RoR: Forum

PS:

I sorta GPL'd the thing, I think. Feel free to add your own (original and non-redundant) contributions. This could turn into a wiki thing.

Puzzle: One among the list is out of context. I'll bonk a sanction for the first correct indentification hereof.

Post 1

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 10:42am

After a quick read, I didn't catch the context mistake, but there is a typo in the first use of "eschew," spelled "Eshew."

Post 2

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:19am

Asterisks are not quotation mark?

Post 3

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:44am

Oopsie on "Eshew." Obviously, I didn't use a spelchekker on the joke.
Rationalization: I was "abbreviating" it.

No Robert, not that one.

Post 4

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:56am

This raises something that irks me. Quotation marks are used for, well, quoting and also to make a mockery of something. For instance, if I said this man is a "doctor" I would be implying he isn't really or at least is a quack.

People try to use quotation marks for emphasis when really either italics or asterisks should be used.

Just had to get that one off my chest. :-)

Jason

Post 5

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 12:06pm

There is already an objective way to provide emphasis:

I am num++!

Had to get that one off my chest too. :-)

Post 6

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 12:52pm

Numb be as num is.......

Post 7

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 2:23pm

Asterisks are the way to indicate italics when formatting is not possible. NEVER QUOTATION MARKS!

This reminds me of the long-inactive but still damn funny Gallery Of "Misused" Quotation Marks. One of my first bookmarks when I started interneting back in '96...

Post 8

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 3:54pm

"The use of onomatopoeia is a purr or hiss proposition."

Here we go again......

Post 9

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 6:45pm

Isn't "Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in his writing" correct?

Post 10

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:11pm

Angela Lucas wrote: "Asterisks are the way to indicate italics when formatting is not possible."

From the days of the typewriter, I indicate italics with underlining. With computers, it looks like this:
My favorite book is _Atlas Shrugged_.

Eve V. Stenson asked: "Isn't 'Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in his writing.' correct?"

Personally, I would force the agreement with "... use a singular pronoun with a singular noun in his writing." The point Eve makes is valid, though. "Everyone... his..." shows agreement. I have a problem with the gender bias in that, though, and I write "Everyone ... their..." or "Everyone... our..." or otherwise rewrite to avoid "his" while not pushing our language too far out of shape.

I started a business to enhance the democratic process in my county. (Click on www.washtenawvoters.com.) I sent letters to all of the Republican Party and Democratic Party precinct delegates chosen in the last primary. I asked each of them to consider running for Ann Arbor city council, and offered to work on their campaign. I got this reply.

Hello, Whomever your are:

I received your letter today and found it most interesting. Firstly you
invite me to file for City Council in Ann Arbor. Interestingly, I served
on that body from April, 1978 to April, 1982.

Secondly, I happen to like my councilmember who is running for re-election.

Thirdly, I have been involved with the city elections much longer than you
have. It is interesting that you put no telephone number into your letter.

I wish you well in your endeavors. I hope that you will consider
supporting Stabenow and Granholm next year in November.

Susan Greenberg

We tend to be more forgiving with online communication. It may be a good thing. On one message forum, one of the regulars consistently writes "whom" for "who." What is funny about that is that he is relatively educated and knows a bit of Russian, a language with (I think) six cases. So, he should know the difference between nominative and objective, but apparently he does not -- and he is not alone. (Public education is free and worth every cent.) As for being whoever I am, I did sign the letter "Michael E. Marotta." It was not anonymous.

Post 11

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 10:51pm

The rule about prepositions reminds me of one of my favorite bits of humor:

A young boy doesn't want to go to bed. His father promises to read to him if he's ready and in bed in 10 minutes. The boy accepts, and runs upstairs.

A few minutes later, the boy calls out that he's ready. The father grabs a book that takes place in Australia, and heads upstairs to read to his son.

Unfortunately, this is the boy's least favorite book, and he's disappointed that this is the promised book. He asks his father, "What did you bring that book, which I didn't want to be read to from out of, about Down Under, up for?"

(Edited by Scott Cram
on 6/04, 7:11am)

Post 12

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 7:36am

Was it perhaps the Habit many People have of capitalising (non-proper) Nouns in English - as if it's German?

;-)

Post 13

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 12:45pm

Eve V. Stenson is correct, "Everyone.... his..." is in agreement. The piece now has two typos, a wrong one and a right one!

Katdaddy, the joke in the line "The use of onomatopoeia is..." is that the sentence itself uses onomatopoeia, but it neither purrs nor hisses (it is judgement neutral). Personally, the purring and hissing on this site is fine with me, but no scratching!

Nice quote Scott Cram; if the book was about politics, would there be a chance to insert 'left' and 'right' there?

Speculation: Perhaps the reason that quotation marks have become de facto "mock marks" is the common practice of using someone's word against him. Much of common writing is cynical or sarcastic in character, so it's plausible that this practice has been absorbed into the culture without many people realizing it, simply by reading example after example of sarcasm.

Folks, please remember that these are all jokes. Don't turn this thread into a rational discussion. That would be a disgrace...

To understate, put forth your earthshaking ideas!!!

______________________

PS: I can't believe the out-of-context one hasn't been found yet. Maybe the finder just doesn't care to inform anyone. Or the joke just stinks... Ah well...

Post 14

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 3:45pm

Wayne Dam asked: "Was it perhaps the Habit many People have of capitalising (non-proper) Nouns in English - as if it's German?"

Well, actually, that is an archaism. English was very much more like German than it is today, of course, and capitalizing Nouns was common enough. Even into Our Time, intelligent and literate people do capitalize important albeit, not proper, nouns. What spin would you put on the difference between Objectivism and objectivism or Communism and communism. Is a small-l lbertarian a small-d democrat?

Post 15

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 7:23pm

num++ asks:
Nice quote Scott Cram; if the book was about politics, would there be a chance to insert 'left' and 'right' there?

Well, let's try it:

A young boy doesn't want to go to bed. His father promises to read to him if he's ready and in bed in 10 minutes. The boy accepts, and runs upstairs.

A few minutes later, the boy calls out that he's ready. The father grabs a book about Australian politics, and heads upstairs to read to his son.

Unfortunately, this is the boy's least favorite book, and he's disappointed that this is the promised book. He asks his father, "What did you bring that book, which I didn't want to be read to from out of, about Down Under's left/right, up for?"

Post 16

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 2:09pm

Today, Tibor Machan confessed to a guilty pleasure -- no, not that one; what's to confess about that, eh? -- and he wrote: "Witnessing one�s adversaries being hoisted on their own petard is indeed a guilty pleasure of mine ..."

However, he misused the phrase. He is not alone in seeming to accept a "petard" as some kind of pike. To be hoisted ON a thing might be to be impaled on it. In fact, the phrase is "hoist by his own petard." The easiest citation to to Bartleby.com.

(pi-TAHRD) To be caught in one�s own trap: �The swindler cheated himself out of most of his money, and his victims were satisfied to see him hoist by his own petard.� A �petard� was an explosive device used in medieval warfare. To be hoisted, or lifted, by a petard literally means to be blown up. (See http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/hoistbyoneso.html)

Hoist is already in the past tense. (It is an archaism. Children, brethern and oxen are archaic plurals. Cherries is the false plural of cheris, one being a "cherry" by back formation. "Petard" is etymologically related to "fart." You can follow the logic on your own.)

Post 17

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:05pm

My favorite grammar-related joke has to do with prepositions...

A new student was walking somewhat uncertainly across
campus and stopped a passerby, asking him this question:
"Could you please tell me where the library is at?"

The passerby replied: "I'm sorry, that is such terrible grammar,
I'm not going to give you directions until you rephrase your
question so that it doesn't have a preposition at the end."

And the student then said: "OK, could you please tell me
where the library is at, asshole?"

:-)

REB

Post 18

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:45pm

My favorite grammar-related joke (if joke it may be called) is also about ending sentences with prepositions. It inspires me, because it contains the only sentence I know of which ends in six consecutive prepositions.

A father walks upstairs with a book, from which he plans to read his little daughter a bedtime story. Seeing the book he has chosen, she cries out, "What did you bring that book I don't like being read to out of up for?"

JR

Post 19

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:58pm