Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:29:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
295 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.general, Brad Hamilton writes:
> > I'm happy with the new way. I do like to read people's comments, but its
> > fine to have to do an extra click. I could care less about people who own
> > the set, want the set, or want to sell it.
>
> Aaarrrgh!! I don't know who decided "couldn't" should be shortened to "could"
> but it seems to have caught on.
>
> I suppose it's possible that you could care less - but I bet you meant you
> couldn't care less. Not that I have anything against yan^H^H^H americans, but
> you seem to quite regularly do awful things like this to the language.
No one else does, right? :-)
Anyway I do agree with you. "could care less" is wrong. When I slip, I
explain away by agreeing that I indeed could care less... just not very MUCH
less.
(no real system can reach an absolute zero temperature... is the same true
for absolute zero caring??? Maybe.)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today
|
| (...) I'm not so sure about this. In an episode of the George Reeves Superman series, the mad doctor of the week had developed a cold ray that projected a beam of cold 2000 degrees below zero. If this is true, then obviously "absolute zero" is no (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
