| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Pet Peeves http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12632 |
Page 247 of 269 |
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, I feel that holding the door open for someone behind you is such a no-brainer that saying thank-you is unnecessary. Everyone does it for everyone, so who cares? At least that's the way it is around here. Is everyone letting doors shut in their fellow man's face out there in CO? 
|
|
| Author: | furrykef [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
On that note, one of my pet peeves is when people think it's some great tragedy when phrases like "you're welcome" are starting to get displaced by "no problem" and the like. Please! Nobody considers the literal meaning of the words "you're welcome" when they say it, and I'm sure that even goes for the people annoyed by this. It's just a series of meaningless sounds being replaced by a different series of meaningless sounds. Sheesh. - Kef |
|
| Author: | Schmelen [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"and also" |
|
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
furrykef wrote: On that note, one of my pet peeves is when people think it's some great tragedy when phrases like "you're welcome" are starting to get displaced by "no problem" and the like. Please! Nobody considers the literal meaning of the words "you're welcome" when they say it, and I'm sure that even goes for the people annoyed by this. It's just a series of meaningless sounds being replaced by a different series of meaningless sounds. Sheesh.
Yay for Linguistics! :D "You're welcome" = "No problem" in its meaning, which is less of a meaning and more of a purpose - acknowledging thanks. If anyone thinks it has any meaning in itself, pick it apart. You, are, welcome. What does that even mean? Welcome? Are you inviting them to your house just for saying thanks to you? So pet peeve: Prescriptivists. Guess what guys... "whom" is dead. Let it go. And I'll dangle my participles over your grave. >:D |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inverse Tiger wrote: And I'll dangle my participles over your grave. >:D Eww. Gross. that may be illegal in certain states.
|
|
| Author: | furrykef [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Funny enough, I was just about to make a post here about prescriptivism and saw I was beaten to the punch. Inverse Tiger wrote: And I'll dangle my participles over your grave. >:D
Actually, dangling participles is sometimes a bad idea. The reason is that dangling participles can create confusion and may sound just plain wrong. But it depends on the sentence. For instance, "Being in a dilapidated condition, I was able to buy the house very cheap." That's a bad dangling participle, because it sounds like the speaker is in a dilapidated condition, not the house. But I think sometimes its OK, although grammarians still condemn it: "Without knowing his name, it was difficult to introduce him." Grammarians say that "without knowing his name" modifies "it", but the word "it" doesn't refer to anything in particular and cannot be modified, so it's obvious that the phrase "without knowing his name" doesn't modify "it". Moreover, grammarians seem to be more picky about this when the dangling modifier is at the beginning. They might not even notice the problem if it were rephrased as "It was difficult to introduce him without knowing his name", even though it has the same problem since neither "it" nor "him" are being modified by the phrase! By the way, if the above isn't what you were talking about, perhaps you might be thinking of ending a clause with a preposition, which is what my grandmother incorrectly calls a "dangling participle". (Prepositions are not participles; participles are the -ing and -ed forms of verbs.) - Kef |
|
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
furrykef wrote: By the way, if the above isn't what you were talking about, perhaps you might be thinking of ending a clause with a preposition, which is what my grandmother incorrectly calls a "dangling participle". (Prepositions are not participles; participles are the -ing and -ed forms of verbs.) Yeah, actually, I've heard them called dangling participles so much for some reason that I never questioned it. But now that you mention it, (and I hang my head in shame) it's obvious that makes no sense at all! Participles are clearly not prepositions, which is what I meant. Ambiguity is good to avoid. But as long as people can understand what you mean and it's appropriate to the social context, your sentence is good. Screw what the books say. ramrod wrote: Inverse Tiger wrote: And I'll dangle my participles over your grave. >:D Eww. Gross. that may be illegal in certain states.It's one of those laws that's not really illegal until you're caught tho 
|
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inverse Tiger wrote: It's one of those laws that's not really illegal until you're caught tho Nothing is illegal unless you get caught.
|
|
| Author: | HHFOV [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Whom" is NOT dead. I use it on a regular basis with my friends, and is the proper usage if it is preceded by a preposition, instead of "who". Additionally, my pet peeve is people who say "the reason is because". It's redundant, since you're already implying that you're going to state the reason with "the reason is", and "because" is unnecessary. |
|
| Author: | Homerun Starrer [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: "Whom" is NOT dead. I use it on a regular basis with my friends, wut friends ololololol
But seriously folks, pet peeve: Fat women who insist on wearing clothes that look like they were designed for a barbie dol. We do NOT want to see all that, thank you. Gah, my eyes.... |
|
| Author: | The Noid [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Homer so insensitive. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Noid wrote: Homer so insensitive. But at the same time, speaks many truths.
|
|
| Author: | Chekt [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This kid was overreacting when this rather large girl's granny panties were showing today, and I told him that it could be worse… |
|
| Author: | Homerun Starrer [ Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Noid wrote: Homer so insensitive. I don't sugarcoat the truth, sister.
|
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chekt wrote: This kid was overreacting when this rather large girl's granny panties were showing today, and I told him that it could be worse…
You know, I really don't want to see anyone's underwear. Seriously. Kids, pull up your friggin' pants. Get a belt. |
|
| Author: | Rusty [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
When you start to confuse fat folds and breasts, there is a problem. |
|
| Author: | The Snork [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There was some middle-aged guy in Micro Center with a Michael Moore-esque physique and his pants and underwear were hanging down in the back by about six inches more than they ever should have. My dad and I had to be within range of him for 20 minutes while standing in the line for returns. Jolly good times. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My peeve is the new kid in the dorm next to mine. He decided that the volume on his TV isn't loud enough unless it's making my windows rattle. |
|
| Author: | ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inverse Tiger wrote: Actually, I feel that holding the door open for someone behind you is such a no-brainer that saying thank-you is unnecessary. Everyone does it for everyone, so who cares? At least that's the way it is around here. Normally, people just open doors and push them open behind them so the door stays open long enough for the next person to walk through and hold onto it. Stopping and letting other people pass while holding the door open for them is actually going out of your way, which is probably what Ian's talking about.
Is everyone letting doors shut in their fellow man's face out there in CO? |
|
| Author: | this-guy [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramrod wrote: My peeve is the new kid in the dorm next to mine. He decided that the volume on his TV isn't loud enough unless it's making my windows rattle. Get him some earphones so he'll only make his own ears bleed.
|
|
| Author: | HHFOV [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
StrongRad wrote: Chekt wrote: This kid was overreacting when this rather large girl's granny panties were showing today, and I told him that it could be worse… You know, I really don't want to see anyone's underwear. Seriously. Kids, pull up your friggin' pants. Get a belt. Yeah, I've pointed this out to my wannabe-gangster classmates as well, one of whom replied, "Just because you pull your pants up to your belly button doesn't mean everyone else has to." 
|
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: StrongRad wrote: Chekt wrote: This kid was overreacting when this rather large girl's granny panties were showing today, and I told him that it could be worse… You know, I really don't want to see anyone's underwear. Seriously. Kids, pull up your friggin' pants. Get a belt. Yeah, I've pointed this out to my wannabe-gangster classmates as well, one of whom replied, "Just because you pull your pants up to your belly button doesn't mean everyone else has to." I lol'd. I don't pull my pants up to my belly, either. I used to, just so my gut didn't hang over my belt. That's not as much a problem now (thank you capital fitness). I used to have friends that pulled their pants up over their belly button. Why? |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My wireless mouse quit working on me about half an hour ago. I spent several minutes trying to adjust the receiver, go through the reconnect routine, nothing. Even changed the batteries. Still nothing. Held the mouse like an inch from the receiver and repeated the process. Nothing. Threw mouse against wall, smashing it to bits. THEN I got a little response. Put the mouse back together (don't worry, it's still functional and holding together). Then I turned the receiver upside-down. Now it works perfectly. 
|
|
| Author: | Ju Ju Master [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
... Whatever works, right?
|
|
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Beyond the Grave wrote: Inverse Tiger wrote: It's one of those laws that's not really illegal until you're caught tho Nothing is illegal unless you get caught.I mean like how for instance nudity isn't illegal unless whoever sees you is offended, whereas other crimes are theoretically wrong even if no one sees you. Peeve: My housemate needs to join the 21st century and get a cell phone. I don't like the endless march of technological requirements either, but fact is all social interaction now revolves around it, and his not having one is even starting to inconvenience ME. (Give me convenience or give me death as they say.) He should get one, or go live in a cave. Or join a hippie commune; there's a couple of those around here. |
|
| Author: | furrykef [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Funny, the need for cell phones is my pet peeve.
|
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
People don't actually NEED cell phones. The "need" for a cellphone is a common misconception. Like televisions, new cars, and other "needs" people have. |
|
| Author: | Inverse Tiger [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, sure, almost everything we take for granted isn't really a "need" if you're talking about individual survival. But society organizes itself around certain assumptions, for better or for worse, and this is just one of those things. I think it's pretty lame, too, that we seem forced to accept more and more gadgets just to be able to function socially. But that's how it is, at least with the people around here. I'm really just mad because his refusal to get on the bandwagon has negative social consequences for ME.
|
|
| Author: | furrykef [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
StrongRad wrote: People don't actually NEED cell phones.
The "need" for a cellphone is a common misconception. Like televisions, new cars, and other "needs" people have. I'm pretty sure we've all met somebody who'd totally die without his/her (OK, probably "her") cell phone... |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
EXCUSE ME, BUB? |
|
| Page 247 of 269 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|