 | | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) LOL! :) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) put"... (...) an (...) German has (...) and all (...) about "no (...) to (...) infinitive (...) before you know (...) started on (...) write them. (...) correctness--it's (...) and it's (...) that created (...) "split (...) have you (...) two (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) "We" (who?) already are saying those things, statistically. We just shouldn't write them. What do you mean, "giving in?" This isn't even an issue of grammatical correctness--it's an issue of style. There is no rule in English that prohibits (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) What part of speech would it be then, exactly? (...) That's not really a strong argument, because why should the "literate" minority hold sway over the masses? Seems kind of elitist to me. Further, that slippery-slope reasoning is inherently (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) While that is technically the generally accepted spelling, if I had suggested that correction, would Craigo have been able to riff on it, enabling my cliff-hanger of a riposte?? I think NOT. You mortals just don't think far enough ahead. :-) (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) You say that as a mortal. :-) I don't want to .debate this, but I do want to highlight (and I guess I may be spoiling some of the plot here) that this character already WAS immortal, practically. He was faced with the choice of trading it away (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) Nah, ledges are generally fine for standing on. It's platforms and soapboxes that get unstable... ;) James (URL) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) It basically boils down to this: if you give in on prepositions, then before you know it, we will be saying "ain't", "chilrun", and "me and her went". It's about preserving the language from the illiterates, who are legion. Don't get me (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) And Bill Clinton did the intern-ette... (...) Or setting on the throne. <Sorry. I know that stunk. Either sue me or light a match> (...) theatre? Puleeze McBritawannabe. (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Our times (Was: Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...))
|
|
"LP" == Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes: LP> Wired, I think it was this month, rag that it is, had an LP> interesting plot of predicted life expectancy. Being born next LP> year doubles it from being 40, like I am, according to them. LP> (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
