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

[Maximum Dog3]

Rhonda Tea-Ho wrote:

<snipped>

<whip it -- whip it good>

[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

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou noxious death's head with a
bone in his mouth. Thou potato-headed haught insulting man. Thou musty
slave whose gall coins slanders like a mint. Thou broken-down fishwife.
Ye regurgitated and ye stage-whispered:

> "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.

Ah, you want to play your worn-out "this paricular subthread..." card.
Nice foot-shuffle. Pity it only works on shutting up ****wits.

> That's another way of saying that American rules
> apply to American speakers.

"It's usenet, Andre. What anyone tells anyone means nothing."
Message-ID: <egmhhv$rnf$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>

Perhaps you can impose your meaningless rules on someone who might
take you seriously and capitulate.

> So you may feel free to go ahead and use "firstly" to your heart's
> content,

Yes, I will; it goes without you needing to say so.

> knowing full well that it grates on my ears like nails on the
> blackboard.

Post facto. Firstly, I know it now, and secondly, I use firstly and
secondly often.

Results 1 - 89 of 89 for author:kadaitcha firstly
Results 1 - 100 of 136 for author:kadaitcha secondly

If, by some sorry stretch of a wild imagination, you might mistakenly
believe that I am prone to moderating my use of the English language
merely to accomodate your failings then I suggest you lock me firmly in
your krillfile because I most certainly will not do anything of the kind.

>>>> 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."

Given that the statement you want to put your store of nuts in relates
to superfluousness, I'll mention that it is possible to take out eight
full words, replace them with a single word, and add a dash of lemon,
all without changing the meaning by one iota.

So much for any implied authority on the superfluousness of two
mere letters you thought it might hold.

>>>> 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

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> 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.
>
LOL. Kept you busy for awhile, didn't it?

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dadmz8$wv3$1@hulking-baubles.net
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou noxious death's head with a
> bone in his mouth. Thou potato-headed haught insulting man. Thou musty
> slave whose gall coins slanders like a mint. Thou broken-down
> fishwife. Ye regurgitated and ye stage-whispered:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ii2boy$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.
>
> Ah, you want to play your worn-out "this paricular subthread..." card.
> Nice foot-shuffle. Pity it only works on shutting up ****wits.
>
>> That's another way of saying that American rules
>> apply to American speakers.
>
> "It's usenet, Andre. What anyone tells anyone means nothing."
> Message-ID: <egmhhv$rnf$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
>
> Perhaps you can impose your meaningless rules on someone who might
> take you seriously and capitulate.
>
>> So you may feel free to go ahead and use "firstly" to your heart's
>> content,
>
> Yes, I will; it goes without you needing to say so.
>
>> knowing full well that it grates on my ears like nails on the
>> blackboard.
>
> Post facto. Firstly, I know it now, and secondly, I use firstly and
> secondly often.
>
> Results 1 - 89 of 89 for author:kadaitcha firstly
> Results 1 - 100 of 136 for author:kadaitcha secondly
>
> If, by some sorry stretch of a wild imagination, you might mistakenly
> believe that I am prone to moderating my use of the English language
> merely to accomodate your failings then I suggest you lock me firmly
> in your krillfile because I most certainly will not do anything of
> the kind.

<shrug> Suit yourself. Makes no never mind to me.

>>>>> 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."
>
> Given that the statement you want to put your store of nuts in relates
> to superfluousness, I'll mention that it is possible to take out eight
> full words, replace them with a single word, and add a dash of lemon,
> all without changing the meaning by one iota.
>
> So much for any implied authority on the superfluousness of two
> mere letters you thought it might hold.

You chopped the quote in half and changed it's meaning; I put it back
together again, nothing more.

Your response to that is incomprehensible to me.

>>>>> and your curling toes.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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