I know. I did a good deed. It was shameful. I've been trying to be extra bitchy to make up for it though. When I'm feeling more typey I'll bring that to the debate =^.^=
No... that was good natured snark and fake bitchiness actually. Of course that is harder to tell in writing than in person where you can see the smirk and hear the snickers and such....
I thought I made it clear that it was a play debate. I mean, I think you idea of their being such a thing as THE LYRICS when what you hear on a cd is just another performance is kinda dumb (in my compeltely not humble opinion) and your grammer nazi-isms kinda annoying, but niether to the degree where they really bother me or make me bitchy or are that big of a deal.
Didn't I clarify that it was a fun mock-debate when I asked you if you wanted to get into it? Besides. I got a topic to really bitch about. Debate on hold for a while longer.
Didn't I clarify that it was a fun mock-debate when I asked you if you wanted to get into it?
Nope.
I mean, I think you idea of their being such a thing as THE LYRICS when what you hear on a cd is just another performance is kinda dumb (in my compeltely not humble opinion)
I thought I made it clear that I was talking only about the recorded version? That's the only performance I have access to in most cases (and definitely in the case we were discussing).
and your grammer nazi-isms kinda annoying,
I only bring them up in the case of people who a) ought to know better, as they're getting paid to write well, or b) were asshats to begin with and need additional fun made of them.
so would you prefer this be a private quiz or should i make a poll?akaiyumeMarch 12 2006, 23:42:10 UTC
If someone *asks* if you want to debate (especially a someone with a less than stellar reputation for things like tact, or restraint when something really bothers her) and then says she is not trying to be difficult and then follow that by writing instructions pointing to an icon which reads "here We are now, entertain Us" -
ALL that and you still didn't get it was a mock debate. Did you have to hock your sense of humour or are you just trying to bait me into using an icon I don't feel like today?
I thought I made it clear that I was talking only about the recorded version? That's the only performance I have access to in most cases (and definitely in the case we were discussing).And I thought that I made it clear that the performance that makes it onto the recording is just another performance. Their is nothing more intrinsically correct or definitive about those lyrics
( ... )
Completely up to you. ;-)claws_n_stripesMarch 13 2006, 13:27:10 UTC
ALL that and you still didn't get it was a mock debate. Did you have to hock your sense of humour or are you just trying to bait me into using an icon I don't feel like today?
'Tis teh intarweb, darlin'. It's not that I have no sense of humor; it's that our minds work differently, and we each would convey the same things differently when writing.
And I thought that I made it clear that the performance that makes it onto the recording is just another performance. Their is nothing more intrinsically correct or definitive about those lyrics.
You know, plenty (if not the vast overwhelming majority) of singers sing the exact same lyrics every time. That makes the lyrics "the lyrics" in those cases. How do you know the song/singer in question isn't one of those cases, given that neither of us has any evidence to the contrary?
Why for any reason should that one set of lyrics be transcribed from the recording and presented as "official" lyrics other than that Gerald wants it, even if Gerald isn't willing to do the work to get what he
( ... )
Re: Completely up to you. ;-)akaiyumeMarch 14 2006, 07:53:32 UTC
*sigh* At one time you told me that you thought you for beginning to catch on to my style humor- via intraweb too. Guess I "beginning to" and "continuing to" are very different things.
It's that our minds work differently
Well, everyone's mind works differently. But you..... maybe Pablo was correct.
ll do that if you can show me where I've ever corrected your grammar during a debate, especially if it was in a non-lighthearted manner (and I don't think that I've done even that much).
I distinctly remember some ranting about zie, neologisms, not even being able to use neologisms by strict dictionary terms (like anyone uses anyword that way) and rotting steak. Now you called it "linguistic purity" which just trying to cover the fact that where the language is concerned you are a reactionary because languages in the pure, natural sense evolve and change.
That said, g). :-DSorry you fail. That is not what my answer key has
( ... )
Re: Completely up to you. ;-)claws_n_stripesMarch 15 2006, 06:51:43 UTC
(Pablo was unquestionably correct.) I distinctly remember some ranting about zie, neologisms, not even being able to use neologisms by strict dictionary terms (like anyone uses anyword that way) and rotting steak. Now you called it "linguistic purity" which just trying to cover the fact that where the language is concerned you are a reactionary because languages in the pure, natural sense evolve and change.
A grammatically correct sentence containing horrid neologisms is still a grammatically correct sentence. This is where we get into matters of style-- a separate issue altogether. In any case, when I typed what I typed, I certainly didn't have you in mind, and-- lest this go unsaid one second longer than need be-- not only do I not think you're an asshat, but I also think you're the exact opposite of one. Don't know what it is for sure but I bet it's awesome and I apologize for unintentionally implying that you were anything but
( ... )
Re: Completely up to you. ;-)akaiyumeMarch 16 2006, 05:29:43 UTC
Apology accepted and one returned if I misunderstood your intentions in mentioning the word "asshat." I personally don't see the difference between "style" and "grammatically correct" since I think of the later as just a type of style (instead of a thing or a rightness/wrongness in itself
( ... )
Re: Completely up to you. ;-)claws_n_stripesMarch 16 2006, 06:47:24 UTC
I personally don't see the difference between "style" and "grammatically correct" since I think of the later as just a type of style (instead of a thing or a rightness/wrongness in itself).
DWV!
1)the only people who should be afraid of me are those who have given me reason to act in such a way that would cause a sensible person to be afraid. being called an "asshat" (even if it were more than implied) - not a reason
so I wasn't trying to scare you. and I'm kinda confused why that is even brought up.
2) maybe I will ask for a fuller explanation of this at sometime
It's quite simple, really.i) Absolutely nothing. No way in hell is Gerald ever going to take the chance like that his one and only penis. That's what I'm referring to when I say, "You don't scare me."
--Gerald
Reply
Reply
When you are feeling more typey, I guess I should strap myself in. :-/
--Gerald
Reply
I thought I made it clear that it was a play debate. I mean, I think you idea of their being such a thing as THE LYRICS when what you hear on a cd is just another performance is kinda dumb (in my compeltely not humble opinion) and your grammer nazi-isms kinda annoying, but niether to the degree where they really bother me or make me bitchy or are that big of a deal.
Didn't I clarify that it was a fun mock-debate when I asked you if you wanted to get into it?
Besides. I got a topic to really bitch about. Debate on hold for a while longer.
Reply
Nope.
I mean, I think you idea of their being such a thing as THE LYRICS when what you hear on a cd is just another performance is kinda dumb (in my compeltely not humble opinion)
I thought I made it clear that I was talking only about the recorded version? That's the only performance I have access to in most cases (and definitely in the case we were discussing).
and your grammer nazi-isms kinda annoying,
I only bring them up in the case of people who a) ought to know better, as they're getting paid to write well, or b) were asshats to begin with and need additional fun made of them.
--Gerald
Reply
ALL that and you still didn't get it was a mock debate. Did you have to hock your sense of humour or are you just trying to bait me into using an icon I don't feel like today?
I thought I made it clear that I was talking only about the recorded version? That's the only performance I have access to in most cases (and definitely in the case we were discussing).And I thought that I made it clear that the performance that makes it onto the recording is just another performance. Their is nothing more intrinsically correct or definitive about those lyrics ( ... )
Reply
'Tis teh intarweb, darlin'. It's not that I have no sense of humor; it's that our minds work differently, and we each would convey the same things differently when writing.
And I thought that I made it clear that the performance that makes it onto the recording is just another performance. Their is nothing more intrinsically correct or definitive about those lyrics.
You know, plenty (if not the vast overwhelming majority) of singers sing the exact same lyrics every time. That makes the lyrics "the lyrics" in those cases. How do you know the song/singer in question isn't one of those cases, given that neither of us has any evidence to the contrary?
Why for any reason should that one set of lyrics be transcribed from the recording and presented as "official" lyrics other than that Gerald wants it, even if Gerald isn't willing to do the work to get what he ( ... )
Reply
It's that our minds work differently
Well, everyone's mind works differently. But you..... maybe Pablo was correct.
ll do that if you can show me where I've ever corrected your grammar during a debate, especially if it was in a non-lighthearted manner (and I don't think that I've done even that much).
I distinctly remember some ranting about zie, neologisms, not even being able to use neologisms by strict dictionary terms (like anyone uses anyword that way) and rotting steak. Now you called it "linguistic purity" which just trying to cover the fact that where the language is concerned you are a reactionary because languages in the pure, natural sense evolve and change.
That said, g). :-DSorry you fail. That is not what my answer key has ( ... )
Reply
I distinctly remember some ranting about zie, neologisms, not even being able to use neologisms by strict dictionary terms (like anyone uses anyword that way) and rotting steak. Now you called it "linguistic purity" which just trying to cover the fact that where the language is concerned you are a reactionary because languages in the pure, natural sense evolve and change.
A grammatically correct sentence containing horrid neologisms is still a grammatically correct sentence. This is where we get into matters of style-- a separate issue altogether. In any case, when I typed what I typed, I certainly didn't have you in mind, and-- lest this go unsaid one second longer than need be-- not only do I not think you're an asshat, but I also think you're the exact opposite of one. Don't know what it is for sure but I bet it's awesome and I apologize for unintentionally implying that you were anything but ( ... )
Reply
Reply
DWV!
1)the only people who should be afraid of me are those who have given me reason to act in such a way that would cause a sensible person to be afraid. being called an "asshat" (even if it were more than implied) - not a reason
so I wasn't trying to scare you. and I'm kinda confused why that is even brought up.
2) maybe I will ask for a fuller explanation of this at sometime
It's quite simple, really.i) Absolutely nothing. No way in hell is Gerald ever going to take the chance like that his one and only penis.
That's what I'm referring to when I say, "You don't scare me."
--Gerald
Reply
Reply
I had placed "i" as the second most likely answer to the original quiz.
The correct answer to the original quiz was "c"
Reply
Leave a comment