From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #187 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, August 4 2005 Volume 14 : Number 187 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: perhaps the new soft boys? [Capuchin ] Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff ["Brian Nupp" ] Time is round. Space is curved. Jeff is insane. [The Great Quail ] Re: Time is round. Space is curved. Jeff is insane. [Tom Clark ] Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat ["Brian Nupp" ] Attn: M. Wells: Milwaukeean says something nice about Chicago [Jeff ] Re: English like what she is spoked [James Dignan ] efficiency and progress is ours once more! [Jeff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 01:59:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > Fascism was definitely anti-liberal, but anti-communist? Oh, ABSOLUTELY! Communism requires the means of production to be in the hands of the workers. Fascists firmly believed that people had a right to private property including (and perhaps especially) land and capital. Fascism is a straight-up rejection of socialist values across the board. In fact, it's not horribly inaccurate (though simplistic, obviously) to boil down World War II to the battle between Fascist and Socialist elements within Europe and Asia. Of course, the massive industrial boom created by the war put enormous wealth and power back into the hands of American industrialists who were largely fascist or fascist sympathizers (Ford, Carnegie, Bush, et al.) and then the rise of the military-industrial complex of which Eisenhower warned us (as that was the big change he saw between his pre-war political activities and his post-war presidency and it scared him) ensured enduring power for that little clique. > That's like saying the Democrats are anti-Green. Sure, the Democrats > don't appreciate that Nader took just enough of the vote in 2000 to keep > Gore from a clear victory, but on many issues there is strong agreement. > I would describe the Fascism/Communism struggle as an internecine one > instead. The differences between Hitler and Stalin in most terms > amounted to the differences between Stalin and Trotsky or Hitler and > Strasser, not those between Stalin and (say) Thomas Jefferson. Uh, what? Stalin and Hitler were both sociopathic zealots who rounded people up and killed them for political purposes, but that's about where the comparison ends. They had completely different ideological justifications for their maniacal actions. Jefferson and Stalin both ostensibly supported liberalism, but Stalin, of course, distrusted the uneducated masses. So Stalin is more like Madison than Jefferson and with a whole lot more immediate power (though arguably Madison's power was greater since the effect of his work has been more enduring). > I would also say that Mussolini's words are not so different from Marx's > contention that the all economic power was hosted in the workers, and > that they should translate that power into political power, resulting in > a merger of the state and economic power. Woah. Not quite. Marx was making an observation about who really did control the means of production; i.e., if workers stopped working, the economy halts but if owners stop owning, shit still gets done. So the economy is controlled by the workers who are in the majority. So IF your state is also controlled by the majority, then the state and the economy are controlled by the same group and follow one will. Mussolini, on the other hand, was arguing for MORE control by the owners and putting THEM in direct control of the state. The soviets (and I use this term in its original meaning to describe the groups of workers, soldiers, tradesmen, etc. that were assembled to make decisions about the issues that directly concerned the vocations of their members) were comprised of the people who did the work. The Italian corporate syndacates were comprised of owners and delegates of industrial and economic organizations who neither elected by nor from the general public. While Stalin had perverted and corrupted the system of soviets that were assembled after the revolution, they were still the ideal of his people and the rhetorical touchstone for his appeals. > The major difference between Fascism and Communism, as Ludwig von Mises > noted at the time, was that it was better for those in capitalist > countries to cede their control to a government that would turn them > from capitalists to mere shop stewards than to turn them from > capitalists into unmarked graves. This is a "lesser evil" argument for the support of Fascism. In other words, the right-wing economic philosphers supported the fascists over the communists when asked to pick sides. Tell me something I don't know. >> By watering down this term and applying it broadly (and only) to >> totalitarian dictators, we lose the ability to accurately draw >> parallels between modern political movements and the movement fronted >> by Mussolini in the last century. > > That is only true if you are looking for an easy way to draw unthinking > parallels between politicians and political parties you don't like and > Hitler. Uh, what?!? If the term "Fascism" is limited only to totalitarian dictators and applies to ALL totalitarian dictators, then we lose the one word that describes the exact policies of the Fascisti and when we DO reference the Fascisti our audience, knowing only this faulty definition of the word "fascist", will have a flawed point of reference and probably not understand the important details of the discussion. If I want to an easy way to draw unthinking parallels between politicians and political parties I don't like and Hitler, I will look ONLY at their totalitarian dictatorship and say "See! They're Fascists!" This would be easy and it would draw up all the emotional glup of WWII and Hitler and still be totally inaccurate because the totalitarian dictator would not necessarily support the values of the Fascisti. The bad definition given by M-W actually ENCOURAGES this kind of thing rather than limiting it. That's a totally unthinking parallel... and, in fact, it's exactly what you did with Stalin and Communism above (and we already know that's an economic system you don't like). > Sweeping generalizations that would be prevented by this (accurate) > definition are the antithesis of the accuracy you profess to desire in > drawing parallels. Huh?!? You concede that Fascism is inherently anti-liberal but now claim that the M-W definition is "accurate" without a single mention of its anti-liberal nature! Clearly the definition is DEEPLY flawed. I DO have a desire to draw parallels, but there is no way to do it easily AND accurately because the meanings of the words have been co-opted and twisted. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:36:42 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff Maybe I shouldn't have posted that link! I'm scared to write anything to this list now in fear of scorning eyes! - ---- Original Message ---- From: capuchin@bitmine.net To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT) >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, rubrshrk wrote: >> 1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the >dictionary. I >> always want to say, "you mean, without no regard?" > >Cute. I just might use that one... but only if the person can take >it. > >> 4. "Excellant"- I had never seen anybody misspell this this way >until >> ebay, and now it seems like this is how it is spelled half of the >time >> on the internet. > >Oooh! Yeah. Misspellings in general bother me quite a bit. I >usually >consider any single letter inserted or substituted or any single pair >of >letters transposed to be a typographical error and, while I usually >notice, I don't consider it a sign of ignorance or, depending on >context, >laziness. But when it's a vowel that's out of place, I have a hard >time >applying that rationale. > >The greatest offender to me, though, is "definately". It drives me >up the >wall. Having written that, I suspect I might see it on the list much >more >in the future. > >> There are more, but luckily that is all the nails-on-chalkboard >stuff I >> can stand to think about at the moment. > >eddie didn't pipe up with his hatred of the use of the word >"devolved" to >mean some kind of backward evolution or the opposite of "evolved". >Since >he mentioned it, I've been noticing it as well and it really is >frustrating. > >> Last thing, I had dinner with Big Bayard, Little Bayard (our >Bayard), >> Tom Clark, Russ Reynolds, and Nick Winkworth last night. >[snip] >> We had a blast, but still could have used more of the gang present. > >I so wanted to be there. I've got stories. > >> I get to see a subset of them probably around the end of the week. >Hope >> y'all are doing well. And I hope I didn't commit too many language >> errors. > >Fuck you, Mark Gloster. > >J. >-- >_______________________________________________ > >Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:55:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: speaking of semantics.... Capuchin: > Consider M-W's definition of "fascism": > > 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as > that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the > individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government > headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social > regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition > 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or > dictatorial control > > Contrast this with, say, Mussolini's words: > > "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism for it is the merger of > state and corporate power." Maybe I'm leaping to conclusions here, but ... are you assuming that Mussolini's "corporate power" refers to capitalist business corporations? 'Cause that's not what he meant. In Italian fascist ideology, "corporatism" actually meant organizing the economy into big conglomerates or "corporations," one for each sector of the economy, that would bring together big and small businesses, labor organizations, and of course overseers from the ruling party. (This is actually an idea that predates fascism, except for the ruling-party-overseers part.) > There's nothing in the M-W definition that describes the essential > requirement that Fascism be anti-communist and anti-liberal, for > example. Their definition missed the anti-communist (or more broadly anti-Marxist) part, true, but the parts about autocratic government, dictatorship, and severe economic and social regimentation cover the anti-liberal part pretty well. IMO an even bigger problem with the M-W definition is that it misses the revolutionary and mass-mobilization aspects that separate fascism from other kinds of right-wing authoritarianism. > By watering down this term and applying it broadly (and only) to > totalitarian dictators, we lose the ability to accurately draw > parallels between modern political movements and the movement fronted > by Mussolini in the last century. You can still draw accurate *parallels* between fascists and non-fascists, can't you? A parallel is not an equation. IMO it's broadening "fascism" to include non-totalitarian, non-dictatorial movements that waters the term down. Speaking of totalitarianism -- if you're going to define fascism via Mussolini quotes, remember that it was the M-man who popularized (not invented) the term by so describing his Fascist regime. Marc: > Fascism was definitely anti-liberal, but anti-communist? That's like > saying the Democrats are anti-Green. Sure, the Democrats don't > appreciate that Nader took just enough of the vote in 2000 to keep > Gore from a clear victory, but on many issues there is strong > agreement. I would describe the Fascism/Communism struggle as an > internecine one instead. The differences between Hitler and Stalin in > most terms amounted to the differences between Stalin and Trotsky or > Hitler and Strasser, not those between Stalin and(say) Thomas > Jefferson. I disagree. Though fascist and communist regimes come out looking very similar, this is NOT because the ideologies are essentially the same. It's more of a case of convergent evolution, analogous to the way sharks and dolphins wound up having very similar shapes despite their very different ancestries and metabolisms. Not that I'm saying they're completely different -- not at all. But while ideological similarities exist, they are either very broad and shared with other movements like anarchism (eg, they are revolutionary and anti-liberal), or else they start from similar bases but come to opposite conclusions (eg, both see society dominated by class struggle, but fascists seek to end it by promoting national or racial unity, while communists seek to end the struggle by having one side win and absorb the other). The differences are too great to see them as two branches of the same movement. But I should emphasize that I'm talking about ideology, not practice, here. The difference would probably be of little interest to most of the people each regime shot in the back of the neck. With apologies to the dolphins, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:27:29 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Time is round. Space is curved. Jeff is insane. Tom -- Is that wording on the mouse ad your contribution? That's awesome! Also -- JEFF MANGUM IS BACK?!?!?!?! We need a Nasalpaloozafest, with Robyn, Colin, and Jeff -- all playing each other's music! Woo-hoo! - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:50:46 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Time is round. Space is curved. Jeff is insane. On 8/4/05, The Great Quail wrote: > Also -- JEFF MANGUM IS BACK?!?!?!?! > > We need a Nasalpaloozafest, with Robyn, Colin, and Jeff -- all playing each > other's music! Woo-hoo! Don't forget Teenage Fanclub's Raymond McGinley. Raymond also looks like the lost love child of Robyn and the Go-Betweens Robert Forrester. BTW I just got Obliteration Pie in the mail and it is both fun and frivolous. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:07:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff no, please, keep it up On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Brian Nupp wrote: > Maybe I shouldn't have posted that link! I'm scared to write anything > to this list now in fear of scorning eyes! > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: capuchin@bitmine.net > To: fegmaniax@smoe.org > Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT) > > >On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, rubrshrk wrote: > >> 1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the > >dictionary. I > >> always want to say, "you mean, without no regard?" > > > >Cute. I just might use that one... but only if the person can take > >it. > > > >> 4. "Excellant"- I had never seen anybody misspell this this way > >until > >> ebay, and now it seems like this is how it is spelled half of the > >time > >> on the internet. > > > >Oooh! Yeah. Misspellings in general bother me quite a bit. I > >usually > >consider any single letter inserted or substituted or any single pair > >of > >letters transposed to be a typographical error and, while I usually > >notice, I don't consider it a sign of ignorance or, depending on > >context, > >laziness. But when it's a vowel that's out of place, I have a hard > >time > >applying that rationale. > > > >The greatest offender to me, though, is "definately". It drives me > >up the > >wall. Having written that, I suspect I might see it on the list much > >more > >in the future. > > > >> There are more, but luckily that is all the nails-on-chalkboard > >stuff I > >> can stand to think about at the moment. > > > >eddie didn't pipe up with his hatred of the use of the word > >"devolved" to > >mean some kind of backward evolution or the opposite of "evolved". > >Since > >he mentioned it, I've been noticing it as well and it really is > >frustrating. > > > >> Last thing, I had dinner with Big Bayard, Little Bayard (our > >Bayard), > >> Tom Clark, Russ Reynolds, and Nick Winkworth last night. > >[snip] > >> We had a blast, but still could have used more of the gang present. > > > >I so wanted to be there. I've got stories. > > > >> I get to see a subset of them probably around the end of the week. > >Hope > >> y'all are doing well. And I hope I didn't commit too many language > >> errors. > > > >Fuck you, Mark Gloster. > > > >J. > >-- > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:31:43 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Minor Threat vs Major Threat Lately I've been doing some recording for a friend. Jeff Nelson of Dischord Records is doing some drum parts and last night we were over his place and I noticed a newspaper clipping on his desk. This was the info, but from another source: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-06/23.shtml Amazing! This is old news, but I just can't believe Nike would let this slip through. It's a blatant trademark infringement! That's a pretty big screw up. I wonder what the outcome will be. - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:35:16 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Time is round. Space is curved. Jeff is insane. On Aug 4, 2005, at 9:27 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > Tom -- > > Is that wording on the mouse ad your contribution? That's awesome! 'fraid not. Took me by surprise when I saw it. > > Also -- JEFF MANGUM IS BACK?!?!?!?! > > We need a Nasalpaloozafest, with Robyn, Colin, and Jeff -- all > playing each > other's music! Woo-hoo! > Let me know when and where so I know where NOT to be! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:49:37 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Brian Nupp wrote: > Lately I've been doing some recording for a friend. Jeff Nelson of > Dischord Records is doing some drum parts... Dude, how cool are you? I just finished the Minor Threat chapter of "Our Band Could Be Your Life"* and I can't imagine how neat it would be to hang around with those guys. > ...and last night we were over > his place and I noticed a newspaper clipping on his desk. This was > the info, but from another source: > > http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-06/23.shtml > > Amazing! This is old news, but I just can't believe Nike would let > this slip through. It's a blatant trademark infringement! That's a > pretty big screw up. I wonder what the outcome will be. Is it a trademark infringement? How about all those album covers that rip off the look of Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue"? I don't want to defend Nike one bit, but I just don't know if there's a case here. - -tc *Required reading for everybody on this list. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:23:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat Tom Clark wrote: > On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Brian Nupp wrote: > > ...and last night we were over > > his place and I noticed a newspaper clipping on his > > desk. This was the info, but from another source: > > > > http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-06/23.shtml > > > > Amazing! This is old news, but I just can't believe > > Nike would let this slip through. It's a blatant > > trademark infringement! That's a pretty big screw up. > > I wonder what the outcome will be. Nike already withdrew the ad and apologized. Right after this happenned, I stumble across a blog where some people were parodying this incident with their own possible "future" examples, though I can't remember where. Most were pretty lame, but a few were pretty funny (White Album as Liquid Paper ad, Ocean Rain for Mapquest, Debut for Banana Republic, Tom Waits's Closing Time for Doritos [esp. in light of his lawsuit vs. Fritos a few years back]) > Is it a trademark infringement? How about all those > album covers that rip off the look of Miles Davis' "Kind > Of Blue"? I don't want to defend Nike one bit, but I > just don't know if there's a case here. I doubt there is too; I would guess the main reason Nike pulled the ad was related to a fear of lack of creidiblity than any legal issues. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:27:48 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat Tom Clark wrote: >> Lately I've been doing some recording for a friend. Jeff Nelson of >> Dischord Records is doing some drum parts... > >Dude, how cool are you? Buy my album and find out. ;) > I just finished the Minor Threat chapter of > >"Our Band Could Be Your Life"* and I can't imagine how neat it would > >be to hang around with those guys. Seriously, I'd heard of Minor Threat, but never *heard* them before I met Jeff. He's a really good drummer and super nice guy. It doesn't seem like he could be in a punk band! >> ...and last night we were over >> his place and I noticed a newspaper clipping on his desk. This was >> the info, but from another source: >> >> http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/05-06/23.shtml >> >> Amazing! This is old news, but I just can't believe Nike would let >> this slip through. It's a blatant trademark infringement! That's a >> pretty big screw up. I wonder what the outcome will be. > >Is it a trademark infringement? How about all those album covers >that rip off the look of Miles Davis' "Kind Of Blue"? I don't want >to defend Nike one bit, but I just don't know if there's a case here. I'm not a trademark attorney, but I know (from a little bit of experience) that there is a case if it "proves confusion in the market place." It does seem like the band Minor Threat was endorsing a Nike product, but they certainly were not. - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:38:01 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat tc: > I just finished the Minor Threat chapter of > "Our Band Could Be Your Life"* and I can't imagine how neat it would > >be to hang around with those guys. >*Required reading for everybody on this list. I just finished reading 2 Kurt Vonnegut books (thanks to Eddie's false REAP), and I'm dying to read this book about Squeeze, which has yet to arrive, but that sounds like a good one to add to the list. - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:45:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Minor Threat vs Major Threat On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Right after this happenned, I stumble across a blog where > some people were parodying this incident with their own > possible "future" examples, though I can't remember where. That's no blog, that's ILX! http://ilx.p3r.net/thread.php?msgid=5942033 > I doubt there is too; I would guess the main reason Nike pulled the ad > was related to a fear of lack of creidiblity than any legal issues. Well, practically speaking any legal issues they faced could probably have been made moot by having a lot more money and lawyerage than Dischord, right? But falsely implying that someone famous endorses a product is, I think, easier to win a case on than copyright infringement if all other things are equal. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:51:21 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Attn: M. Wells: Milwaukeean says something nice about Chicago So I'm reading The Onion AV Club's article about this year's Lollapalooza, and the writers note that on Sunday (the hottest day of the year), the Chicago Transit Authority parked a few buses on the grounds, with their air-conditioners running, for relief of the concertgoers. That's just really a great, thoughtful idea - I tip my metaphorical cheese-shaped hat to the CTA. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:32:24 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Wesley Willis Does anyone have any Wesley Willis albums (preferably self-released, and no compilations) that they might be willing to send me or point me to?? They are very hard to find nowadays. =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:00:41 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: English like what she is spoked >That all said, I'm going to list a few language pet peeves that drive me nuts >from their ubiquitous usage (but I try to avoid gutting people like trout >when they commit them): > >1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the dictionary. I >always want to say, "you mean, without no regard?" >2. Using "infer" when meaning "imply" >3. Using "mistrust" when meaning "distrust" >4. "Excellant"- I had never seen anybody misspell this this way until ebay, >and now it seems like this is how it is spelled half of the time on the >internet. 1. Using "swim" to mean "swimming" (As in a Swim meeting or Swim team) and any similar usages. Equally saying the date as "August five" 2. Using "alternate" to mean "alternative" (maybe this is an American thing?). Alternate is a verb meaning to change repeatedly between two things. 3. "The quick and the dead" - quick means "living", not "fast", in this context! 4. to add to Excellant and definately we have "catagory" 5. Dare I mention the pronunciation "nucular"? There are no doubt others, but those off the top of my head will suffice for now. > > Maybe before a long time, our language will completely >disintegrate under the >> weight of poor grammar and the usage of internet messenger "literary" >> shortcuts. the sentence is "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding"! James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:05:46 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Re: Wesley Willis On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, John Barrington Jones wrote: > Does anyone have any Wesley Willis albums (preferably self-released, and no > compilations) that they might be willing to send me or point me to?? > They are very hard to find nowadays. P.S. mp3 format is fine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:12:21 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: efficiency and progress is ours once more! Here's an article, originally in the New York Times: . I believe in the original article, the writer continued by noting that the Morgan Stanley board of directors then purchased the Brooklyn Bridge, announced its ownership of property rights on prime Florida swampland real estate, and revealed that it had invested extensively in managing the portfolio of several exiled former Nigerian politicians and business leaders. Also, several high-ranking executives invested stockholder money in a fund that would pay only when the Chicago Cubs win the World Series. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:20:56 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: English like what she is spoked On 8/4/05, James Dignan wrote: > >1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the dictionary. Just a side comment (I know James didn't write this): just because something's in the dictionary doesn't imply approval. I'm almost certain the dictionary entry will also inform you that "irregardless" is substandard usage. > 1. Using "swim" to mean "swimming" (As in a Swim meeting or Swim > team) and any similar usages. You've mentioned this before, and I'm still not sure why it bugs you so... Why shouldn't that be a specialized usage (like "the batter flied out to left field in his last at-bat" in baseball) among swimmers? (And I suppose you'd hate it more if it were "swim meet" rather than "swim meeting" - I usually do hear it the first way!) > 2. Using "alternate" to mean "alternative" (maybe this is an American > thing?). Alternate is a verb meaning to change repeatedly between two > things. Maybe. From the American Heritage Dictionary, New College Edition, usage note at "alternative": "*Alternate* ...also pertain[s] to choice in the sense of substitution (second choice)." I assume this is what you mean - as in "her alternate selection was the flounder"? > 3. "The quick and the dead" - quick means "living", not "fast", in > this context! Errr...who uses the word "quick" in the sense of "living" outside this entombed phrase? I don't think anyone thinks it means "fast-moving dead" - although someone in a zombie movie ought to use the line! - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #187 ********************************