Fashion Board 6-9-04 to 7-13-04

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You sure play a mean pinball.

This is the stupidest fucking come back ever invented? Who's responsible? Bilmore?

[Mr. Man]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Yes. I particularly enjoyed the sleet in June the last time I drove through. Made me wish I could live there.

Even worse than the people living in Fucking Colorado are the stupid Texans who vacation there every year despite the total disdain that the Fucking Coloradians have for them. Overheard every fucking December and June in elevators all around Dallas are asshole partners discussing the condos they've rented in Beaver Fucking Creek. Just shoot me already.

Please let it be known that my condo is in Aspen, NOT Beaver Creek.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mr. Man
Please let it be known that my condo is in Aspen, NOT Beaver Creek.

My favorite thing about Aspen is that you qualify for subsidized housing if you make less than $118,000 a year.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by dtb
Correctamundo (that's Italian).

I have to take issue with your italian approach to hyphenation. Perhaps I should take issue on the timmy board, but . . . there is no need for a hyphen because there is no possibility of confusion. Well is an adverb modifying oiled. Ordinarily adverb-adjective combinations are not linked by a hyphen (e.g., finely tuned machine), except where necessary to avoid confusion. Here there is no possiblity of confusion. Is a well oiling the machine? If it were, is the hyphen necessary to distinguish it from, say, a can-oiled machine, or a pump-oiled machine? I think not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Remember all the crap Rodman got for saying white guys aren't good at b-ball. Turns out Larry Bird agreed, but didn't speak up.

Bird was just warming up.


"The one thing that always bothered me when I played in the NBA was I really got irritated when they put a white guy on me," Bird said. "I still don't understand why. A white guy would come out (and) I would always ask him: 'What, do you have a problem with your coach? Did your coach do this to you?' And he'd go, 'No,' and I'd say, 'Come on, you got a white guy coming out here to guard me; you got no chance.' For some reason, that always bothered me when I was playing against a white guy."


"Disrespect," Magic said.


Said Bird: "Yeah, disrespect."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...arc&id=1818517

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have to take issue with your italian approach to hyphenation. Perhaps I should take issue on the timmy board, but . . . there is no need for a hyphen because there is no possibility of confusion. Well is an adverb modifying oiled. Ordinarily adverb-adjective combinations are not linked by a hyphen (e.g., finely tuned machine), except where necessary to avoid confusion. Here there is no possiblity of confusion. Is a well oiling the machine? If it were, is the hyphen necessary to distinguish it from, say, a can-oiled machine, or a pump-oiled machine? I think not.

Wrong.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have to take issue with your italian approach to hyphenation. Perhaps I should take issue on the timmy board, but . . . there is no need for a hyphen because there is no possibility of confusion. Well is an adverb modifying oiled. Ordinarily adverb-adjective combinations are not linked by a hyphen (e.g., finely tuned machine), except where necessary to avoid confusion. Here there is no possiblity of confusion. Is a well oiling the machine? If it were, is the hyphen necessary to distinguish it from, say, a can-oiled machine, or a pump-oiled machine? I think not.

Your point is well-taken.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
This is the stupidest fucking come back ever invented? Who's responsible? Bilmore?

Boo-yeah!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Wrong.

Isuppose you and dtb, are traditionalist on the grammatical rules ala Manutius.

"That learned men are well known to disagree on this subject of punctuation is in itself a proof that the knowledge of it, in theory and practice, is of some importance. I myself have learned by experience, that, if ideas that are difficult to understand are properly separated, they become clearer; and that, on the other hand, through defective punctuation, many passages are confused and distorted to such a degree, that sometimes they can with difficulty be understood, or even cannot be understood at all".
Aldus Manutius. Interpungendi ratio, 1566. From the
translation in "Punctuation, its Principles and Practice"
by T. F. and M. F. A. Husband, Routledge, 1905.


But surely the two of you must admit this is a large subject. Whole books have been written about it, and it is still true, as it apparently was four hundred years ago, that no two authorities completely agree. Taste and commonsense are more important than any rules; you put in stops to help your reader to understand you, not to please grammarians. And you should try so to write that he will understand you with a minimum of help of that sort. Fowler says:

It is a sound principle that as few stops should be used as will do the work. . . . Everyone should make up his mind not to depend on his stops. They are to be regarded as devices, not for saving him the trouble of putting his words in the order that naturally gives the required meaning, but for saving his reader the moment or two that would sometimes, without them, be necessarily spent on reading the sentence twice over, once to catch the general arrangement, and again for the details. It may almost be said that what reads wrongly if the stops are removed is radically bad; stops are not to alter the meaning, but merely to show it up. Those who are learning to write should make a practice of putting down all they want to say without stops first. What then, on reading over, naturally arranges itself contrary to the intention should be not punctuated, but altered; and the stops should be as few as possible consistently with the recognised rules.

Perhaps Burger meant no more than to subtly remind dtb of this point? Your dismissal perhaps misses this point also?

My personal preference recognizes the problem of holding strictly to rules that vary amongst the authorities. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, makes an elaborate study of the hyphen. He begins engagingly by pointing out that "superfluous hair-remover" can only mean a hair-remover that nobody wants, and he proceeds to work out a code of rules for the proper use of the hyphen. He admits that the result of following his rules "will often differ from current usage". But, he adds, "that usage is so variable as to be better named caprice". This is the point that you, so close to his namesake, seems to ignore.

The author of the style-book of the Oxford University Press of New York (quoted in Perrin's Writer's Guide) strikes the same note when he says "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad".

I have no intention of taking hyphens seriously. Those who wish to do so I leave to Fowler's eleven columns. If I attempted to lay down any rules I should certainly go astray, and give advice not seemly to be followed. For instance, the general practice of hyphening co when it is attached as a prefix to a word beginning with a vowel has always seemed to me absurd, especially as it leads to such possibilities of misunderstanding as unco-ordinated must present to a Scotsman. If it is objected that ambiguity may result, and readers may be puzzled whether coop is something to put a hen in or a profit-sharing association, this should be removed by a diaeresis (coöp) not a hyphen (co-op). After all, that is what a diaeresis is for.

I will attempt no more than to give a few elementary warnings. (i) Do not use hyphens unnecessarily. If, for instance, you must use overall as an adjective (though this is not recommended) write it like that, and not over-all.
But if you do split a word with a hyphen, make sure you split it at the main break. Though you may write self-conscious, if you wish to have a hyphen in the word, you must not write unself-conscious but un-selfconscious.

(ii) To prevent ambiguity a hyphen should be used in a compound adjective (e.g. well-written, first-class, six-inch, copper-coloured). The omission of a hyphen between government and financed in the following sentence throws the reader on to a false scent:
When Government financed projects in the development areas have been grouped.

But remember that words which form parts of compound adjectives when they precede a noun may stand on their own feet when they follow it, and then they must not be hyphened. "A badly-written letter" needs a hyphen, but "the letter was badly written" does not. There must be hyphens in "the balance-of-payment difficulties" but not in "the difficulties are over the balance of payments".
(iii) Avoid as far as possible the practice of separating a pair of hyphenated words, leaving a hyphen in mid-air. To do this is to misuse the hyphen (whose proper function is to link a word with its immediate neighbour) and it has a slovenly look. The saving of one word cannot justify writing
Where chaplains (whole- or part-time) have been appointed
instead of "where chaplains have been appointed, whole-time or part-time.


But above all, do not be quick to dismiss the good-faith effort to raise as a point of conversation the fact that the "rules" run fluid.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isuppose you and dtb, are traditionalist on the grammatical rules ala Manutius.

"That learned men are well known to disagree on this subject of punctuation is in itself a proof that the knowledge of it, in theory and practice, is of some importance. I myself have learned by experience, that, if ideas that are difficult to understand are properly separated, they become clearer; and that, on the other hand, through defective punctuation, many passages are confused and distorted to such a degree, that sometimes they can with difficulty be understood, or even cannot be understood at all".
Aldus Manutius. Interpungendi ratio, 1566. From the
translation in "Punctuation, its Principles and Practice"
by T. F. and M. F. A. Husband, Routledge, 1905.


But surely the two of you must admit this is a large subject. Whole books have been written about it, and it is still true, as it apparently was four hundred years ago, that no two authorities completely agree. Taste and commonsense are more important than any rules; you put in stops to help your reader to understand you, not to please grammarians. And you should try so to write that he will understand you with a minimum of help of that sort. Fowler says:

It is a sound principle that as few stops should be used as will do the work. . . . Everyone should make up his mind not to depend on his stops. They are to be regarded as devices, not for saving him the trouble of putting his words in the order that naturally gives the required meaning, but for saving his reader the moment or two that would sometimes, without them, be necessarily spent on reading the sentence twice over, once to catch the general arrangement, and again for the details. It may almost be said that what reads wrongly if the stops are removed is radically bad; stops are not to alter the meaning, but merely to show it up. Those who are learning to write should make a practice of putting down all they want to say without stops first. What then, on reading over, naturally arranges itself contrary to the intention should be not punctuated, but altered; and the stops should be as few as possible consistently with the recognised rules.

Perhaps Burger meant no more than to subtly remind dtb of this point? Your dismissal perhaps misses this point also?

My personal preference recognizes the problem of holding strictly to rules that vary amongst the authorities. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, makes an elaborate study of the hyphen. He begins engagingly by pointing out that "superfluous hair-remover" can only mean a hair-remover that nobody wants, and he proceeds to work out a code of rules for the proper use of the hyphen. He admits that the result of following his rules "will often differ from current usage". But, he adds, "that usage is so variable as to be better named caprice". This is the point that you, so close to his namesake, seems to ignore.

The author of the style-book of the Oxford University Press of New York (quoted in Perrin's Writer's Guide) strikes the same note when he says "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad".

I have no intention of taking hyphens seriously. Those who wish to do so I leave to Fowler's eleven columns. If I attempted to lay down any rules I should certainly go astray, and give advice not seemly to be followed. For instance, the general practice of hyphening co when it is attached as a prefix to a word beginning with a vowel has always seemed to me absurd, especially as it leads to such possibilities of misunderstanding as unco-ordinated must present to a Scotsman. If it is objected that ambiguity may result, and readers may be puzzled whether coop is something to put a hen in or a profit-sharing association, this should be removed by a diaeresis (coöp) not a hyphen (co-op). After all, that is what a diaeresis is for.

I will attempt no more than to give a few elementary warnings. (i) Do not use hyphens unnecessarily. If, for instance, you must use overall as an adjective (though this is not recommended) write it like that, and not over-all.
But if you do split a word with a hyphen, make sure you split it at the main break. Though you may write self-conscious, if you wish to have a hyphen in the word, you must not write unself-conscious but un-selfconscious.

(ii) To prevent ambiguity a hyphen should be used in a compound adjective (e.g. well-written, first-class, six-inch, copper-coloured). The omission of a hyphen between government and financed in the following sentence throws the reader on to a false scent:
When Government financed projects in the development areas have been grouped.

But remember that words which form parts of compound adjectives when they precede a noun may stand on their own feet when they follow it, and then they must not be hyphened. "A badly-written letter" needs a hyphen, but "the letter was badly written" does not. There must be hyphens in "the balance-of-payment difficulties" but not in "the difficulties are over the balance of payments".
(iii) Avoid as far as possible the practice of separating a pair of hyphenated words, leaving a hyphen in mid-air. To do this is to misuse the hyphen (whose proper function is to link a word with its immediate neighbour) and it has a slovenly look. The saving of one word cannot justify writing
Where chaplains (whole- or part-time) have been appointed
instead of "where chaplains have been appointed, whole-time or part-time.


But above also, do not be quick to dismiss the good-faith effort to raise as a point of conversation the fact that the "rules" run fluid.

That is so-hot.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by pony_trekker
GEEZ, HE WAS NINETY THREE FUCKING YEARS OLD!!

Yes, but he has been a dependable source of wisdom and experience lo these many years, and it is a tragedy that from now on people will have to make do with consulting his writings and recordings, and will not be able to consult with him directly for his insights into domestic and foreign policy.

P.S. Please get a non-female avatar. I am starting to think your breasts are not just from fat.

[NotFromHere]

And now this. The moral minority is pushing yet another agenda with Shrek. Narrow-minded (is that correct - you people have me all hyphen sensitive) people suck.

Parents, beware of “Shrek 2.” The hit animated film has subversive “transgender” messages, according to a conservative watchdog group. “Parents who are thinking about taking their children to see ‘Shrek 2,’ may wish to consider the following: The movie features a male-to-female transgender (in transition) as an evil bartender,” cautions the Traditional Values Coalition. “The character has five o’clock shadow, wears a dress and has female breasts. It is clear that he is a she-male.


Subversive cartoons

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Start your loathing early. Meet the new Amazing Race teams.

I despise them all solely because they were picked instead of Barely and me. I mean, how did they resist our "we are imaginary friends who met on the Internet" gimmick?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But above also, do not be quick to dismiss the good-faith effort to raise as a point of conversation the fact that the "rules" run fluid.

Good job, Hank. That gets you in the first room. But if you want to make it, you're going to have to come up with some genuine next-level shit.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
And now this. The moral minority is pushing yet another agenda with Shrek. Narrow-minded (is that correct - you people have me all hyphen sensitive) people suck.

Parents, beware of “Shrek 2.” The hit animated film has subversive “transgender” messages, according to a conservative watchdog group. “Parents who are thinking about taking their children to see ‘Shrek 2,’ may wish to consider the following: The movie features a male-to-female transgender (in transition) as an evil bartender,” cautions the Traditional Values Coalition. “The character has five o’clock shadow, wears a dress and has female breasts. It is clear that he is a she-male.


Subversive cartoons

but if the she-male is evil, then shouldn't the christian groups be happy with the message? I would have thought GLAAD would be the organization protesting.