 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009Get Your Fat a.s Over Here, Sponge Bob
What do I have to do to get you to defend the edits you made, Bob? Put some cheese on a crossword puzzle to draw your rat fink a.s out of your hole? EG > What do I have to do to get you to defend the edits you made, Bob? Apologize to me and the rest of the group for your behavior to date and promise to comport yourself henceforth with kindness and dignity -- and not to lie After a week or so of probation. to see if you meant it, I might bother mthe yself to respond. > Put some cheese on a crossword puzzle to draw your rat fink a.s out of > your hole? I'm not afraid of you, pal. But you're a bottomless pit. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to persuade you, and that's a good thing -- because it's clear that neither will ever happen. The world will continue on its appointed course (subject to collisions with large meteors) regardless of whether we continue our misguided dialogue or not. So why waste the time? You're still an unpublished wannabe with no evident talent for writing beyond the most superficial ability to string together sentences that tend to be syutactically correct in the narrowest of senses. If it makes you happy to continue proving that to the world, you just go right ahead. I'm having more fun frustrating your bizarre itch for controversy than I would indulging it. I don't know what time zone you're in, but I'm about to hit the sack. I promise not to dream of you.  SignatureBob Lieblich For THIS I came out of hibernation? >> What do I have to do to get you to defend the edits you made, Bob? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I don't know what time zone you're in, but I'm about to hit the sack. > I promise not to dream of you. Yeah, ok, sure, Bob. Now let's take your edits two at a time and show everybody how stupid they are, ok? Here's the first two: ----------------------------------------------------> Your problem, Bob, is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference. For example, I wrote: "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons" Your edit was: "Were they in the coaches or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, not the coaches." Well, that's ridiculous, Bob. It takes our colloquial use of language and tortures it into something it was never meant to be -- a pool of words to be inserted into crossword puzzles. We don't write "accompanying the people in the motorcade" we write "Accompanying the motorcade was a detachment of motorcycle police." http://tinyurl.com/6tu2do In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not. ----------------------------------------------------> Here's another example of your wrongheadedness: I wrote -- "12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and campaign gear ..." Your edit: "Bristle" implies some sort of aggressiveness. I'd say "wearing," which is neutral. Surely they weren't arriving to attack the palace. -----------------------------------------------------> Wrong, Bob. Their purpose has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were armed to the teeth. Again, your edit is just wrongheaded. Also, for reasons unclear, you told me to get rid of "12" and write it out. Again -- wrong, Bob. And in every edit following these you do the same thing -- replace what I've written for no other reason than you were able to find an alternative you preferred. Well, that's not editing; that's a guy trying to write my book for me. Finally, here's something else that's not editing: cheap shots. I wrote: "Poor, Franz was looking ..." Obviously, the comma after poor is a typo. Not in your book, Crossword Puzzle Bob. In your book it's the "dumbest comma of the year!" [...] > Yeah, ok, sure, Bob. > > Now let's take your edits two at a time and show everybody how stupid > they are, ok? > > Here's the first two: Here ARE the first two: > ----------------------------------------------------> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as > doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not. You didn't write "motorcade", you wrote "coaches", and as Bob said your preceding paragraph leads one to a different interpretation from the one upon which you insist. I don't doubt that in your mind your meaning is clear, but even someone as obstinate as you must realise that if you wish to be published (a prospect for which I foresee almost zero probability) it's imperative - that's IMPERATIVE - that your meaning is clear in the mind of your readership. It's interesting as well that your motorcade example correctly uses the word "was", unlike your sentence which incorrectly uses "were" (HINT: "detachment" is singular). > ----------------------------------------------------> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and > campaign gear ..." [...] > Also, for reasons unclear, you told me to get rid of "12" and write it out. > > Again -- wrong, Bob. It's sloppy to write "12" - consult a reliable style guide if you don't believe me. > And in every edit following these you do the same thing -- replace what > I've written for no other reason than you were able to find an > alternative you preferred. > > Well, that's not editing; that's a guy trying to write my book for me. Almost anyone on AUE - I'm almost tempted to include PG - could do a better job of writing your book than you. > Finally, here's something else that's not editing: cheap shots. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not in your book, Crossword Puzzle Bob. In your book it's the "dumbest > comma of the year!" It's not a typo - at best it's a thinko, but in any case we only have your word for that. The point is that since you persist in offering your work for our comments, you can hardly be surprised if (as a result of your not having checked said work for errors before pressing "Send") we notice and criticise your errors and infelicities. You might also care to reflect that a newsgroup called alt.USAGE.english is more likely to be concerned with USAGE than creative ability, however inconvenient that may be for you. Many of those subscribers who have replied to your posts (and to some of whom you have been unpardonably rude) have forgotten more about English usage than you (or I, for that matter) will ever know - Robert Lieblich, for example, is an extremely reliable commentator, which you might know if you took your head out of your backside. Will. > [...] >> Yeah, ok, sure, Bob. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Here ARE the first two: Huh...? It's an idiom. http://tinyurl.com/a36v8e You're wrong about that, mate, and everything else you say. See below: >> ----------------------------------------------------> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > almost zero probability) it's imperative - that's IMPERATIVE - that > your meaning is clear in the mind of your readership. Wait a minute, bill. Bob's logic is this: "Were they in the coaches or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, not the coaches." This means if you switch coaches to motorcade you get this: Accompanying the motorcade was a detachment of King's dragoons" But this cite shows there's nothing wrong with the above: http://tinyurl.com/6tu2do In other words, Bill, it's not the word, it's the form. Bob says the form is wrong. My cite shows it isn't. This means he's wrong and you're wrong and your nose is brown. > It's interesting as well that your motorcade example correctly uses > the word "was", unlike your sentence which incorrectly uses > "were" (HINT: "detachment" is singular). My excerpt is still posted and in it I use "was." >> ----------------------------------------------------> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's sloppy to write "12" - consult a reliable style guide if you > don't believe me. I did: Rule 1. Spell out single-digit whole numbers. Use numerals for numbers greater than nine. http://www.grammarbook.com/numbers/numbers.asp >> And in every edit following these you do the same thing -- replace what >> I've written for no other reason than you were able to find an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Almost anyone on AUE - I'm almost tempted to include PG - could do a > better job of writing your book than you. Not from what I've seen, bill. But let's explore this. What errors are you talking about? Be specific. >> Finally, here's something else that's not editing: cheap shots. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Will. C'mon, Will. Your paragraph directly above is riddled with errors. Should I also call them the "the dumbest ... of the year"? for example: 1. Missing comma after "Send") 2. Missing comma after "alt.USAGE.english 3. Pronoun misuse: those subscribers ( should be "the subscribers") 4. "of whom" mangled and unnecessary. 5. What's the difference between "extremely reliable" and "reliable" Will? (strike "extremely.") 6. "forgotten more about English usage... The expression is "forgotten more ____ than, not "forgotten more "about" And here I'll stop, Will. There are more howlers, but I think you get the message. And there you have it. And who's the next idiot who wants to stand for Crossword Bob? EG > billri...@hotmail.com wrote: [...] > > It's interesting as well that your motorcade example correctly uses > > the word "was", unlike your sentence which incorrectly uses > > "were" (HINT: "detachment" is singular). > > My excerpt is still posted and in it I use "was." I quote from your earlier message up-thread: 'Your problem, Bob, is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference. For example, I wrote: "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons"' Pretty unambiguous, I'd say. > >> ----------------------------------------------------> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://www.grammarbook.com/numbers/numbers.asp The Chicago Manual disagrees with you - it suggests numbers up to one hundred should be spelt out, as should numbers beginning a sentence. So you're wrong on two counts. > > Almost anyone on AUE - I'm almost tempted to include PG - could do a > > better job of writing your book than you. > > Not from what I've seen, bill. Your reading comprehension skills are about on a par with your writing skills. I sign myself "Will", not "bill" and, in any case, proper names are customarily capitalized. > But let's explore this. > > What errors are you talking about? > > Be specific. Vide supra et infra. > >> I wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 1. Missing comma after "Send") Huh? Removing the parenthesized section gives the following: "... you can hardly be surprised if, we notice and criticise your errors and infelicities." Does that work for you? > 2. Missing comma after "alt.USAGE.english Oh dear, wrong again. Do you even understand what a comma is and what purpose(s) it serves? > 3. Pronoun misuse: those subscribers ( should be "the subscribers") Wrong again (getting to be a bit of a habit this). I was referring to a specific subset of subscribers - "those" subscribers, in fact. It's called an idiom. > 4. "of whom" mangled and unnecessary. Wrong - it's grammatically correct English. You should try it some time. Your problem, whatever your name is, is [that] you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference. > 5. What's the difference between "extremely reliable" and "reliable" > Will? (strike "extremely.") Well, I am reliable, but Robert Lieblich is extremely reliable. Once more, it's the difference between style and error. > 6. "forgotten more about English usage... > > The expression is "forgotten more ____ than, not "forgotten more "about" Six wrongs in a row - what a loser. The expression is "forgotten more about ____ than you will ever know". Shall I bother giving you a "cite" (sic) as an example? Well, you can presumably operate Google, so you do it. Or does the sentence "I've forgotten more The Beatles than you will ever know" strike you as an improvement upon "I've forgotten more ABOUT The Beatles than you will ever know"? > And here I'll stop, Will. There are more howlers, but I think you get > the message. I do, I do. But do you? Will. On 12 Jan 2009, wrote >> And here I'll stop, Will. There are more howlers, but I think >> you get the message. > > I do, I do. But do you? Not. A. Chance. Apparently he went through the same "Could I have some comments/How DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; strange person. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2009, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; > strange person. The word is "schtick" not "shtick", Harvey. It's Yiddish. Also, "schtickola" if you want to jazz it up. EG >> Apparently he went through the same "Could I have some comments/How >> DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Also, "schtickola" if you want to jazz it up. To clarify and set that straight, here's M-W Online stuff: Main Entry: shtick Variant(s): also schtick or shtik \'shtik\ Function: noun Etymology: Yiddish shtik pranks, literally, piece, from Middle High German stücke, from Old High German stucki; akin to Old English stycce piece, Old High German stoc stick - more at stock Date: 1959 1 : a usually comic or repetitious performance or routine : bit 2 : one's special trait, interest, or activity : bag <he's alive and well and now doing his shtick out in Hollywood - Robert Daley> - shticky Listen to the pronunciation of shticky \'shti-ke\ adjective SignatureSkitt (AmE) we'll get there yet > >> Apparently he went through the same "Could I have some comments/How > >> DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stücke, from Old High German stucki; akin to Old English stycce piece, Old > High German stoc stick - more at stock ... Ah, this is elanders's stock shtick. -- Jerry Friedman >>>> Apparently he went through the same "Could I have some comments/How >>>> DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman Take my wife ... please. EG >>> Apparently he went through the same "Could I have some comments/How >>> DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and now doing his shtick out in Hollywood - Robert Daley> > - shticky Listen to the pronunciation of shticky \'shti-ke\ adjective 3. schtick - (Yiddish) a prank or piece of clowning; "his schtik made us laugh" schtik, shtick, shtik buffoonery, clowning, harlequinade, japery, prank, frivolity - acting like a clown or buffoon Yiddish - a dialect of High German including some Hebrew and other words; spoken in Europe as a vernacular by many Jews; written in the Hebrew script EG >>>> Apparently he went through the same "Could I have some comments/How >>>> DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > words; spoken in Europe as a vernacular by many Jews; written in the > Hebrew script "Schtick" is a variant. The most used version in English is shtick. Yiddish is shtik. Youse gots to use a more better dictionary. ================= schtick n. Variant of shtick. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. ================= SignatureSkitt Information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed at a teacup. -- Dogbert Skitt filted: >"Schtick" is a variant. The most used version in English is shtick. >Yiddish is shtik. But written from right to left, and in a different alphabet....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Skitt filted: >> "Schtick" is a variant. The most used version in English is shtick. >> Yiddish is shtik. > > But written from right to left, and in a different alphabet....r Yes, unless it is transliterated into English, it seems (per the dictionaries). SignatureSkitt (AmE) > On 12 Jan 2009, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > DARE you criticise my writing" shtick over in alt.history.british; > strange person. I take back all the bad things I said about you, Harvey -- providing you are, in fact, an architectural historian. EG >> billri...@hotmail.com wrote: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Pretty unambiguous, I'd say. That's not the point I'm debating, Einstein. The sentence comes from my manuscript. In my manuscript I correctly use "was." In the re-write for the newsgroup, I didn't. I'm answering 20 people at once, and sure, errors pop up. You're just responding to me, and as I show below, your posts are riddled with errors. >>>> ----------------------------------------------------> >>>> Here's another example of your wrongheadedness: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > hundred should be spelt out, as should numbers beginning a sentence. > So you're wrong on two counts. The number doesn't begin a sentence, it's part of a sentence. That wasn't the correction Bob made. And where's your cite, Will? I included one -- can't you at least do that? >>> Almost anyone on AUE - I'm almost tempted to include PG - could do a >>> better job of writing your book than you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > skills. I sign myself "Will", not "bill" and, in any case, proper > names are customarily capitalized. I don't give rat's a.s what you call yourself, pal. >> But let's explore this. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>> Not in your book, Crossword Puzzle Bob. In your book it's the "dumbest >>>> comma of the year!" >>> It's not a typo - at best it's a thinko, but in any case we only have >>> your word for that. The point is that since you persist in offering [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > can hardly be surprised if, we notice and criticise your errors and > infelicities." Does that work for you? What are you talking about? A comma was required after "Send"). Stop masturbating. >> 2. Missing comma after "alt.USAGE.english > Oh dear, wrong again. Do you even understand what a comma is and what > purpose(s) it serves? I'm going to let you have this one, Will. It's the only one you get, though. >> 3. Pronoun misuse: those subscribers ( should be "the subscribers") > > Wrong again (getting to be a bit of a habit this). I was referring > to a specific subset of subscribers - "those" subscribers, in fact. > It's called an idiom. Who calls it an idiom, Will -- the voices in your head? It certainly isn't an idiom and there's no guesswork on the point. All the idioms in our language can be listed and "those subcribers" would not be in that list. In fact it's not even idiomatic use. It's just beastly English and you shouldn't say things like that when you put yourself forth as a English usage guru. IDIOM: An idiom is a phrase whose meaning cannot be determined by the literal definition of the phrase itself, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use. In linguistics, idioms are widely assumed to be figures of speech >> 4. "of whom" mangled and unnecessary. > > Wrong - it's grammatically correct English. You should try it some > time. Your problem, whatever your name is, is [that] you don't know > the difference between an error and a stylistic preference. The test for "whom" is the subject of the clause you're referring to. It must be "him" not "he" and certainly not "some." Here's your sentence again, Will: [Many of those subscriberswho have replied to your posts (and to some of whom you have been unpardonably rude)] Clearly, you're referring to "some". Well, the problem is "some" is plural, that means "whom" can't refer to it. In addition, there was no need for it in any event. You simply could have written, "some you were unpardonably rude to" and saved yourself the embarrassment of looking like a complete idiot. >> 5. What's the difference between "extremely reliable" and "reliable" >> Will? (strike "extremely.") > > Well, I am reliable, but Robert Lieblich is extremely reliable. Once > more, it's the difference between style and error. No, it's the difference between dropping out of school in the sixth grade and going to college. It's adverb abuse, Will, and marks you as a clumsy, poorly schooled writer. http://wordwise.typepad.com/blog/2006/12/adverb_alert.html >> 6. "forgotten more about English usage... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than you will ever know" strike you as an improvement upon "I've > forgotten more ABOUT The Beatles than you will ever know"? What are you babbling about, you moron? You butchered the expression. It's a great expression. People have been using it for thousands of years without a problem until you came along and stuck "more" in it. Now, my advice to you, Will, is you quit while you're behind. You're embarrassing Crossword Bob far more than I ever could. EG > What do I have to do to get you to defend the edits you made, Bob? > > Put some cheese on a crossword puzzle to draw your rat fink a.s out of > your hole? > > EG Woo Hoo!!! It's the mighty "Black Avenger"!!! Aka "ricland" "ric ricland" "gary landers" "bard" Aka "Vietnam Vet LIAR" Aka "Black woman beating tough guy" Aka "Mixed martial arts a.s kicker" Aka "50 yer old internet troll" Aka "so many user names I can't list them all" How many lies have you told about yourself this time? How many arguments have you tried to start so far? How many people have you verbally abused? How many people have you threatened with the FBI? How many user profiles have you made to agree with you? Have you been banned from spewing your drivel all over Topix? Can't create the conflict and chaos you so desire on the Huffington Post site? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.