Fashion Board 2-3-04 to 3-5-04

[dtb]

Originally posted by Watchtower
Alas, this seems to be the case. And I was going to suggest that Taxwonk join my wife and I for a lively weekend in the Catskills.

Sorry folks, but you're about to witness a falling-off-the-wagon, LIVE!

[If you can't stomach this sort of thing, please scroll past this post.]

Space for the faint of heart.









Dicslaimer/aplogy for Watchtower: I just happened to snap with this particular post -- you are not the only person who does this, and I don't mean to single you out -- I'm sure you are a fine person, and don't mean to suggest that I am perfect (although, I'm mostly perfect...) just because I have to give a little grammar speech.

I have kept my countenance long enough -- this will not do! (Hi RP!) The bolded part of the above sentence should read "my wife and me," NOT "my wife and I". This is almost as serious a transgression as using "myself" when one means "me" because one thinks it sounds more correct, or fancier, or maybe even (god forbid) classier.

Here's a little trick you can use if you can't remember the simple rule about usage of object pronouns versus subject pronouns.

Take the first part out of the object clause. You'd never say, "I was thinking of asking Taxwonk to join I" because it sounds ridiculous. Therefore, when you include the words "my wife and" before the word "I," you sound equally as ridiculous.

Whew. I feel a little better now. Again, I apologize. I was getting the shakes, what with going so long without a grammar rant.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by dtb
Dicslaimer/aplogy for Watchtower: I just happened to snap with this particular post -- you are not the only person who does this, and I don't mean to single you out -- I'm sure you are a fine person, and don't mean to suggest that I am perfect (although, I'm mostly perfect...) just because I have to give a little grammar speech.

I have kept my countenance long enough -- this will not do! (Hi RP!) The bolded part of the above sentence should read "my wife and me," NOT "my wife and I". This is almost as serious a transgression as using "myself" when one means "me" because one thinks it sounds more correct, or fancier, or maybe even (god forbid) classier.

Here's a little trick you can use if you can't remember the simple rule about usage of object pronouns versus subject pronouns.

Take the first part out of the object clause. You'd never say, "I was thinking of asking Taxwonk to join I" because it sounds ridiculous. Therefore, when you include the words "my wife and" before the word "I," you sound equally as ridiculous.

Whew. I feel a little better now. Again, I apologize. I was getting the shakes, what with going so long without a grammar rant.

Fine with the allusions to Watchtower having Wonk help double team his wife, but goes ballistic with bad pronoun usage...

Spoken like a true FB'er...

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by dtb
Sorry folks, but you're about to witness a falling-off-the-wagon, LIVE!

[If you can't stomach this sort of thing, please scroll past this post.]

Space for the faint of heart.









Dicslaimer/aplogy for Watchtower: I just happened to snap with this particular post -- you are not the only person who does this, and I don't mean to single you out -- I'm sure you are a fine person, and don't mean to suggest that I am perfect (although, I'm mostly perfect...) just because I have to give a little grammar speech.

I have kept my countenance long enough -- this will not do! (Hi RP!) The bolded part of the above sentence should read "my wife and me," NOT "my wife and I". This is almost as serious a transgression as using "myself" when one means "me" because one thinks it sounds more correct, or fancier, or maybe even (god forbid) classier.

Here's a little trick you can use if you can't remember the simple rule about usage of object pronouns versus subject pronouns.

Take the first part out of the object clause. You'd never say, "I was thinking of asking Taxwonk to join I" because it sounds ridiculous. Therefore, when you include the words "my wife and" before the word "I," you sound equally as ridiculous.

Whew. I feel a little better now. Again, I apologize. I was getting the shakes, what with going so long without a grammar rant.

This is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put.

[tmdiva]

Originally posted by dtb
I have kept my countenance long enough

Not to out-timmy your timmy, but this doesn't seem like the right usage of "countenance." Do you mean kept your counsel? Or you could say, "I will no longer countenance such an egregious abuse of grammar"?

tm

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I proclaim next week a "Paigow-shall-not-make-any-board-demands Week"

Not that anyone listens to her anyway - but I'm personally getting sick of reading the shit.

i think she tries and set valid rules, that provide real valuable structure. A board without rules would quickly become ghetto.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by dtb
This is almost as serious a transgression as using "myself" when one means "me" because one thinks it sounds more correct, or fancier, or maybe even (god forbid) classier.

There is a special place in hell reserved for people who do this.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by dtb
I have kept my countenance long enough -- this will not do! (Hi RP!) The bolded part of the above sentence should read "my wife and me," NOT "my wife and I". This is almost as serious a transgression as using "myself" when one means "me" because one thinks it sounds more correct, or fancier, or maybe even (god forbid) classier.

Word to the grammar. Couldn't agree more.

And what's worse than this? Being corrected by some idiot who says, "It's not 'will you join my friend and me. It's will you join my friend and I." Uh...no it's not, jackass. And now it's: "will you stay away from us?"

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by tmdiva
Not to out-timmy your timmy, but this doesn't seem like the right usage of "countenance." Do you mean kept your counsel? Or you could say, "I will no longer countenance such an egregious abuse of grammar"?

tm

It's an archaic, but nonetheless proper, usage of the word. Atticus, confirmation from the West Coast Judge?

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put.

Clearly, the pedantry of no sentences ending in prepositions, I can understand the rejection of. I can even deal with those whom can't distinguish between the proper usage of who and whom. But getting pronouns right? Me thinks them are going too far.

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
DTB,

Here's a question...
"Wait a minute... I took the initiative to run up to the corner rather than stand in line waiting, so my actions were ethically kosher." What would be your ruling?

SD

Douchebag move. Why not take the "initiative" to walk to the head of the line at the checkout counter? Why not take the initiative to push the old lady buying cat food out of the way?

The rule is 2 street blocks or 1/2 an avenue block.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by pony_trekker
Douchebag move. Why not take the "initiative" to walk to the head of the line at the checkout counter? Why not take the initiative to push the old lady buying cat food out of the way?

The rule is 2 street blocks or 1/2 an avenue block.

I agree, but I buy the "client emergency" exception. Clearly, this doesn't make the little old lady in labor from whom he stole the cab any happier, but I still think there's a social exception, where you're willing to accept the risk of getting your ass kicked or getting a ticket, or whatever, because you're late as fuck.

The Chicago version of this is, I think, turning from the "straight only" second lane from the curb, when the "turn-only" lane has a long line backed up by pedestrian or vehicle traffic. I only do this when I am late for shit, which is no more often than 1 in 20 possible illegal turns or so. And I still reserve the right to honk and try to block people from doing this the rest of the time.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
There is a special place in hell reserved for people who do this [use myself instead of me].

It is a really really boring little corner of hell.

[dtb]

Originally posted by tmdiva
Not to out-timmy your timmy, but this doesn't seem like the right usage of "countenance." Do you mean kept your counsel? Or you could say, "I will no longer countenance such an egregious abuse of grammar"?

tm

You are correct, of course. My lameass defense is that I was trying to copy Mr. Darcy's line at the beginning of his proposal speech -- but that's not exactly what he says (I had no book handy, I'm sure you're shocked to discover).

However, "countenance" can also mean "approval" or "serene facial expression" and such -- which could also fit (although I admit, that's not what I intended).

So, while your usage is undoubtedly better, it could make sense the way I said it.

I can take it, don't worry.

(But all future posts on this topic should probably go the timmies board -- but there's not enough fodder over there to inspire a really good rant.)

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
It is a really really boring little corner of hell.

You're just pissed because it is across the street from the aging hipster grasping for youth corner of hell. not ironic, by the way.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i think she tries and set valid rules, that provide real valuable structure. A board without rules would quickly become ghetto.

Would yuou people stop replying to slave? Its nullifying the value of the Ignore funtionc. Which perhaps he should employ for my posts if he is sick of my stuff.

and its not a board rule. its a life rule posted on the board bc I couldnt very well shout it out in my office now could I?