Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou sourest-natured dog that
lives. Thou garbage hauler. Thou wretched puling fool. Wretched, bloody
and usurping boar. Ye yowled and ye dislodged:
> "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.
In that case, how odd you should bring it up in the first place.
>>>>>> 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;
Not so. I chopped it by more than a third. The meaning of what I left
untouched did not change, viz "Ultimately, the choice is one of style:" A
mere change of focus is all it was.
> I put it back
> together again, nothing more.
It my good fortune that you put it all back and afforded me an opportiunity
to take another charge at it.
> Your response to that is incomprehensible to me.
Put it down to difficulties with English.
>>>>>> 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
Reply With Quote