Re: PING FNVW

[Kadaitcha Man]

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced gnawing
animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:

> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>

Is that so, cranston?

andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm

There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other reputable
organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit, cranston.

Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a ****wit. Thirdly,
you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>
>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>
> Is that so, cranston?
>
> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>
> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other reputable
> organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit, cranston.
>
> Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a ****wit.
> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629

[...]

"Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New York
Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed with
your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that the extra
syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded usage book that
remains neutral, acknowledging (with many citations) the historicity of
both varieties, is Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage."

[...]

"Ultimately, the choice is one of style: Since first is a perfectly good
adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B. White
put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The Elements
of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to them, as
though putting a hat on a horse."


--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>
>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>
>> Is that so, cranston?
>>
>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>
>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>> ****wit.
>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>
> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>
> [...]
>
> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed
> with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that the
> extra syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded usage
> book that remains neutral, acknowledging (with many citations) the
> historicity of both varieties, is Merriam Webster's Dictionary of
> English Usage."
> [...]
>
> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:

Well, clearly crasston lacks that.

> Since first is a perfectly
> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B.
> White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The
> Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to
> them, as though putting a hat on a horse."

1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes? Language
is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a ****wit stands,
irrespective of a near century-old book and your curling toes.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8vlmcf$cck$0@worn-out-kahunas.net
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
> cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
> gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>>
>>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>>
>>> Is that so, cranston?
>>>
>>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>>
>>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>>> ****wit.
>>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>>
>> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
>> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
>> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed
>> with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that the
>> extra syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded usage
>> book that remains neutral, acknowledging (with many citations) the
>> historicity of both varieties, is Merriam Webster's Dictionary of
>> English Usage."
>> [...]
>>
>> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:
>
> Well, clearly crasston lacks that.
>
>> Since first is a perfectly
>> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B.
>> White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The
>> Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to
>> them, as though putting a hat on a horse."
>
> 1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes?

You apparently missed the paragraph above re Modern American Usage
(1966) and the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999).

> Language is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a
> ****wit stands, irrespective of a near century-old book

And two newer ones, as well as some books that are not available online.

> and your curling toes.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou wanton and effeminate boy.
When thou is best, thou is a little worse than a man, and when thou is
worst, thou is little better than a beast. Thou inexecrable dog. That
were to enlard thy fat already pride. Ye hassled and ye reviled:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8vlmcf$cck$0@worn-out-kahunas.net
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
>> cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
>> gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:
>>
>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>>>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>>>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>>>
>>>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>>>
>>>> Is that so, cranston?
>>>>
>>>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>>>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>>>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>>>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>>>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>>>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>>>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>>>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>>>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>>>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>>>
>>>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>>>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>>>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>>>> ****wit.
>>>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>>>
>>> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
>>> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
>>> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed
>>> with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that
>>> the extra syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded
>>> usage book that remains neutral, acknowledging (with many
>>> citations) the historicity of both varieties, is Merriam Webster's
>>> Dictionary of English Usage."
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:
>>
>> Well, clearly crasston lacks that.
>>
>>> Since first is a perfectly
>>> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B.
>>> White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The
>>> Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to
>>> them, as though putting a hat on a horse."
>>
>> 1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes?
>
> You apparently missed the paragraph above re Modern American Usage
> (1966) and the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999).

No, I didn't miss it. I ignored it. I was hoping to avoid having to point
out that the reference is to Modern American Usage (1966). It no doubt has
to be called American and not English due to horrific butchering of the
original language into an almost unrecognisable carcass stiffened rigid by
nearly a hundred years of rigor mortis.

>> Language is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a
>> ****wit stands, irrespective of a near century-old book
>
> And two newer ones, as well as some books that are not available
> online.

It doesn't really matter. crasston asserted, "You stupid circus freak. First
(not "firstly," that's a sign of questionable literacy..."; your quote that
"the choice is one of style" shot him down quite nicely, thank you very
much.

>> and your curling toes.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ii2boy$b4t$j@insufficient-fog-lights.org
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou wanton and effeminate boy.
> When thou is best, thou is a little worse than a man, and when thou is
> worst, thou is little better than a beast. Thou inexecrable dog. That
> were to enlard thy fat already pride. Ye hassled and ye reviled:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8vlmcf$cck$0@worn-out-kahunas.net
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
>>> cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
>>> gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:
>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>>>>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>>>>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>>>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that so, cranston?
>>>>>
>>>>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>>>>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>>>>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>>>>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>>>>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>>>>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>>>>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>>>>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>>>>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>>>>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>>>>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>>>>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
>>>> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
>>>> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much
>>>> agreed with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the
>>>> grounds that the extra syllable is...well...extra. A current,
>>>> highly regarded usage book that remains neutral, acknowledging
>>>> (with many citations) the historicity of both varieties, is
>>>> Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage."
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:
>>>
>>> Well, clearly crasston lacks that.
>>>
>>>> Since first is a perfectly
>>>> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As
>>>> E.B. White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and
>>>> White's The Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by
>>>> adding 'ly' to them, as though putting a hat on a horse."
>>>
>>> 1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes?
>>
>> You apparently missed the paragraph above re Modern American Usage
>> (1966) and the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999).
>
> No, I didn't miss it. I ignored it. I was hoping to avoid having to
> point out that the reference is to Modern American Usage (1966). It
> no doubt has to be called American and not English due to horrific
> butchering of the original language into an almost unrecognisable
> carcass stiffened rigid by nearly a hundred years of rigor mortis.

Nonetheless, you are the only non-American-dialect speaker in this
particular subthread. That's another way of saying that American rules
apply to American speakers.

So you may feel free to go ahead and use "firstly" to your heart's
content, knowing full well that it grates on my ears like nails on the
blackboard.

>>> Language is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a
>>> ****wit stands, irrespective of a near century-old book
>>
>> And two newer ones, as well as some books that are not available
>> online.
>
> It doesn't really matter. crasston asserted, "You stupid circus
> freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of questionable
> literacy..."; your quote that "the choice is one of style" shot him
> down quite nicely, thank you very much.

"Ultimately, the choice is one of style: Since first is a perfectly good
adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly."

>>> and your curling toes.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou wanton and effeminate boy.
> When thou is best, thou is a little worse than a man, and when thou is
> worst, thou is little better than a beast. Thou inexecrable dog. That
> were to enlard thy fat already pride. Ye hassled and ye reviled:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8vlmcf$cck$0@worn-out-kahunas.net
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
>>> cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
>>> gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:
>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>>>>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>>>>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>>>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>>>> Is that so, cranston?
>>>>>
>>>>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>>>>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>>>>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>>>>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>>>>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>>>>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>>>>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>>>>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>>>>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>>>>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>>>>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>>>>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>>>> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
>>>> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
>>>> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed
>>>> with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that
>>>> the extra syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded
>>>> usage book that remains neutral, acknowledging (with many
>>>> citations) the historicity of both varieties, is Merriam Webster's
>>>> Dictionary of English Usage."
>>>> [...]

>>>> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:

>>> Well, clearly crasston lacks that.

>>>> Since first is a perfectly
>>>> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B.
>>>> White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The
>>>> Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to
>>>> them, as though putting a hat on a horse."

>>> 1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes?

>> You apparently missed the paragraph above re Modern American Usage
>> (1966) and the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999).

> No, I didn't miss it. I ignored it. I was hoping to avoid having to point
> out that the reference is to Modern American Usage (1966). It no doubt has
> to be called American and not English due to horrific butchering of the
> original language into an almost unrecognisable carcass stiffened rigid by
> nearly a hundred years of rigor mortis.

>>> Language is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a
>>> ****wit stands, irrespective of a near century-old book
>> And two newer ones, as well as some books that are not available
>> online.

> It doesn't really matter. crasston asserted, "You stupid circus freak. First
> (not "firstly," that's a sign of questionable literacy..."; your quote that
> "the choice is one of style" shot him down quite nicely, thank you very
> much.

If you want to dress up your horses with funny hats, be my guest, Mr.
questionable-literacy guy.

miguel

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
> cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
> gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>>
>>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>> Is that so, cranston?
>>>
>>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>>
>>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>>> ****wit.
>>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
>> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
>> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed
>> with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that the
>> extra syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded usage
>> book that remains neutral, acknowledging (with many citations) the
>> historicity of both varieties, is Merriam Webster's Dictionary of
>> English Usage."
>> [...]

>> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:

> Well, clearly crasston lacks that.

>> Since first is a perfectly
>> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B.
>> White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The
>> Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to
>> them, as though putting a hat on a horse."

> 1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes? Language
> is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a ****wit stands,
> irrespective of a near century-old book and your curling toes.

"Language is fluid, not static?"

Thanks for that keen insight, dumbass he-*****.

miguel

ps I'm waiting for the pain to start.

pps tapping foot . . .

[Kadaitcha Man]

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou putrid polecat. Thou urchin-snouted
imbecile. Thou knotty-pated bankrupt. Thou yeasty dissembler. Ye brayed
and ye yawped:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou good-for-nothing bloody
>> cannibal. Thou burr-headed paltry. Thou old feeble carrion. Thou
>> gilded-loam. Ye spritzed and ye warned:
>>
>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:et0drt$f1b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou fickle changeling. Thou pale-faced,
>>>> raw-boned mad-headed ape. Thou fitful idle weed. Thou waxy-faced
>>>> gnawing animal. Ye vacillated and ye nagged:
>>>>
>>>>> You stupid circus freak. First (not "firstly," that's a sign of
>>>>> questionable literacy<*****SLAP>
>>>> Is that so, cranston?
>>>>
>>>> andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/f.html
>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ronouns01.html
>>>> http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/re.../multiple.html
>>>> faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/Paradigm/hullen.html
>>>> esl.about.com/od/englishlistening/a/listen_tips.htm
>>>> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/events...ation/hc-2005/
>>>> http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org...iko_angla.html
>>>> http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...e/firstly.html
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...00008600.shtml
>>>> www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/grammar.html
>>>> www.cl.ut.ee/ee/yllitised/first/lummeerilt.html
>>>> http://www.english-online.org.uk/eng...g/profblog.php
>>>> www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/leaphrt1.htm
>>>>
>>>> There are approximately 670,000 other pages, many from other
>>>> reputable organisations as those above, that say you're a ****wit,
>>>> cranston. Firstly, you are a ****wit. Secondly, you always were a
>>>> ****wit.
>>>> Thirdly, you will always be a ****wit, you ****wit.
>>> http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20010629
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> "Most usage authorities during the last half century, from Wilson
>>> Follett and Jacques Barzun (Modern American Usage, 1966) to The New
>>> York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999), have pretty much agreed
>>> with your professor and recommended "No -ly," on the grounds that
>>> the extra syllable is...well...extra. A current, highly regarded
>>> usage book that remains neutral, acknowledging (with many
>>> citations) the historicity of both varieties, is Merriam Webster's
>>> Dictionary of English Usage."
>>> [...]
>
>>> "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:
>
>> Well, clearly crasston lacks that.
>
>>> Since first is a perfectly
>>> good adverb just as it stands, there is no need for the -ly. As E.B.
>>> White put it in the chapter he contributed to Strunk and White's The
>>> Elements of Style (1959): "Do not dress words up by adding 'ly' to
>>> them, as though putting a hat on a horse."
>
>> 1959, huh? That would be a 1959 revision of the 1918 original, yes?
>> Language is fluid, not static, and the assertion that crasston is a
>> ****wit stands, irrespective of a near century-old book and your
>> curling toes.
>
> "Language is fluid, not static?"
>
> Thanks for that keen insight, dumbass he-*****.
>
> miguel
>
> ps I'm waiting for the pain to start.

What pain?

> pps tapping foot . . .

Do your ears ring when you do that?

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

[Maximum Dog3]

Rhonda Tea-Ho wrote:

<snipped>

<whip it -- whip it good>