In article <MgyXc.39647$0o5.35486@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Insane Ranter says...
>
>
>"Jason G" <jrgusenet@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote in message
>news:cglkh00233j@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <kJCdnaKxgeCR1LPcRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Jeff Goslin says...
>>
>> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you let
>us
>> know?
>>
>
>Jealious? Want to join the circle?

No thanks. Tryin' to cut down.

"Jason G" <jrgusenet@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote in message
news:cgmgjf0288u@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <MgyXc.39647$0o5.35486@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Insane Ranter
says...
> >
> >
> >"Jason G" <jrgusenet@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote in message
> >news:cglkh00233j@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <kJCdnaKxgeCR1LPcRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Jeff Goslin says...
> >>
> >> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you
let
> >us
> >> know?
> >>
> >
> >Jealious? Want to join the circle?
>
> No thanks. Tryin' to cut down.
>

Eveybodies doing it~!

(Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> uttered
> "Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yikes. That's cheating! Everything I write is directly from my
> head. I don't even spellcheck my posts!

Come to think of it, I eschew the spellchecker as well. I figure
that I deserve a bit of chiding if I let an egregious error slip by.
Besides, I can soak a few spelling flames every now and again.

Oh, my, there's those arcane words sneaking in there again... =)



> 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.

Uhm, thanks! I can definitely do without (in fact, I'm not using the
thing in this post) but I'm just a bit preoccupied with precise use
of language and attempting to convey just the right meaning. At any
rate, I try to use the thing as a resource, as opposed to a crutch.



> 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.

....which is what I do. It just gets under my skin a bit that the
word I can come up with in a reasonable time frame might not be the
most `optimal' or `eloquent' one. =)



>> 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.
>
> 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.

It will come as no surprise to find out that I tend more towards
deliberate thought, writing, and speech. However, I've also grown to
appreciate the fact that there are times when haste is appropriate,
and on the whole I don't have a problem coming up with a decision so
long as I can take refuge in the fact that I made the best choice
available at the time. Since usenet isn't a realtime medium, though,
I appear to tend towards the deliberate...



> The second, and more important one, is that I like my usenet posts
> to sound like a conversation.

Again, it comes across, not just in the style of individual postings,
but in the number and frequency of them.

I think I'm catching an inkling of a McLuhan-esque `hot media' vs
`cool media' discussion coming on here, but I'm too tired to treat it
intelligently at the moment. =)



Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
Millions long for immortality who do not know
what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
:Susan Ertz

you as u

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com


"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qrWdnTBzjLC6LLbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> 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
> >
> >
>
>

"Rick Scott" <rick@shadowspar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3f16.412ef81d.dc86f@shadowspar...
> Come to think of it, I eschew the spellchecker as well. I figure
> that I deserve a bit of chiding if I let an egregious error slip by.
> Besides, I can soak a few spelling flames every now and again.
>
> Oh, my, there's those arcane words sneaking in there again... =)

Now you're just showing off.

> thing in this post) but I'm just a bit preoccupied with precise use
> of language and attempting to convey just the right meaning. At any

In other words, you're anal retentive...???

> ...which is what I do. It just gets under my skin a bit that the
> word I can come up with in a reasonable time frame might not be the
> most `optimal' or `eloquent' one. =)

Communication is rarely optimal or eloquent. I think the important thing to
remember is that communication depends directly on getting information
conveyed from one person to another. Speed is important, and is an almost
overriding concern. Even children, using simple words, can communicate
effectively. Sometimes "BIG" is enough to convey what you mean, even if
using the word "colossal" would convey your sentiment much more effectively.
Basically, having to think about what you mean to say reduces your
effectiveness at communication, even though your intent is to INCREASE your
effectiveness.

> available at the time. Since usenet isn't a realtime medium, though,
> I appear to tend towards the deliberate...

That's fine, but don't be one of those guys who takes fifteen minutes to
tell a two line joke. GAH! I HATE THOSE PEOPLE!!! Usually it starts off
like this: "Wanna hear a joke?" "Sure." "I heard this the other day."
"Ok." "Sorry, I'm not very good at telling jokes." "That's obvious." "It
starts with two guys in a bar, how quaint, eh?..." "JUST TELL THE FUCKING
JOKE ALREADY!!!"

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

just ask and ull probably be alowed to play

Maybe yes-maybe no, maybe sex- I don't know....My nick is ChicaSensual20...wanna see me on cam?...chat page!!!
http://chicasensual20.tripod.com

Maybe yes-maybe no, maybe sex- I don't know....My nick is ChicaSensual20...wanna see me on cam?...chat page!!!
http://girlsfindereurope.tripod.com