Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou harlot. What a caterwauling
dost thou keep. Thou bondsman. Thou fen-sucked, worm-infested
hell-bound. Ye raved and ye bad mouthed:
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sg88q7$1u3$j@pumping-howitzers.net.au
>> 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.
>
> What's not odd is your attempt to twist the meaning of my words.
Of course not; twisting words and meanings is modus operandi. You
persistently post links with no supporting text to go by at all, and you
quote massive tracts of text with a link but without ever specifying what
you see as being meaningful and without ever explaining why any of it might
be meaningful to you, which is exactly the stunt you tried to pull on me up
there. The ****wits in soc.men might fall for that every time but I won't
fall for it even once.
It's your problem entirely if you leave the gate wide open for me to stick
my clammy hand in and pick and choose whatever meaning I want, Rhonda. And
that applies with or without my context snips getting up your nose.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> More like an inability to comprehend the disturbance in the ether that
> has you channeling Grif****.
Should I feel insulted at that in some way, and merely because you don't get
the point that the text decrying the use of two mere letters is riddled with
wanton verbiage?
>>>>>>>> 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