|
02 Feb 14 - 11:04 AM (#3597587) Subject: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Rapparee After the one space, two space, red space, blue space thread I thought I bring this annoying mistake in grammar to your attention. Note well that this refers to active voice. 1. You use "I" before the predicate: I visited Mary. Fred and I visited Mary. 2. You use "me" after the predicate: That was me. The cops arrested Fred and me. 3. Use "myself" when bragging or confessing: I did it myself. Myself, alone. Notice that in #1 and #2 "I" and "me" are used in a position secondary to the the name of the other person(s) involved: The cops arrested Fred, Mary, Susie, Bill and me in the raid. Fred, Mary, Susie, Bill and I were arrested in the raid. I hope that this is clear and that you will discontinue the use of bad grammar (which also makes you sound pretentious). Thank you, and don't get me started on "its" and "it's". |
|
02 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM (#3597589) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Bill D When I was in school, those distinctions were chiseled into the grammar boulder that sat in the classroom. Now it seems every kid has his iRock tablet where he/she makes up personal rules and teachers no longer have access. (You shouldn't have told everyone that Mary & Susie were arrested with us in the raid. Now they'll never go out with us again!) |
|
02 Feb 14 - 11:38 AM (#3597590) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Louie Roy My 1st grade teacher in 1930 at a country school taught us this little rhyme on I myself and me I had a little tea party this afternoon at three. I invited everyone I knew I myself and me. It was I who ate the sandwiches It was I who drank the tea. It was also I who ate the pie and passed the cake to me |
|
02 Feb 14 - 01:36 PM (#3597620) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) Digression- Recently I posted the Billy Hill song, "The last Round-Up." One verse is: I'm heading for the last roundup To the far away ranch of the Boss in the sky Where the strays are counted and branded there go I I'm heading for the last roundup. Entries found on the net often end the third line 'there I go,' negating the rhyme. The word order seems to bother some people. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 02:01 PM (#3597625) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST Hey, Mike, good luck getting that one acrost, but me and the boys is cheering for you. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM (#3597629) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie Q, there is nothing wrong with "there go I". Another grammar problem I often see is confusion between "may" and "might". If you say or write that something may have happened, this means that there is a real possibility that it did. Therefore statements beginning, for example, "Princess Diana may not have died" or "9/11 may have been prevented" are nonsense - "may" should be replaced with "might". |
|
02 Feb 14 - 02:24 PM (#3597638) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) If I may, if I might, have the wish I wish tonight... |
|
02 Feb 14 - 02:27 PM (#3597640) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Jack the Sailor y'all r takin this 2 serious. yule make yerselfs cray cray. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM (#3597650) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka The cops arrested whom? Fred and me. Those arrested were who? Fred and I. One of them was I. "Me" as an answer for "who" is originally an erroneous adaptation from the French "moi"; now it seems to pass for colloquial language. I do not think the Queen would use it publicly; Prince Harry might. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:08 PM (#3597652) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: gnu Twinkle, twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are. I wish I may, I wish I might, OH NUTS it's just a satellite. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM (#3597653) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST She, herself and her went out with me, myself and I, And we ran into they, themselves and them down at the Y; Then she, herself and her opined that he, himself and him Should find a quiet corner to escape the dreadful din. Well, the chamber slowly quietened, a hush fell on the room, When we ourselves and us said "Yo! Please call us who and whom." |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:21 PM (#3597655) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: The Sandman my husband and I wpuld like to correct your grammar? Why because if you get rid of "my husband and" it has to be I would like to correct your grammar. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:37 PM (#3597662) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka Colloquial language is fine with me; it is the speaker's and writer's responsibility to choose the adequate language level. My comment was about Rap's rule 2., which seems inconsistent to me. Rap ain't me husband. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:44 PM (#3597664) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: gnu It has come to my attention that grammar and punctuation have been tendered for consideration and discussion in such a manner that they may be considered, albeit perhaps only in my perception and in my interpretation, interchangable. I offer that there is a clear distinction which should be brought to bear in ensuing arguement herein, thereby adding clarity and also allowing reason and logic to be applied to each. Udder n at, what e got n yer gob, me old cock? |
|
02 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM (#3597669) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie Grishka, would you say "The cops arrested I"? I expect not. I expect you would say "The cops arrested me", therefore you should also say "The cops arrested Fred and me" (the cops were doing the arresting). On the other hand, it would be correct to say "I was the person the cops arrested" and "Fred and I were the people the cops arrested" (Fred and I were doing the "being arrested"). |
|
02 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM (#3597684) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: gnu I would think not, me. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 06:07 PM (#3597694) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST In French, you have to say "it's me". So it's not an obvious matter of simple logic what form to use, it's just usage (whose usage?). If there's something you need to say, think of the audience you are aiming at, and say it in a form which will be clear to them. Don't expect people to decode it using some set of rules you learned at school. If it's ambiguous to your audience, it's your fault and not theirs. You should have said it another way. If on the other hand, you don't want to communicate with an audience, shut the f** up and everybody will be content. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 06:44 PM (#3597706) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST 'In French, you have to say "it's me".' Who told you that? |
|
02 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM (#3597711) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Jeri You don't say "c'est je", but am us gonna get into French pedanticism now too? |
|
02 Feb 14 - 07:38 PM (#3597717) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,leeneia Whatever you do, don't forget that the subject of an infinitive is in the objective case. He wants ME to make him a cherry pie. |
|
02 Feb 14 - 07:45 PM (#3597720) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: frogprince Sounds like maybe we is, Jeri. : ) |
|
02 Feb 14 - 09:45 PM (#3597734) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: JohnInKansas The effect of bad grammar is frequently annoying, but when the bad grammer is an affect of a social or cultural bias it is truly offensive. *** The most universal LIE in English is the use of the comparative "times more than." If an original quantity is 5, then two times the original is 10. Two times more than the original quantity is 15. Since the expression is used both ways (although rarely correctly) it is impossible to tell what is meant by it. The usage was apparently "invented" by advertising LIARS who urged "use strong terms even if they're meaningless" but has crept into usage even by otherwise competent persons whose use shows them to be: a. ILLITERATE IDIOTS whose entire arguments should be IGNORED, or b. DELIBERATE LIARS whose entire piches should be IGNORED. c. Persons lacking the most fundamental competence in basic arithmetic (i.e. a majority of the population) for whom the only appropriate response is sympathetic pity - while they are ignored. John |
|
02 Feb 14 - 10:31 PM (#3597740) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Jack the Sailor How about "two times, more than"?.... To inform those who do not have the knowledge that "two times" is "more than." |
|
03 Feb 14 - 12:40 AM (#3597749) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST Death |
|
03 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM (#3597871) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Bill D Naawwww, John... the most universal lie in ads is "UP TO". "You can save UP TO $999 during our January sale!" |
|
03 Feb 14 - 11:13 AM (#3597876) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka topsie, that was what I tried to convey. Formal language: "It was I, they arrested me." Possible colloquial version: "It was me, they arrested me." There are constructions in which language and logic disagree. Avoid them altogether if you need to be precise. In rare cases, ambiguities of language can be exploited for skillful rhetorics (alias lies). What John describes seems more like abused logic to me - I would not blame it on grammar at all. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM (#3597893) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka Bill D (03 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM), right: you can actually save a lot more on such sales, by stubbornly resisting the impulse to buy anything. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 12:44 PM (#3597920) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie I'm not sure that using "I" is "formal" language necessarily. I would use "It was me" when I meant "It was me they arrested" and "It was I" when I meant "It was I who was arrested". The difference is in how "me" or "I" relate to the verb - an object, or a passive subject. Formality doesn't come into it, though I suspect that the frequently heard use of "I" where "me" would be better results from a misguided attempt to sound "formal". |
|
03 Feb 14 - 12:54 PM (#3597926) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Jeri "Me" has things done to/with them, so "it was me" is correct, because you'd say "they arrested me". "I" us the one who does things. "I punched Rap in the nose, so they arrested me". The reason it's "Bill and I played music" and not "Bill and me played music is that you'd say "I played music" not "me played music." Of course, if you're in Jamaica, I think "they arrested I" is correct. In the end, if you have a problem with someone else's grammar and usage that gets in the way of communicating, YOU have a problem, not they. ("They"--awkward, or what?) |
|
03 Feb 14 - 01:37 PM (#3597945) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka I'm not sure that using "I" is "formal" language necessarily.Not necessarily. All examples you gave, teri, are approved language in all levels. The usage "It was me" as a whole sentence frequently occurs in colloquial language, exactly meaning "It was I" (... who committed the offence). Or "It was him" meaning (in formal language) "It was he", etc. Where is the difficulty? The interrogative pronoun tends to the other direction in colloquial language: "Who did they arrest?" for (formal usage) "Whom did they arrest?" Each dialect, pidgin language, etc. can have different grammar rules. Is the formal language awkward? Not at all, just those who want to use it should try to learn it properly, otherwise they do have a problem. (I am excused, being a furriner.) |
|
03 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM (#3597949) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: gnu Well fuck I! Sooo many considerations I have never felt the need to discuss as it was clearly plain and simple to me eh la? John... ere ye puttin the piche to we? And I still says ya shouldna say yer gonna try and do sommat insteada try TO do sommat. Me, Moi and Jimmy Suis just cringe at that. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM (#3597955) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST No, not Jimmy! |
|
03 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM (#3597963) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: dick greenhaus TRouble with "There go I" is that it assumes that I has many members. TRy "Ther goes I. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 02:36 PM (#3597975) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Mrrzy You say I when it's the subject of the verb, whether or not it is placed before or after it. You say me when it's the object of the verb ditto. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 03:07 PM (#3597984) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: The Sandman goodness gracious me. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM (#3597991) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie OK, I confess - I do sometimes say "It was me" when asked who it was who did something. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM (#3597992) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Mrrzy I and me, who and whom, its and it's, and there and their and they're not to mention he and him and she and her. It behooves one to know the differences. Myself, not so critical. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 04:06 PM (#3598007) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: gnu I dare say you are as it behooves you. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 04:13 PM (#3598009) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka Confusing "their", "there", and "they're" is simply an error. In contrast, saying "It was me who did it" can be the right thing to do in situations in which "It was I" would sound too formal or "awkward", as Jeri puts it. Most people know when to speak in a formal manner and when not, and how. However, there are cases in which rules are hard to find. I am often amused when I hear labour representatives talk about politics; in many societies, including British and Australian, they cannot possibly find an adequate language level. |
|
03 Feb 14 - 08:10 PM (#3598070) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST It was us wot done it, Guv! |
|
04 Feb 14 - 05:15 AM (#3598127) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Will Fly Correction: It woz us wot done it , Guv - innit! |
|
04 Feb 14 - 04:30 PM (#3598364) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Uncle_DaveO Topsie, you commented that "Princess Diana may not have died" or "9/11 may have been prevented" are nonsense -" On the other hand, Elvis may not have died. I've heard that he's alive and well, living with Adolph Hitler in Brazil. That's correct. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 05:21 PM (#3598380) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie At last - somebody understands! |
|
04 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM (#3598397) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter These and other objections to common usages undoubtedly make some of us feel more astute than "hoi polloi"; and note my omission of the vulgarly redundant definite article, in the knowledge that "hoi" means "the" in ancient Greek: one up for me! It appears, however, that by the time anyone's noticed enough examples of an "incorrect usage" to raise a hullabaloo (I mean "an uproar"), it's too late to do anything except fume. Or, if you're an editor, to ban them from your publication. Shakespeare used "between you and I" (see the OED). After two hundred years, people are still saying "ain't," and more of them every day are saying "irregardless" for "irrespective" and "based off" for "based on." Chaucer, could he come back, might lament the botch we've made of the Inglysshe he spoke. I direct my precious end-of-the-day energies to other topics. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 09:55 AM (#3598513) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka Lighter, I agree that fuming would be the wrong reaction - who is fuming here? But reflecting on the delicate relation between logic, etymology, and various levels of various languages is a necessity. Those who do not care may still care about their reputation, possibly being flawed by inadequate use of language. Inadequate can well mean "too 'correct' for the context". For example, writing "irregardless" once, can count as a slip, but whoever does so constantly risks being regarded as a fraud. Colloquialisms, dialects, and slang are quite different categories from such plain errors - even though historically and logically the border may be found variable. Chaucer and Shakespeare were artists of language, but also men of realism, and definitely open to development of language including creative adaptations from other European cultures - as opposed to later generations of English poets. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 11:40 AM (#3598541) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST Communication requires a sender and a receiver. I suggest that in certain milieus there is no difference between "I don't want any potatoes, thanks" and "I don't want no potatoes, thanks." A host(ess) would be a prat to serve either person potatoes. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM (#3598554) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter > Communication requires a sender and a receiver.... and takes place despite varying kinds and degrees of static. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 12:12 PM (#3598557) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Dorothy Parshall Excuse me, but if you say "I don't want no potatoes" that clearly means that you do want some potatoes. The hostess would be totally correct in serving said person potatoes. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 01:26 PM (#3598581) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: gnu "I don't want no potatoes." indicates disgust. An example of the application of such a statement may be when I see they are prepared by being mashed, having a HUGE amount of salted margerine added, having too much 2% MF milk added, and then being whipped with a blender. Note that the statement I would like to use in such a case does not convey my actual feelings but "I don't want no fuckin margerine and milk in me spuds." just doesn't seem fitting nor polite at a Kissmeass dinner to which I have been invited. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 01:41 PM (#3598587) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie So, if you really don't want the potatoes, play it safe. Just say "I don't want potatoes, thank you" or, if they are mashed with margarine, "I don't want potato." |
|
05 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM (#3598593) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter > that clearly means that you do want some potatoes. To whom? You mean you'd actually give that crude SOB potatoes when he's told you explicitly he don't want none? But perhaps "clearly" in your comment stands erroneously for "according to inapplicable rules of mathematical logic." In that case, you mean you'd actually give that crude SOB potatoes when he's told you explicitly he don't want none? |
|
05 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM (#3598603) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) Margarine and store-bought mayonnaise would elicit from me, "I don't want none of that ---- greasy gunk on my potato," if I was at home, or in the corner café, but I might hold my tongue if I was dining with the Queen. A sometimes crude SOB |
|
05 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM (#3598610) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka "I don't want no potatoes" is not any stronger than "I don't want any potatoes", it is just a different language level or local dialect. If there is an added message in it, it must translate "I don't want any potatoes, and I don't need no educieshen eether." |
|
06 Feb 14 - 04:48 AM (#3598749) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Nigel Parsons From: JohnInKansas - PM Date: 02 Feb 14 - 09:45 PM The most universal LIE in English is the use of the comparative "times more than." If an original quantity is 5, then two times the original is 10. Two times more than the original quantity is 15. Since the expression is used both ways (although rarely correctly) it is impossible to tell what is meant by it. I saw an advert on tv the other night for Fairy Liquid (a washing up liquid). It did a comparison test with 'another leading brand' and got schoolchildren to lay out the cleaned plates on trestle tables to compare the cleaning power. The advert claimed that Fairy liquid went 'two times further' whereas the film made it clear that it only went 'two times as far'. Very misleading! |
|
06 Feb 14 - 09:49 AM (#3598811) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter "Eether" is the pronunciation (with roots in Old English) that has the older claim to correctness. See the OED, but first be sure you know something about Old and Middle English phonology. So anybody who says "eye-ther" had better switch before someone on this thread notices. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 10:00 AM (#3598815) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter That, Nigel, is why they said "two times" instead of "twice." They couldn't sensibly say "Twice further." Actually they could, because once they'd said it the listener would have to make sense of it himself or herself or himself/herself or herself/himself. Now my head hurts. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 10:24 AM (#3598825) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST,Grishka Lighter, you are right, but older origins do not constitute any claim to "correctness". Logic can be a slightly stronger argument, but not sufficient either. Formal language and pronunciation is a mere convention, for England typically defined by the BBC. We agree that speakers and writers are not required and sometimes not well-advised to stick to it, but if they want to, they had best do it properly. An example where logic disagrees with all levels of English language: "I don't think X" is often and "correctly" used when the logical meaning is "I think not-X". It may be a case of "fossilized" ironic understatement, much rarer in other languages, or even considered an anglicism there. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 11:06 AM (#3598834) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter > "I don't think X" is often and "correctly" used when the logical meaning is "I think not-X". Quite true, and it explains why it took the human race a hundred thousand years to develop the syllogism. Even now it takes close study for even university students to get deductive reasoning straight, and all of us still stumble now and again. Darn that consequent! A big "however," however, is that everyday life and speech do not usually carry the burden of careful and explicit deduction required by scientific and technical applications. Maybe the world would be a better place otherwise, but pointing out the illogic (why not "ill logic"?) of widely used and understood idioms would be a thankless and full-time job. When I was in school, we were warned never to use "contact" as a verb meaning "get in touch with." Why "get in touch with" was OK, but "contact" wasn't, remains a mystery. Few people seem to have paid attention, and decades later the ban sounds arbitrary and nonsensical. The only usages worth objecting to are those whose (shouldn't that be "whiches" or something?) patent absurdity makes them truly distracting ("Walking down the street, a pub came into view"); those that make you look like a jerk for writing them("Dont need no edjikashun, dont need no thot controll"); and those that are more or less incomprehensible. There is (or is it "are"?) a handful of words like "irregardless" and "decimate" that have somehow attracted special scorn over the years, and, yes, for that reason they should be avoided in careful writing. The bright side is that most people do want to avoid such things. But as for trivial examples, they "could care less." |
|
06 Feb 14 - 11:10 AM (#3598836) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Me, myself AND I, are far more worried that the polar ice caps are melting, and that my country is underwater, with no more mainline train service twixt London and Penzance any longer, due to 30 metres of sea wall, behind which stood the train track, being broken apart in an instant yesterday, in yet more horrendous, climat change and WTF storms....thus leaving the train track now hanging over the sea.... But maybe me, myself and I, have our priorities all arse over elbow? Its' a puzzlement, for sure..... |
|
06 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM (#3598840) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST "Excuse me, but if you say "I don't want no potatoes" that clearly means that you do want some potatoes. The hostess would be totally correct in serving said person potatoes." Try telling that to a three-hundred-pound pissed off biker. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM (#3598844) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter We'll get around to that scary stuff once we've ironed out the double negatives. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 11:39 AM (#3598848) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Jack the Sailor "Try telling that to a three-hundred-pound pissed off biker. " Or a 300 lb hog? |
|
06 Feb 14 - 12:20 PM (#3598860) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives three definitions for decimate, the first being selection by lot and kill every tenth one, the second to exact a tax of 10 percent... and the third, the one in common usage: a. to reduce drastically esp. in number (cholera decimated the population) b. to destroy a large part of (firebombs decimated large sections of the city). decimation |
|
06 Feb 14 - 12:36 PM (#3598869) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Amos Correct English is a language. Colloquial English is another. It was I who said that. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 09:28 AM (#3599115) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST Hi, Amos. Hope things are well. Indeed it was he who said that, although to whom I am unsure. 'tweren't me cuz uh, English is awesomely about like communication, innit it? |
|
07 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM (#3599206) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) innit it- the it is redundant. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM (#3599207) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) innit it- the it is redundant. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 12:55 PM (#3599214) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST You can say that again, Q :-) |
|
07 Feb 14 - 02:00 PM (#3599248) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST, topsie Maybe "innit it" is a spin-off from the ubiquitous "the thing is is". |
|
07 Feb 14 - 07:12 PM (#3599339) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Lighter The most unkindest cut of all! |
|
07 Feb 14 - 07:19 PM (#3599341) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: GUEST I never would have thunk it. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 08:34 PM (#3599348) Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I From: Q (Frank Staplin) I seen the light. Great God Almighty, I seen the light! |