy who did an internet radio talk show that I was
on who was obviously very smart, but he spoke very deliberately, to the
point that his deliberations ended up making him sound dreadfully stupid.
It was impossible to have a decent conversation with him, because he spent
ten minutes to get across a point that could have been made in ten seconds.

> > From top to bottom is how I write, and when I hit the bottom, I hit
> > ctrl enter, and it's done.
>
> The flow of your writing communicates this. I've noticed that in
> your replies, you won't address anything discussed below the section
> to which you're responding. By way of contrast, I'll have made
> several passes over the entire article, so I'll discuss any relevant
> section of the original article in any relevant section of my reply.

There are actually two reasons for that. The first is speed. I write fast,
I talk fast, I think fast(on the other hand, I move slow). I don't want to
edit, re-edit, go back, re-read the post, make sure everything is spiffy and
neetokeen, and take twenty minutes composing a post.

The second, and more important one, is that I like my usenet posts to sound
like a conversation. You would not "preempt" a person's argument in a
conversation before they even say it, which is essentially what a
re-ordering of a post is. What I do is read the entire post, then respond
from top to bottom. If a person makes an argument about a given thing that
they allude to earlier in a post, I'll often use something like "more on
that later" to convey that I will give my reasons to them once we hit that
point in the discussion.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

In article <kJCdnaKxgeCR1LPcRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Jeff Goslin says...

When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you let us
know?

(Jason G <jrgusenet@yahoo.removeoothisoopart.com> uttered
> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds,
> would you let us know?

Why? Are you getting impatient?



Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
:Jonathan Swift