BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 09:33 PM

Guest AL, or maybe they should be thrown INTO jail. hehehe

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 09:36 PM

In fact, you've all pissed me off so much I went to the Core Rules of Netiquette website, just to look up this particular violation:

Rule 10: Be forgiving of other people's mistakes Everyone was a network newbie once. And not everyone has had the benefit of reading this book. So when someone makes a mistake -- whether it's a spelling error or a spelling flame, a stupid question or an unnecessarily long answer -- be kind about it. If it's a minor error, you may not need to say anything. Even if you feel strongly about it, think twice before reacting. Having good manners yourself doesn't give you license to correct everyone else.

If you do decide to inform someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and preferably by private email rather than in public. Give people the benefit of the doubt; assume they just don't know any better. And never be arrogant or self-righteous about it. Just as it's a law of nature that spelling flames always contain spelling errors, notes pointing out Netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette.

And if I was in person, I've give you one of my karma violation citations too.

So there.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Genie
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 10:07 PM

I think it's Bill Gates's fault.  (Maybe other software providers had a role, too.)  People rely too much on SpellCheck, for one thing, and it won't catch it if you use "who's" instead of "whose."

Also, SpellCheck sometimes has errors, itself, and they become part of the current language almost over night.  ("Sing-a-long," and "canceled," come to mind.  ["Canceled" is not wrong, but neither is "cancelled," which Word's spell checking tool says it is; "cancelled" is more in line with the general rule for adding suffixes.  "Sing-a-long" is just plain wrong and probably reflects the influence of advertising and marketing trends.]
 

Yeah, Kat, I find a lot of errors in my posts, too, because I don't take a lot of time to edit them and my typing gets sloppy after midnight or after a beer or two.   Sometimes I am amazed to see a "to," where there should be a "too" or just a dumb-looking typo like thios.

And, yes, spelling, grammar, and punctuation do matter--not so much in the forum, but in formal publication, e.g., newspapers,  magazines, product labels, etc.   What irks me is that even the journalists and English teachers often make common mistakes.  (Garrison Keillor, an admitted Englished major, has been known on various occasions to say "between you and I," or "to she and me.")

Sharon, my apostrophes show up here as such, via a Mac, but recently they have been turning into strange strings of characters, as though I were cursing on the keyboard, when I email them. Dunno why.

To all you folks who say it doesn't matter here at Mudcat, I agree with you where forum discussions are concerned. It does not really matter a lot here.

But when you post the lyrics to a song or poem, please try to get the spelling and punctuation right. People copy these and print them in songbooks, where they take on the ring of gospel.

Joe, I am glad you didn't find misuse of "who's" and "whose" in the DT, but I have seen it often in lyrics posted in the forum. It would be nice to have a way of pointing out these errors to Max or whoever selects songs for the DT. That way, they can be corrected before they get into the DT.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 10:25 PM

Hi, Genie - if you see errors in lyrics posted in the Forum, post a message in that same thread. If it's an error in a song in the Digital Tradition, post a message in an existing thread on the song - or start a new thread. If you put the word CORRECTION in the message title, it helps.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 10:34 PM

I am with our Guest...this thing pisses me off..why the fuck do you care about spelling or grammar on a message board? No matter how much you bitch and moan about it, it will not change anything...I see folks here who are coming down on those who write the way they talk...not because they are necessarily lazy...but because they see it as correct...fuck it.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Tyke
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 10:43 PM

Dear Little Hawk, I must apologise on behalf of the Dyslexic population for our bad spelling, punctuation, and bad grammar. About one in ten people are Dyslexic you know so it must be so frustrating for you. Oh dear!

That said it just not a patch on the frustration that we Dyslexic people suffer year in year out by the jumped up pen pushers who look down there noses at our poor writing skills!

You would not believe the antics that I have to resort to get passed those on the front line of bureaucracy. This front line of form fillers and procedure followers are happy with their lot. They do not need to think they just need to put pen to paper and follow the rules. Perhaps because they have fill up the brains with these rules on spelling and punctuation they have little room left for thought. Once passed this front line of pen pushers I then have to get passed their managers. It then depends on how much of an empire these pen pushers have built how far up the managerial ladder I have to go to get some satisfaction.

I have a feeling that you may not be able to grasp the meaning of the little story that I'm about to relate to you. I'll tell you the story anyway just in case the penny drops. A man in Dublin once made a wager with another man that he could get a new word in to the English Dictionary. He put posters up all round the town with just one word written on it in large letters. So now you know how the word QUIZZ got into the English Language.

The point is it is the use of words that make them alive and useful not the suppression of them. So please before you attempt to put people down because of the use of Language. Think of the damage that you are causing.

Oh I'm using a spell checker on this piece of writing I have it set on British Spellings so it is probably upsetting an awful lot of people. Oh and please don't change any of the spellings or grammar in any songs that I may or may not post! If I have made mistake who's to say that I have not done it on purpose like quite a lot of song book publishers do! I'm certain that Cecil Sharp type song collectors changed the songs! Oh and if you hear me singing a song please don't tell me that I'm singing the wrong tune or the wrong words. There is nothing I hate more than being told it should sound like the one on the McDonalds version. A friend of mine is constantly being told that he is singing "The Man Of The Earth" song wrongly. Oh no he isn't he wrote the song it was made famous by Vin Garbut who sings it differently. But Bernie Parry get's the PRS cos he wrote it so there!!

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 10:46 PM

ROTFLMAO!!! I'm beginning to wonder just who's putting on whom around here, and with whose line of balderdash...

Gosh. Where do I start? Let's see...do I ridicule GUEST for his/her obvious mistakes in interpretive analysis of the original intentions behind this thread? No! That would be rude and insensitive, and we most certainly don't want to accumulate nasty karma in that fashion. By "we" I mean...me and my ego. The real me is filled with compassion for any GUEST who has made the mistake of taking this thread deadly seriously, and thus ruined his/her day by fulminating against it and raising her/his blood pressure in a fruitless endeavour.

My ego on the other hand is feckless, undependable, and somewhat lacking in compassion for people with a semi-functional sense of humour, and my ego is convulsed with laughter!

Typo nazis? Yes! It is no longer enough to just have grammar and spelling nazis. Now we need typo nazis as well. And they're coming to get YOU!!!

Keep in mind that we typo nazis are only doing this for your own good, GUEST, to make the world a better, safer, saner, more healthful, loving and enlightened place. A place where people don't say "who's" when they mean "whose". We have all suffered the shame of making unintentional typos, and it is the memory of that shame which drives us on to purify the world of ALL typos!!!

And don't threaten me with your puny "karma violation citations"! I've had peeled bananas waved in my general direction more than once, and I didn't bat an eyelash. I have faced down rabid slugs in the gardens of doom. I laugh in the face of sollipsism and am impervious to slatternly disquisitions of the sort which you embrace conscientiously, while stirring your oatmeal and declaiming on the merits of incontinence to an unheeding world.

My God, where will it all end? Anybody for scrabble?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 11:07 PM

I agree with Amergin and Tyke as well.
Little Hawk-What's a slatternly disquisition?
I have noticed there is a lot of threads like this recently,=(lower case posts, bad spelling, use of apostophe etc), I think they might just make people who have problems with english for whatever reason fed up.I notice as well that some people are teachers (Mrs Duck, and Les from Hull was a teacher as well etc), and you never see them critisize people, they are both really friendly.john in hull

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 11:20 PM

Okay, that's it. Being accused of being "unfriendly" is simply more than my gentle spirit can endure. I am going to ritually disembowel myself with the rubber sword which I keep in the closet for occasions like this. Goodbye, cruel Mudcat! Adieu! I go to meet my destiny.

- LH

p.s. disquisition: a formal, careful, rather heavy treatment (oral or written) of a subject.

slatternly: dirty, untidy, unkempt, sluttish

Put 'em together and you've got the whole meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 11:51 PM

*giggle*..

(BTW, only one 'l' in solipism...You got a rubber dagger handy?)

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 11:53 PM

Geeziz, when you put all that together you get a bread pudding.........

This is about some sillyass kinda' shit ain't it? We should be talking about communicating...not grammar and puctuation. It's harder than hell (the surface of hell being able to withstand molten magma, it must be very hard) to get any inflection in the written word so using "illegal" tools can sometimes be an asset. If you're (yeah, one of my peeves--your for you're) a bit less than perfect, that's okay....try to improve maybe. If you're going off the deep end over trivial shit, try to cope. If we are making ourselves understood to each other, who gives a fuck? (For you pedants, if you know someone who "gives" a fuck have them call me, but if they "give" a shit, my number is unlisted)

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 11:55 PM

Well said Spaw!

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 03:40 AM

Got it in a nutshell with one left over, Spaw, neatly done!

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 05:45 AM

I'm with Genie and there's no need to repost my point of view.

And to those who think people should write here how they use to speak, da wär die Kommunikation mit mir schnell im Eima und die Kacke am Dampfen.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Banjer
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 05:52 AM

Looking at this subject from both sides of the fence I have mixed emotions. Yes, without a doubt, we should always strive to maintain proper grammar to the very best of our ability and be willing to learn and improve our skills where needed.

On the other hand, we speak often of the 'folk process'. It appears to me that what we accept as that process in song and story is likewise at work in our language as well. Many words that I grew up with are no longer used for the same things. Think of the Christmas Carol, Deck The Halls. At one time 'don we now our gay apparel' prompted a mental picture of people getiing into their 'happy' duds and having a good time. What do today's children think of it?

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 06:35 AM

Little Hawk,

A gentle, enlightened spirit might decide to apologize for shaming people publicly, rather than decide to attack a person directly a second time.

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:10 AM

Little Hawk asks somewhat provocatively:

"My God, where will it all end?"

To which my reply is, he who started it could easily end it gracefully, if he so desired.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 09:51 AM

Tweedle and foofara, the whole lot.

Now I want you guys to stop this nonsense. I want you to write exactly as you please, spell as you can, but above all, DON'T STOP COMMUNICATING.

That's it in a nuthouse.

Warm regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 11:03 AM

I thought that Little Hawk's original posting was valid comment and not personalised in any way. What then happened then was that the thread degenerated into a paranoid mud slinging exercise by people,some of whom suffer from delusions of adequacy. Please note this is posted under my own name!!!!! Jock

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST,Deda
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 11:14 AM

By all means, everyone, continue communicating. And please never say "me" when you mean "I", never say "just between you and I" (which is the grammatical equivalent of "just between we", which for some reason no one ever says) -- and above all, don't forget to use the subjunctive mood in contrafactual conditional clauses! Newsflash: Howard Cosell is in eternal grammar hell.

hohohohohoho.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: lady penelope
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 12:04 PM

First off I'm British, many may have noticed this already. ;)

Secondly, I'm really crap at spelling. This is because I simply don't write that much since I left school 17 years ago (my hand writing is also terrible unless it's in capitals).

Thirdly, when I attended school our, education 'experts' in the Inner London Education Authority decided that grammar should definitely take a back seat as it wasn't that much of a priority. In some schools it was decreed that anything other than phonetic spelling cramped children's creativity! So I was never 'taught' grammar, I just picked up what I could along the way.

But, I have to ask, isn't it in the interests of communication to keep the English language (at least in a written context) consistent?

In London, it's quite common for someone to ask another if they would borrow them something. Not 'lend me', 'borrow me'. Directly changing such a basic word's meaning can't be helpful in good communications. Parker has, at times, severe attacks of Malapropism (from the character Mrs Malaprop in the play The Rivals), right meaning, wrong word. (e.g. Mrs Malaprop declares at one point, "Yes, basking like an allegory on the banks of the Nile.")

This drives me bananas as, quite often, I could be highly insulted by some of his substitutions if it were not that I generally know what he intends. I still end up having sometimes-tense conversations with him until I finally fathom what it is he's on about.

My point is really, I suppose, while I'm not a fanatic about spelling and grammar, I do feel that some consistency should be maintained. That we should have a common ground where everyone knows what you mean, with the least possible confusion. On Mudcat this can be very important because we don't hear each other's voices nor do we see their faces, therefore much of what we take for granted during verbal communication simply doesn't exist.

For example, "Robin Hood tore his leather jerkin off."

Now depending on where you put your punctuation, you could end up offending someone without meaning to.

"It is said that he had his house made backwards."

Now, a spot of bad spelling there could also get you into trouble.

It's just a thought, but I wouldn't mind the occasional brush up course when it comes to these things. Anyone up to the challenge?

I think I need a lie down now.

TTFN M'lady P.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 01:30 PM

And I wish all you grammar and spelling utopians well too.

Which part of "we are all not equally capable spellers and grammarians at all times and in all places" do people not understand?

Thanks again for looking down your noses at us, and insisting on how things should be in YOUR perfect world. A world where the aging, the ill, the absent minded, the dyslexic, the other language speakers, get to be admonished again and again by the superior among you, in OUR most hellish "back to school you go then" nightmares.

Sometimes we forget that this medium doesn't facilitate understanding of other poster's motives and intentions. So when these misunderstandings occur, isn't it better to just apologize for offending, rather than arrogantly continue to offend once you've been informed a good number of folks have been offended by your words?

C'mon, this wasn't a once off remark in the heat of passion, buried deep in a thread. This was a brand new thread started to call attention to one particular guest poster, if we are to "translate" Little Hawk's cryptic finger-pointing with his "you know who you are "G".

Gimmee a break--he meant it, and the rest of you can stop insulting our intelligence by back peddling otherwise, thank you not very much at all.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 01:46 PM

I am truly devastated to report that the rubber sword failed miserably. I am still in this world. I am also still trying to figure out if the apparently serious objections to this thread posed by various persons above are, indeed, genuinely serious (hard to believe)...or are examples of very dry wit. If so, there are a number of you out there with a grandly dry sense of humour.

Actually, my original post that started this thread off was directed at no specific person whatsoever, although it did refer to a common error that annoys me a bit at times...but I certainly don't lose any sleep over it! Nor do I expect you to lose any sleep over it either. Feel free to make all the typos and spelling mistakes you want, folks.

Please reread this quote out of the original post:

It's enough to drive a pedant who's paying attention to all the piddly little details of whose language skills are correct and whose aren't absolutely nuts!

So stop it. You know who you are and you have no further excuse now. ("G")

Now...isn't it fairly obvious in that quote that I am making some fun of my own (and others') overly pedantic tendencies? Hmmmm? Calling myself "a pedant who's paying attention to all the piddly little details", and so on...would I do that if I were serious????

Really, people, do you not have any sense of satirical humour at all? Get with it. Whaddya think the "Grin" symbol was in there for, fer Chrissakes!

I make typos too...lots of 'em. It's inevitable, cos working on a computer causes the rapid extinction of braincells. This has been amply proven in tests involving chimpanzees. After 5,000 hours on a computer, the average chimp makes 33% more typos a week than he did back in the first week when he started! Consider the shocking implications of that. We are just gonna have to live with it, I'm afraid, cos we are all too addicted at this point to do the smart thing, turn the bloody machine off, and go out and work in the garden instead.

Spaw - Not to worry. NO ONE gives a shit around here, I can assure you! Unfortunately, not too many give a fuck either...but if I hear of someone who does, I'll have 'em get in touch with you right away.

Wolfgang - Thanks for the German passage. I love the German language.

GUEST - I am beginning to suspect that you are my old nemesis flattop, posting anonymously from the library, screwing around here and creating needless controversy, posturing righteous indignation, and so on. If you are, take a deep breath and walk off the end of the pier. That cold Atlantic water does wonders to clear the head. If not, maybe you should get to know flattop, cos he's actually quite a droll wit, to say the least.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 02:10 PM

Oh, the "G" stood for "grin"...I don't think you got that, according to what you wrote, GUEST. Funnily enough, my first name begins with "G", but I don't know of anyone else I could apply it to around here at the moment...except maybe Gargoyle, and I was not referring to him...or anyone else in particular.

George (LH)

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 02:39 PM

I suspect that this guest suffers from the same affliction as all others who are afraid to post openly. This disease is known biblically as Onanism. Jock

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 03:18 PM

caution!! Pedantry alert!

Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground"....does this mean that 'guest' has been eating watermelon carelessly? :>0

(what Onan practiced was coitus interruptus)

LH..it never struck me for a minute that you were referring to any one, specific person....I have used the "you know who you are" phrase for 40 years to suggest that LOTS or readers/listeners might identify with the description.........but some folks simply do NOT read between the lines for sarcasm, irony, metaphor, allusion...etc...they see only what they want to see, in the most negative interpretation they can find.....I find this sad, but I do not intend to avoid multi-leveled humor in my attempts to make points, and you, LH, seem to feel the same. *grin*....let the literal minded anons grump, there's no easy cure for that affliction!!

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 03:27 PM

Repartee has two e's.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 06:26 PM

Bill D, if I may wax even more pedantic, there is no actual Scriptural evidence that Onan practised coitus interruptus, although most scholars make this assumption .
As you say, he "spilled his seed upon the ground" but IMHO it is much more likely that he was on the receiving end of a hand job or a blow job from his deceased brother's wife. (Who didn't swallow, apparently). I mean, has anyone on this planet ever practised coitus interruptus? Again, IMHO, the term is a figment of some sociologist's imagination.

Whatever, the good Lord terminated him for his refusal to do it normally. Quite right too, he had it coming.

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST,Deda
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 06:46 PM

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST,Deda
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 06:49 PM

Thread creep: Dorothy Parker had a parakeet which she named Onan upon observing that it too spilled its seed upon the ground.

Those of us who notice these grammatical details have no trouble communicating with the rest of us, and we are, after all, all here on the 'cat just trying to get along.

I would be happy to provide answers to any grammar questions. Feel free to PM me.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 07:18 PM

A) of all, SpellCheck needs to be run with brain engaged.

B) of all, I certainly don't get upset with the substitution of single and double primes (or double hyphen in lieu of M-dash) in e-mail, posts, etc. because of platform keyboard differences. It's a workable compromise -- and typewriter not typographic rules prevail.

C) of all, where I do get upset is the erosion of language, punctuation, and proofreading (lack of) in print. Believe it or not, even the revered New York Times printed the great apostrophe error (possessive instead of plural) on the front page -- below the fold, but the front page nontheless.

Typos, especially in books, are distracting and interfere with the absorption of knowledge and effective information. In informal correspondence, such as e-mail or posts here or elsewhere, typos are generally the result of trying to type too fast; too late at night; too, ah, "relaxed" thanks to various single malts and other muscle and brain relaxants; and, of course, the possibility (as at this moment) of a cat tush on the keyboard or a paw jealously grabbing my hand.

BTW, I "collect" signs, and my collection includes a big sign above a restaurant at Hampton Beach, NH that reads, "Pizza's" -- of course, it COULD be owned by a family named Pizza . . .

Bat Goddess

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 07:56 PM

"where I do get upset is the erosion of language, punctuation, and proofreading (lack of) in print. Believe it or not, even the revered New York Times printed the great apostrophe error (possessive instead of plural) on the front page -- below the fold, but the front page nontheless."

Nonetheless, and The New York Times notwithstanding, we must all be more conscientious about our proofreading. *G*

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:04 PM

Thanks, Alex, I knew that, but forgot.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:07 PM

Read this: Bite me Murray.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:18 PM

You should be careful with that expression, Spaw. There are a lot of weird people out there with literal minds, and one of them might take you seriously.

Oh, BTW, your short memo above should have read: Bite me, Murray."

You left out the comma! :-) (evil grin...) I wouldn't normally bother pointing it out, but I just couldn't resist this time, given the general theme of this thread...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST,Henry W
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:31 PM

How soon we forget. Whatever happened to "Please everyone, show tolerance and patience, love and empathy."?

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:32 PM

You see, the way you worded it before might be misunderstood (specially in the UK) to mean that you have something called a "Murray", and that you are inviting everyone to bite it! We wouldn't want that.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:38 PM

Henry, this thread is not about intolerance, it is about humour among a rather bizarre group of old folkies who mostly know each other well enough not to make the mistake of taking any of it that seriously.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 09:22 PM

umm..Murray..doesn't the verse go (from memory)..."..and it came to pass that whenever he went into his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground"?

seems to me that is almost spelling it out...why would anyone read anything other into it?..hand? oral?...maybe, but it doesn't say so...

and, "I mean, has anyone on this planet ever practised coitus interruptus? "....you durn tootin' they have! Primitive form of birth control, but LOTS of people used it.(and yes, *grin*, lots intended to, but sorta forgot)

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 09:27 PM

I mean, has anyone on this planet ever practised coitus interruptus? Again, IMHO, the term is a figment of some sociologist's imagination.

--Murray MacLeod

Some people do it, and some are quite good at it. On the other hand (did I say hand?), I know of at least one person who owes his existance in the world to that particular method of birth control.

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 09:53 PM

Bill, in the King James Version, the verse reads ....."when he went in unto his brother's wife"...... Slightly less graphic than your remembered version !! "Went in unto" conjures up visions of knocking on the door and saying "Honey are you in?" "Went into his brother's wife" well, leaves nothing to the imagination, I agree. But that is not what it says in Genesis.

Carol, I am intrigued and puzzled by the concept of someone becoming "quite good" at coitus interruptus. I can only assume you are talking from personal experience and knowledge, so I would not dream of contradicting you. But why one would want to become "good" at it in the first place, defies all understanding.

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 10:37 PM

hmmm...ok, I see...but "in unto' is sure awkward language for just knocking on the door.

" But why one would want to become "good" at it in the first place, defies all understanding. "

before 1962-3, out of condoms, sudden panic.....*grin*...(I remember sitting in my university's student union, talking about the 'new' birth control pills, and remarking that they were going to revolutionize society as regards morality and sexual practices....)

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 10:46 PM

I'll tell you, Murray. It's actually a less unpleasant form of birth control for people who are sensitive to hormones and chemicals such as those that are found in all of the other methods of birth control. For such people, sex can be quite uncomfortable, if not painful. Or in the case of the pill, life can become pretty unbearable.

If someone practices 'coitus interruptus' well, it means that sex can be good for both partners without the fear of pregnancy. But the man has to be very good at it, meaning he must have a lot of self control.

I don't have any direct personal experience with what happens when that method fails. My son was very much a planned pregnancy. But as I said, I know of at least one person who is a direct result of a failure in that form of birth control. So it's clearly not appropriate for everyone.

Personally, I'm a big fan of vasectomies.

Hey, LH! How's that for a major thread hijack?

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 01:19 AM

I take your point about the allergies, Carol. But really, are the skills and self-control required for a mutually satisfying CI relationship any different than for a non-interrupted one? Apart from the obvious exercise of will-power at the crucial moment, that is.

You don't have to answer that btw ! The thread creep has been massive, as you say. Maybe I should just have taken up Spaw's invitation and left it at that ...............

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 01:38 AM

It's after 1:30 and this thread demands a response but, uh........I really oughta' indulge in Cattus Interruptus............There's this image of a guy wailin' away to "Pop Goes the Weasel" in my mind and on POP he pulls out but the sound is one of those vacuum kinda' things........There's a real good Cletus story here...........Nah,it's 1:38

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 01:41 AM

Well now Murray, I think you'd have to ask a man about that 'cause I, personally, have no idea. I haven't got that kind of plumbing.

What I meant by 'quite good' was that some men can be good partners despite the interuptus part, and (this is the really important bit) can be relied upon to do what is needed at the appropriate moment.

I suspect LH probably won't mind about the thread creep ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 02:44 AM

Wasn't there some kind of belef in ancient Japan that a man spilling his seed was weakened and so they practised sex up to that point and then stopped just short, if you will, of spilling it anywhere?

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: Genie
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 04:09 AM

Please, folks, don't take anything I'm saying as deathly somber or as intended to put others down.

Tyke, ("Oh and please don't change any of the spellings or grammar in any songs that I may or may not post! ...Oh and if you hear me singing a song please don't tell me that I'm singing the wrong tune or the wrong words...") Wow! Where to begin? First, how dare you tell me not to correct spelling a song that you did NOT post? : ) Next, there are some errors that are clearly errors, not alternative versions of a song. "Whose Sorry Now?" would be an example. If you're the songwriter, I'll defer to your decision about lyrics, even if there are obvious spelling errors. But if it is a published song, deviations from the published form are fair game for correction, especially when they are obviously typos and misspellings. (If you post "Wildwood Flour," and you have not changed anything except that one word, I would assume it's a mistake. If the lyrics you post are a parody, that's different.) It's Max's choice, of course, whether to make the corrections for the DT. But a lot of the time, lyrics posted here look like they were written by e e cummings -- no caps, no punctuation at all, etc. If it was Bob Dylan who wrote them, not e e cummings, why the heck should they not be properly spelled and punctuated? As someone -- Amos, I think -- posted, there is a difference between colloquialisms or poetic license and just plain spelling and punctuation errors. As for changing the lyrics to a song (the folk process?), if it is a non-trad song, I prefer that the alteration of the lyrics be acknowledged. I have done this myself, e.g., when I change a song from a male to a female perspective.

Folks, which insult is worse: "nitpicking linguistic pedant" or "hypersensitive, overly defensive illiterate uninterested in self-improvement?" I'm not fond of either tendency, but we pedants would probably lighten up if the 'linguistically challenged' didn't take it as a personal attack every time someone pointed out an error, even in a formal publication.

Little Hawk, You go, dude! Right on, Giok (Jock)! And, what Lady Penelope said, too! (Loved the Robin Hood sentence! How about, "She was on her bicycle, peddling her ass off?" )

To Spaw, Guest, and some of you others who say it is only communication that counts, not spelling, grammar, and punctuation, I say, along with Wolfgang, you are partly right. Communication is the goal. Spelling, grammar, etc., are only the tools. Trouble is, the meaning can easily get lost in the spelling and grammar errors. E.g, Guest, when you wrote "get passed" instead of "get past," above, I had to re-read the sentence two or three times to figure out what you meant. Once I realized the word was "past," it did not matter that it was misspelled, but I did not recognize the word at first. Wolfgang, your views posted in the "Proofresding" thread are right to the point! Sometimes a spelling error does cause lots of problems!

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 04:19 AM

Aargh!---The apostrophe polis is back!

Subject: RE: BS: STOP writing 'Who's'! Enough!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 07:46 AM

Probably because the subject got interesting...