Page 4 of 4

Rules

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:02 pm
by Maurice_Archive
n.c. wrote:how do you all breathe with your assholes clenched so tightly?


They probably don't actually breathe through their assholes.

Rules

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:31 am
by Rick Reuschel_Archive
The passive voice is, at a minimum, confusing and disorienting.

Foucault is entirely overrated but constructivism has some very useful things to say.

Grammar fascists frequently have a valid point but can produce mild panic attacks.

Rules

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:43 pm
by themajormiller_Archive
Yep

Rules

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:19 pm
by syntaxfree07_Archive
steve wrote:
Intern_8033 wrote:Hi folks,

5. Passive voice is totally boojwa and will not be tolerated.



Were you trying to be postmodern and funny by using the passive voice in this sentence? If so, you should have included a smiley to let us all know.

You could have re-cast this sentence (as an exclamation) to show how easy it is to use the active voice: "Damn! I will not tolerate your using the passive voice!"

While we're at it, I would like to mention a profound hatred I have developed for the word "proactive." This utterly unnecessary word is meant to replace the word "active," but only when the speaker wants it to be more special.

The word has no other useful forms (i.e. "I'll proact on that suggestion, Bob," or "The cat has been proacting strangely since he ate those mushrooms," or "What sort of proaction will the committee reccommend?" or "We've scheduled a lot of sun-deck proactivities for our senior cruise passengers."), and it is unnecessary and retarded-sounding.

It's a bullshit word, and I'll bet the Pro Lifers or MADD or PMRC or some other right wing lifestyle-crushing busybody crankbites came up with it.

And what's wrong with the verb "to burgle?" When did that become "to burglarize?" Do plumbers plumberize? When did "making priorities" become "prioritize?" And how come people say "utilize" when they really mean "use?"

Disrespect is not a verb. One can be equally "street" and speak english: "I will fuck you up if you show me disrespect again."

Don't get me started on nauseous/nauseated.

Really, the English language is beautiful if given a chance. It is almost limitlessly expressive and has a perfect, real, non-right-wing word for almost every purpose. It doesn't need any help from those who would "improve" it. Remember the Tribune's attempt at streamlining the language? ("The frate elevator is strate thru those doors, about four feet in hite," he laffed, before kissing his naybor, his new luv, on the lips.) They were right-wingers.

Speak english, crush the right wing -- it's that simple.

steve (1 for 2 with a run scored)


The English language is not nearly as beautiful as the American. Thank god for Noah Webster. Every time I write "humor" or "color" I think about how wonderful it is that those unnecessary "u"'s have been done away with.

Rules

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:15 am
by HCT_Archive
michaeltheangryrussian wrote:recognize

mtar



recognise.

he said "in english", not "in american english"

Rules

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:26 pm
by Infernal_Archive
steve wrote:My usage is consistent, which makes me think it is right.


Can I use that for a tagline?

.......or would I be Albini-ing?

Rules

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:40 am
by Rodabod_Archive
Now this guy knows his English.

I think I'll diarize that one.

Rules

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 6:09 pm
by night_tools_Archive
syntaxfree07 wrote:The English language is not nearly as beautiful as the American. Thank god for Noah Webster. Every time I write "humor" or "color" I think about how wonderful it is that those unnecessary "u"'s have been done away with.


Balls!

I'm writing an essay on the oesophagus at the moment. Although typing the extra 'Os' counts as extra work, the word 'esophagus' does not look right to me.

'Oesophagus' is a beautiful word, but a tedious subject for an essay.