c4countdown

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:TAKE THIS POST ELSEWHERE, ALEC

Phil Reynolds wrote:If you actually care two hoots about any of this, you're posting in the wrong topic.

I like your style, Phil.


Just a playful dig, Sue.

Periscope down. Dive, dive, dive.....dive, dive, dive.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:TAKE THIS POST ELSEWHERE, ALEC

Phil Reynolds wrote:If you actually care two hoots about any of this, you're posting in the wrong topic.

I like your style, Phil.


Just a playful dig, Sue.

Periscope down. Dive, dive, dive.....dive, dive, dive.

Torpedoes away! http://www.dancingsantacard.com/en/?santa=223711

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:If you actually care two hoots about any of this, you're posting in the wrong topic.

Periscope down. Dive, dive, dive.....dive, dive, dive.

Torpedoes away! http://www.dancingsantacard.com/en/?santa=223711

'Two hoots'

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Ok, well perhaps the ODE will see fit to change their 'usage notes' under the entry for 'bored'. While they're at it perhaps they'll change the definition of 'black' and 'white'

It's interesting how strongly people cling to what they were taught as a child. Even those old codgers at the ODE were forced to admit that "bored of" is common in informal English which, I think you'll agree, probably includes an Internet forum about a daytime game show.

Just did a google search on Ask The Family's Robert Robinson, which turns up nearly 500,000 hits. But also 'Ask The Family's Robert Robertson' turns up over 100,000. Let's hope Robert isn't such an old ludite as to want to 'cling on' to his actual name under mounting google pressure to be known by two names!

Sue Sanders wrote:Just did a google search on Ask The Family's Robert Robinson, which turns up nearly 500,000 hits. But also 'Ask The Family's Robert Robertson' turns up over 100,000. Let's hope Robert isn't such an old ludite as to want to 'cling on' to his actual name under mounting google pressure to be known by two names!

I can't figure out what you actually googled for but if you put the quotes in a sensible place then you don't get anything like that many results. Anyway I'm sure you're smart enough to realise that there's a difference between points of fact, which are unchanged no matter what Google says, versus points of grammar, which are entirely arbitrary human constructs from the beginning.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Thought I would post it here as we are already way off topic anyway.

Marc Meakin wrote:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Yes, that's been doing the rounds for a while, but it's one of those interesting word-based things which are worth sharing here.

Marc Meakin wrote:Thought I would post it here as we are already way off topic anyway.

That's the problem with being anti anything - it's so hard to find a prominent path to follow so passionately.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Just did a google search on Ask The Family's Robert Robinson, which turns up nearly 500,000 hits. But also 'Ask The Family's Robert Robertson' turns up over 100,000. Let's hope Robert isn't such an old ludite as to want to 'cling on' to his actual name under mounting google pressure to be known by two names!

I can't figure out what you actually googled for but if you put the quotes in a sensible place then you don't get anything like that many results. Anyway I'm sure you're smart enough to realise that there's a difference between points of fact, which are unchanged no matter what Google says, versus points of grammar, which are entirely arbitrary human constructs from the beginning.

Well, call me a simpleton, but I went for ask the family robert robinson and ask the family robert robertson.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Just did a google search on Ask The Family's Robert Robinson, which turns up nearly 500,000 hits. But also 'Ask The Family's Robert Robertson' turns up over 100,000. Let's hope Robert isn't such an old ludite as to want to 'cling on' to his actual name under mounting google pressure to be known by two names!

I can't figure out what you actually googled for but if you put the quotes in a sensible place then you don't get anything like that many results. Anyway I'm sure you're smart enough to realise that there's a difference between points of fact, which are unchanged no matter what Google says, versus points of grammar, which are entirely arbitrary human constructs from the beginning.

Well, call me a simpleton, but I went for ask the family robert robinson and ask the family robert robertson.

You need to put the phrases in quotes though, otherwise you'll get back any pages which match the words anywhere. ask the family robert chernobyl gets more hits than ...robertson, for example. Your phrases when quoted entirely return 418 and 1 result(s) respectively.

Sue Sanders wrote:Well, call me a simpleton, but I went for ask the family robert robinson and ask the family robert robertson.

Ah, the thing about search terms is that different constructs will return different results - and not always what you were after: Both of your searches would also return plenty of results if the person had an entirely different name, but with contestants' names or article authors' names such as Robert Smith, Fred Robinson, etc. being present anywhere on the same page. To be more precise in these searches, you should enter:

• "ask the family" "robert robinson"
  "ask the family" "robert robertson"

The quotes make a lot of difference, and I think this is what Charlie was alluding to.

And we didn't call you a simpleton, despite your invitation

Which surely suggests that citing google as a reflection of acceptable usage of grammar is somewhat hit and miss? (Which is going back a wee bit in this thread but, well, it is something of a meandering one.)

I'm sure those of you who have grown up in the computer generation think it second nature to google using a certain format but there are thousands of us out here who have access to a computer, having had little in the way of 'instruction' and we just do our own thing. I often do google using different key words, but yeah, the quotation marks thing is news to me. (I still generally find the information I want.) I just don't get this arguement that mis-using grammar on google hits can in some way be a reflection that the incorrect form is becoming acceptable. If someone had a website called 'I feLL of oFF yOur wall's an u dId to' and it became as popular as Youtube, where would we be then?

Jon Corby wrote:And we didn't call you a simpleton, despite your invitation

x

Sue Sanders wrote:If someone had a website called 'I feLL of oFF yOur wall's an u dId to' and it became as popular as Youtube, where would we be then?

A very good point, indeed. (And a good example as well.) If this were an ideal world, people would check their spelling and grammar before registering a domain name. But it isn't. So they don't.

Mind you, not checking domain names thoroughly occasionally throws up a corker like the one for Pen Island: http://www.penisland.com (for those who are amused by such things). I'm sure one or two peope will post some other examples.

Alec Rivers wrote:Mind you, not checking domain names thoroughly occasionally throws up a corker like the one for Pen Island: http://www.penisland.com (for those who are amused by such things). I'm sure one or two peope will post some other examples.

I've seen that before, along with Mole Station Nursery and Therapist Finder. However, when I clicked that link my work filter tells me it's blocking it because it's too sexy. I'm guessing it's not about pens (or islands) anymore (if it ever was). And I'm going to get sacked now.

penisland.net looks to be a pen supplier. penisland.com, which Alex has linked to, is a gay porn stash. Kind of puts his sermon about checking spelling and grammar into perspective.

Jon Corby wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:Mind you, not checking domain names thoroughly occasionally throws up a corker like the one for Pen Island: http://www.penisland.com (for those who are amused by such things). I'm sure one or two peope will post some other examples.

I've seen that before, along with Mole Station Nursery and Therapist Finder. However, when I clicked that link my work filter tells me it's blocking it because it's too sexy. I'm guessing it's not about pens (or islands) anymore (if it ever was). And I'm going to get sacked now.

I'm sorry to hear that but, in my defence, I didn't intend for it to appear as a clickable link. I deliberately omitted the http bit, but the forum engine added it anyway.

Paul Howe wrote:penisland.net looks to be a pen supplier. penisland.com, which Alex has linked to, is a gay porn stash. Kind of puts his sermon about checking spelling and grammar into perspective.

Oh, the irony.

(Although actually I made no spelling or grammar mistakes there. Still see the funny side, though.)


EDIT: Sermon? Huh?

Sue Sanders wrote:Which surely suggests that citing google as a reflection of acceptable usage of grammar is somewhat hit and miss? (Which is going back a wee bit in this thread but, well, it is something of a meandering one.)

Well, a properly constructed Google search would (with some caveats) back up a claim that a certain usage was widespread. Which I believe is what Charlie was saying.

Alec Rivers wrote: (Although actually I made no spelling or grammar mistakes there. Still see the funny side, though.)

I meant that there are far more important things to focus on getting right. Like not making us look like a bunch of gay porn aficionados .

Alec Rivers wrote: EDIT: Sermon? Huh?

Much of the thread does have a "use language in the extremely precise way I prefer or be damned" feel to it.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:If someone had a website called 'I feLL of oFF yOur wall's an u dId to' and it became as popular as Youtube, where would we be then?

A very good point, indeed. (And a good example as well.) If this were an ideal world, people would check their spelling and grammar before registering a domain name. But it isn't. So they don't.

Mind you, not checking domain names thoroughly occasionally throws up a corker like the one for Pen Island: http://www.penisland.com (for those who are amused by such things). I'm sure one or two peope will post some other examples.

Others include http://www.expertsexchange.com/ and powergenitalia.com

Paul Howe wrote:I meant that there are far more important things to focus on getting right. Like not making us look like a bunch of gay porn aficionados .

lol. I was only citing an example that I saw a long time ago (hence forgetting the TLD) on a Graham Norton show. I neither expected nor encouraged anyone to go clicking it!

Marc Meakin wrote:Others include http://www.expertsexchange.com/ and powergenitalia.com

lol. They're the ones.

Sue Sanders wrote:Which surely suggests that citing google as a reflection of acceptable usage of grammar is somewhat hit and miss? (Which is going back a wee bit in this thread but, well, it is something of a meandering one.)

Not really. If I use the wrong end of a tape measure, it doesn't suggest that using a tape measure is a "hit and miss" way of measuring something.

Sue Sanders wrote:I'm sure those of you who have grown up in the computer generation think it second nature to google using a certain format but there are thousands of us out here who have access to a computer, having had little in the way of 'instruction' and we just do our own thing. I often do google using different key words, but yeah, the quotation marks thing is news to me. (I still generally find the information I want.)

Using Google precisely is harder than it might seem, and I didn't criticise you for doing it wrongly, I only criticised your evidence for being, well, wrong. I was even being polite and everything. I thought you'd be proud

Sue Sanders wrote: I just don't get this arguement that mis-using grammar on google hits can in some way be a reflection that the incorrect form is becoming acceptable. If someone had a website called 'I feLL of oFF yOur wall's an u dId to' and it became as popular as Youtube, where would we be then?

We'd be at a point of creating a major new linguistic phenomenon, I suppose, which lexicographers would be in no position to dismiss as "wrong". But the example is rather misleading for the obvious reason that it hasn't actually happened.

Another factor is the question of whether a certain usage forms part of a larger pattern. For example, saying "would of" instead of "would have" is unlikely to be accepted in Standard English any time soon because there's just no precedent for forming modal phrases that way. However, in the case of "bored of", many verbs do work this way (you can be "tired of" something, as mentioned before), so it's really not a major grammatical watershed to use "of" in place of "with".

Incidentally, "arguement" generates a mere 309K results versus 21.2M for "argument".

Marc Meakin wrote:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Thought I would post it here as we are already way off topic anyway.

Surely using the correct letters is more important?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Which surely suggests that citing google as a reflection of acceptable usage of grammar is somewhat hit and miss?

Not really. If I use the wrong end of a tape measure, it doesn't suggest that using a tape measure is a "hit and miss" way of measuring something.

Hmm. Interesting example. As someone who uses tape measures constantly for my work (though I don't profess to be a surveyor), I would say, give an irregular shaped garden without a right angle in sight and some tape measures to someone who is going to 'wing' it - what you'll end up with is inaccurate measurements produced by using an otherwise accurate measuring tool - and that's ignoring the concept of using the wrong end! So that person's measurements may need to be discounted.

Charlie Reams wrote:Using Google precisely is harder than it might seem, and I didn't criticise you for doing it wrongly, I only criticised your evidence for being, well, wrong. I was even being polite and everything. I thought you'd be proud

I didn't feel criticised, I was saying, there's something a bit rudimentary about taking everybody's opinion and putting it into a big melting pot, without creating tolerances for people getting it wrong. Ha, made you cry

Sue Sanders wrote: I just don't get this arguement that mis-using grammar on google hits can in some way be a reflection that the incorrect form is becoming acceptable. If someone had a website called 'I feLL of oFF yOur wall's an u dId to' and it became as popular as Youtube, where would we be then?

Charlie Reams wrote:We'd be at a point of creating a major new linguistic phenomenon, I suppose, which lexicographers would be in no position to dismiss as "wrong". But the example is rather misleading for the obvious reason that it hasn't actually happened.

On browsing the internet over this 'bored of' thing - I discovered a website called 'boredofthehighstreet'. If I search on that, I'm not consenting to giving my vote to 'bored of' being an acceptable use of language - I feel I'm being lured into dumbing down!

Charlie wrote:However, in the case of "bored of", many verbs do work this way (you can be "tired of" something, as mentioned before), so it's really not a major grammatical watershed to use "of" in place of "with".

We're back to the crux of the matter then aren't we? To some of us, the principle would be. There's a precedent set for anglicising panini and accepting paninis but then you're going to really annoy Kirk and Kai

Charlie Boy Reamster wrote:Incidentally, "arguement" generates a mere 309K results versus 21.2M for "argument".

Hee hee. Touche, Mr Reams Right - let's see how I've done with a post of Krypton Factor stylee quoting requirements!

Oh WOWSER - 'Queen of Quoting' or WHAT!!! t

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

Thought I would post it here as we are already way off topic anyway.

Surely using the correct letters is more important?

I totally agree, but it is at least interesting as to how our brains work.

Sue Sanders wrote:Oh WOWSER - 'Queen of Quoting' or WHAT!!! t

Last edited by Sue Sanders on 25 Nov 2009, 21:59, edited 3 times in total.

You're not fooling me!


EDIT: Okay, that's a bit mean, but kinda funny, too, so I'll leave it.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Which surely suggests that citing google as a reflection of acceptable usage of grammar is somewhat hit and miss?

Not really. If I use the wrong end of a tape measure, it doesn't suggest that using a tape measure is a "hit and miss" way of measuring something.

Hmm. Interesting example. As someone who uses tape measures constantly for my work (though I don't profess to be a surveyor), I would say, give an irregular shaped garden without a right angle in sight and some tape measures to someone who is going to 'wing' it - what you'll end up with is inaccurate measurements produced by using an otherwise accurate measuring tool - and that's ignoring the concept of using the wrong end! So that person's measurements may need to be discounted.

Well, quite. You're that person.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Oh WOWSER - 'Queen of Quoting' or WHAT!!! t

Last edited by Sue Sanders on 25 Nov 2009, 21:59, edited 3 times in total.

You're not fooling me!


EDIT: Okay, that's a bit mean, but kinda funny, too, so I'll leave it.

Fuck off Never said it wouldn't involve me sticking my tongue out and going squinty eyed for a bit. If Marc hadn't been hanging around to booby trap me I might have got away with it. AND, in one edit, I accidently deleted a bit that I'd already got right. I'M HAPPY!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Not really. If I use the wrong end of a tape measure, it doesn't suggest that using a tape measure is a "hit and miss" way of measuring something.

Hmm. Interesting example. As someone who uses tape measures constantly for my work (though I don't profess to be a surveyor), I would say, give an irregular shaped garden without a right angle in sight and some tape measures to someone who is going to 'wing' it - what you'll end up with is inaccurate measurements produced by using an otherwise accurate measuring tool - and that's ignoring the concept of using the wrong end! So that person's measurements may need to be discounted.

Well, quite. You're that person.

Yep - I'm the one whose google surfing can be discounted due to not having learned the quotation marks bit, and I'm the person who can measure a garden like a ....SHITHOT KIRKULATOR!!!!
(Sue Sanders -Award winning garden designer!!!)

Sue Sanders wrote:Yep - I'm the one whose google surfing can be discounted due to not having learned the quotation marks bit, and I'm the person who can measure a garden like a ....SHITHOT KIRKULATOR!!!!
(Sue Sanders -Award winning garden designer!!!)

I'll let you know next time my front lawn needs a trim.

Sue Sanders wrote:I'M HAPPY!

I know. And rightly proud, too. I just couldn't resist. And, with reference to your garden measuring/designing exploits, after our conversation last week I can attest that you certainly know your trachelospermum from your theodolites.

I still don't like football.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Yep - I'm the one whose google surfing can be discounted due to not having learned the quotation marks bit, and I'm the person who can measure a garden like a ....SHITHOT KIRKULATOR!!!!
(Sue Sanders -Award winning garden designer!!!)

I'll let you know next time my front lawn needs a trim.

Er, don't. I'm not a gardener.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Yep - I'm the one whose google surfing can be discounted due to not having learned the quotation marks bit, and I'm the person who can measure a garden like a ....SHITHOT KIRKULATOR!!!!
(Sue Sanders -Award winning garden designer!!!)

I'll let you know next time my front lawn needs a trim.

Can we keep this clean please?

Brian Moore wrote:Can we keep this clean please?

I hose it down once a week or so.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:Can we keep this clean please?

I hose it down once a week or so.

That'll only make it grow faster though.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Yep - I'm the one whose google surfing can be discounted due to not having learned the quotation marks bit, and I'm the person who can measure a garden like a ....SHITHOT KIRKULATOR!!!!
(Sue Sanders -Award winning garden designer!!!)

I'll let you know next time my front lawn needs a trim.

Er, don't. I'm not a gardener.

Award winning lady, garden designer

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Yep - I'm the one whose google surfing can be discounted due to not having learned the quotation marks bit, and I'm the person who can measure a garden like a ....SHITHOT KIRKULATOR!!!!
(Sue Sanders -Award winning garden designer!!!)

I'll let you know next time my front lawn needs a trim.

Er, don't. I'm not a gardener.

I'm sorry, did Sue actually miss a double entendre there? Or is this her way of saying "in your dreams"?

If Charlie's a bit lazy about keeping his area nicely trimmed, and would like the opportunity to get his hose out, I could produce a hard landscaping design so a landscaper could turn something like this....



into this....



Nice and easy to tend to.

It even manages the slope rather nicely, if he'd like to dabble in some gentle uphill gardening.

My apologies for doubting your perspicacity, Sue.

Liam Tiernan wrote:My apologies for doubting your perspicacity, Sue.

Never knowingly undersold

I never doubted you, Sue.

Alec Rivers wrote:And, with reference to your garden measuring/designing exploits, after our conversation last week I can attest that you certainly know your trachelospermum from your theodolites.

In case you missed it (there was a mad rush of posts around the same time) lol

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: Not really. If I use the wrong end of a tape measure, it doesn't suggest that using a tape measure is a "hit and miss" way of measuring something.

Hmm. Interesting example. As someone who uses tape measures constantly for my work (though I don't profess to be a surveyor), I would say, give an irregular shaped garden without a right angle in sight and some tape measures to someone who is going to 'wing' it - what you'll end up with is inaccurate measurements produced by using an otherwise accurate measuring tool - and that's ignoring the concept of using the wrong end! So that person's measurements may need to be discounted.

Well, quite. You're that person.

HERALDED

Charlie Reams wrote:I'll let you know next time my front lawn needs a trim.

Surprised you can't manage it yourself.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Oh WOWSER - 'Queen of Quoting' or WHAT!!! t

Last edited by Sue Sanders on 25 Nov 2009, 21:59, edited 3 times in total.

You're not fooling me!


EDIT: Okay, that's a bit mean, but kinda funny, too, so I'll leave it.

You know when you edit something quickly, it doesn't mention the fact? If you then edit it later and does mention it, would it include the original edit in the count?

Edit 1 - Only one way to find out!
Edit 2 - Anyone else as excited as me?
Edit 3 - Anyone else even read this post yet?
Edit 4 - I got three in before the count is mentioned. Can I make it four?
Edit 5 - Yes.
Edit 6 - This is getting boring now.
Edit 7 - It doesn't start the clock again after each edit that makes it inside the time limit does it?
Edit 8 - I'll come back in a bit.
Edit 9 - OK Jon. Let's see!
Edit 10 - Well there you go. This will count as the second edit.

It only mentions it if someone's already posted after you (in the thread) I believe Gavin. Try now.

Paedophile priests eh? Kind of over-shadows hand ball in the kick in the teeth stakes.

Sue Sanders wrote:Paedophile priests eh? Kind of over-shadows hand ball in the kick in the teeth stakes.

It's o.k. Sue. After each rape the Priest will pray for forgiveness, and he knows that the lord will forgive him. Of course though, if he believes that it's normal behaviour to rape children, he wont need to pray, and perhaps that's why he became a Priest. Did you know that when a Priest's reputation as a Paedophile becomes known, he is moved on to another area. My cure for this behaviour is to burn the churches of all denominations, and make these religious nutters work for their living.

I'm lost in this labyrinthian thread. While I find my way out, here is a reason not to play football too.

George Jenkins wrote: My cure for this behaviour is to burn the churches of all denominations, and make these religious nutters work for their living.

I agree in principle, George, but burning them is a waste of resources and increases pollution (as, no doubt, does removing small children from the priests' "care"). Unused churches, particularly the tall ones, make very useful phone masts.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

George Jenkins wrote: My cure for this behaviour is to burn the churches of all denominations, and make these religious nutters work for their living.

I agree in principle, George, but burning them is a waste of resources and increases pollution (as, no doubt, does removing small children from the priests' "care"). Unused churches, particularly the tall ones, make very useful phone masts.

A splendid Idea Rosemary, and the interiors of churches should portray the history of thousands of murders committed by rival religions. Also the murder of thousands of so called heretics, committed by all religions.
To get back on topic, I also hate footballers who kiss each other when a goal is scored. Now I feel much better.