Not AGAIN !!!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Have you been in a coma or something? You are replying to a post I wrote three or four months ago.

Adding to my earlier reply upon discovering a bit of new data, dear boy. Just adding to. Piling on, if you like. :p Don't hate me for being better acquainted with the dictionary than yourself.

[Ibby]

Grammar is great up to the point of conveying an idea. If you can do that with the words and structure you use, you're good to go, unless you're doing something official or otherwise formal.

However, if you're going to attempt to demand correct spelling and grammar... do it right yourself.

[bbro]

Well said, Beastie.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, well, well. Beestie, a sentence fragment is an elliptical construction -- look the idea up if you need to. It is so used here, and elliptical constructions, while clearly not properly called sentences, are not ungrammatical, any more than this one is. They merely don't need to mention what is already understood.

It is surprising, indeed, not to find an obvious and readily understood compound word like "mushmouthed" to have its own entry in a Webster's -- but no one except somebody frantic for some excuse, any excuse, any wispy excuse, to round on me will fault me for it. Your actions, sir, betray you. No editor on Earth would fault me for using it in a newspaper column. Whenever Webster's catches up is fine by me. Remember, too, that many compounds beginning as hyphenated pairs of words lose their hyphens in shortish order, and in no defined nor authorized order.

"Nothing imbecilic to" is used to point directly at that which has the property of not being imbecilic. "Nothing imbecilic in" might perhaps have been better style. Don't try so hard at making mountains of molehills. I limited my effort in that direction to one sentence! How many paragraphs did you use here to heap Pelion upon Ossa?

The comma splice is correct. In that sentence, a semicolon would be too much, and a colon right out. Stylistically rather than grammatically, the comma could go and the sentence would still work well, but the sentence isn't scrambled by its presence.

Ideological notions of which ideas are worthless are, well, notional. I draw your attention in particular to definition 3a under "notional" in the Webster's Third .

Yeah, I'm having fun yet, and probably more than you. :p At least use a spellchecker, wetware or software, but be wary of the software tool as it can't distinguish either homonyms or meanings.

Vixen: no.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Now tell me: wasn't this thread originally about a potential threat to ancient Egyptian art?

First the Library of Alexandria, and now this.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Now tell me: wasn't this thread originally about a potential threat to ancient Egyptian art?

First the Library of Alexandria, and now this.

Eye don rumembuhr wut et wuz a bout.butt thizzz isz alot of funn.I lyketo feal superyor too stoopide alliterate peepuhl, two, Ug. Stoopide peepuhl...huhuhhuihuhuhuhu... (i laff).

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerilla in the "It's official" thread, quoted here to keep the snarking all in one place

We never really did. Yeah, we glommed the Phillippines for a while -- more or less because it was the fashion then. And we turned the Phillipines over to the Filipinos.

The word is Philippines. You didn't even misspell it consistently. You wouldn't be skimping on the spell-checker use, now would you?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The word is Philippines. You didn't even misspell it consistently. You wouldn't be skimping on the spell-checker use, now would you?

After puzzling over this peculiar remark for a while, I finally figured he thought "Filipino" might be misspelled.

Well, Clodfobble, don't hate me for being better acquainted with the dictionary than you. What do I find in my Webster's 3rd but entries not only for "filipino," but "filipina" for good measure.

I'll forgo a <snap> but you get the idea.

[footfootfoot]

E.B. White is turning over in his grave.

The newspaper column is the last place I'd turn to to legitimize my ideas.

Other than that, I'd say your riposte smacks of desperation.

And by the way, I've friends who are more well read, well bred, and better fed than I, but I still like to make fun of them because they have no idea how to attach a table top to an apron with out making the top split like a fly girl on "in living color".

I guess they didn't teach that in Harvard.

Could be about new art... just any representative art. They need to mind their own damn business. If they don't like it, don't buy it or have it, it ain't complicated.

[Ibby]

I think that was the point, though. He didn't say 'go blow up statues', he said 'you know, you arent s'posta keep these things in your houses'.

[lookout123]

i be laffin mi ass off. thanks beestie. thanks so effin much. UG. please stop.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i be laffin mi ass off. thanks beestie. thanks so effin much. UG. please stop.

That was freaking brilliant wasn't it.

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think that was the point, though. He didn't say 'go blow up statues', he said 'you know, you arent s'posta keep these things in your houses'.

That is NEVER the endgame to these little parties. If that was the case they would have just stated it and not spouted off another Fatwah.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Surely.