Courtesy and Respect

I hear thee.

Oops!  My mistake.  I didn't realize you were in charge.

Grammar is one of the few non-chess subjects we can still discuss at will, since the recent appearance of the chesstapo forum censors.

"Should of" seems to appear in dialogue in older stories far more frequently than "should've." Both are informal alternatives to "should have."

"Should've" is an informal alternative to "should have".  "Should of" is just poor English.

maybe 'should of' sound more like 'sort of''  ?

This thread is getting just plain BORRING.

May I take it that the "RR" in boring represents the sound of a rock-drill? 

 Er, no, it doesn't make sense, not by itself. You have inferred the intended meaning, but that's not the same thing . As I said, chafing at the underpants is nonsense as well, but you would also be able to understand that. I expect chafing on the bit would be acceptable, but then that sounds like an observation rather than an idiom.

And 'should of' is wrong. That is one mistake that is widely repeated but which also makes no sense. You can't replace a verb with a preposition and expect it to have the same meaning. Language has rules, and this is simply an error.

Eebster, I have always understood that it is another "think" coming, and that it got misheard and repeated incorrectly. Usually, the admonishment went along the lines of, 'if you think you'll get away with that, you have another think coming'. The play on words escapes some people and they just hear it as another "thing" coming (which also doesn't make sense).

Why would you challenge random people and then be angry they don't respond to you?

That is what the seek games is for.  It's for people who want to play with random people. 

Chomping at the bit. (to get to the end of this thread)

I couldn't care less. (what came before my own post)

(This thread) should have (died a long time ago)

toot

Who me? I'm acting like an arbiter? It's called an education, I was passing it on. I already mentioned that things become the norm if repeated, however wrong they may originally be. Not sure why you are now telling me the same thing?

And I'm really not following your last comment. I said chafing on the bit would be acceptable grammatically, as in a vet might say, 'that horse's mouth has been chafing on the bit', which is why I went on to explain, for the hard of thinking, that that would sound more like an observation than an idiom.

As I said, language has rules, and just because they don't teach those rules in Australian high schools, it does NOT mean it's OK to pretend they don't exist and make up what you like then say you are right. How on Earth would anyone learn a new language if there were no rules?

I wonder whether discussions on rudeness and disregard always end up bedevilled by politeness and good manners.

You're very bossy. Stop doing this, go and do that, tell people the other. What if they are like you, and don't want to be told?

Let's put it another way, and I've mentioned this a couple of times, do you think chafing at the underpants makes sense? It doesn't matter that you undestand the intent. I hear people all the time say things like, "I could of gone there and arksed him but I di-int an' I could care less." I know what they mean, and those phrases are widely used, but do you really think it's OK for kids to be taught that in schools?

And you've set up a bit of a straw man there as well - I never said I disputed the validity of anything - as an idiom, chafing at the bit is fine. You could say 'seaweeding at the mushroom' or 'gnarling at the up' for all I care. All I said was it didn't make sense to me - you seem to think it does. Accepting something and claiming it is sensible are two quite different things however.

And I didn't call anybody foolish either. There are plenty of sayings in the English language that don't appear to make much sense yet have an accepted meaning. "He popped his clogs", "I'm done in", "things are on the up and up", "the long and the short of it", whatever, you could come up with hundreds. I don't dispute any of them, and I said as much in my original post.

Yes, you both have the right to be bossy or neither of you do, very nice, but besides literal meaning vs intended and acknowledged meaning there are also different levels of seriousness to a conversation.  What I mean is you can't except to burst into a conversation where at one point they're looking up Mr. Ed's horse dictionary (lol) to put on your serious face and educate everyone.  In my opinion that's why you were met with opposition, not because an issue of who is/isn't a bossy hypocrite or who's the most brushed up on their etymology ;)

Eebster wrote-

Well, statistics are looking pretty positive for the US at least (as a whole). Crime rates are down. Teen pregnancy is down. Drug use is down. Smoking is down. Charity is up. Overall, it is hard to point to any real evidence of "moral decay."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't believe everything you read. Statistics can be manipulated to send whatever message we want to send. Do you really believe that the crime rate is down?  Even if it is...what this is saying is that crime is increasing at a lower rate than the last measured period. So if the crime rate was 100% measured at the previous period...and now it is increasing by 80%...yes, the rate is down...but total crime has increased...our situation totally is worst off, not better.

The same thing for drug use...if this is down, then where did all the previous addicts disappear to? They were all rehabilitated? Come on.

Smoking is down? Yeah right...only when we fill out our insurance questionnaires. Again, this is a highly addictive drug...easy to start, very difficult to stop. Most people hide this information for insurance purposes, or even from their spouses. And what about all those 11 year olds+ in school...they have all not been included in these statistics.

In Canada, the official smoking number is 20%...again, trying to fool the poplulation. Do you really believe that only 2 out of every 10 people you meet smoke? Everyone here knows that this stat is laughable.

When I was doing my first year of statistics at university, my professor wrote on the board-

Fibs, white lies, lies, damn lies....and then statistics. He said this was the order of "untruths"...

Hmm, Mr.orangehonda... it would seem that this was a serious conversation about etiquette and whatnot, then some people burst in and started horsing around . I expect it all got a bit too serious (but it was nevertheless interesting to some people). I feel it's also possible that I met with opposition because someone <ahem> didn't read proper what I writ, innit?

Turning to the much lighter subject of moral turpitude, put it this way: the kids I know today are better behaved and have higher personal standards than the kids I knew when I was a teenager. I'm trying to think, but I'm sure I don't know any pregnant 16 year-olds at the moment, but there were loads when I was younger (not me yer honour). Smoking is definitely down - 25 years ago, maybe half the people I knew smoked. Today it would likely be 10% - 20%. But muggings, burglaries, car theft, vandalism... much, much, much more common now.

Or perhaps I have just come up in the world?

Fer sure, most us too stoopid too grok you proper.  Also thinks yer "ers" "ahems", winking smilies, and general tone are irritating and condescending.

 I'd hardly see a decline in smoking as evidence of moral progress.

padman, you ignored my question again. You have yet to show me how it makes sense, *shrugs*. Obviously you can't so I'm a bit confused why you keep coming here sniping at me. It appears you misunderstood me, had a go, and now won't back off. You're just redefining your position to remain opposed to me when you shouldn't have jumped in with both feet, issuing demands and instructions to begin with. And good for you being happy, they do say ignorance is bliss.

Cystem_Phailure, they're called emoticons, and are meant to show that I am not being too serious. If you think that is condescending, you don't know much about web etiquette either. Doesn't your ignorance embarrass you? I could have just said, "Oi, moron, next time pay attention in English class", but I was trying to explain myself in a friendly way. That offends you? Strewth!

Atos, what? Eebster brought up smoking, jesterville said he didn't think it had reduced, I said I know fewer people who smoke today than I did years ago (maybe they all died of lung cancer). But you quoted me and disagreed that it was morally relevant? Am I being overly sensitive here, or are you also trying to have a go at me for something that I didn't say? I was simply continuing the conversation. Apologies if you just quoted me as the last person to comment on the subject, but when you quote someone it looks like you are replying to them specifically, rather than to the topic in general.

Whatever next? Lemme guess: someone else wades in and claims I have offended them by having a go at mushrooms?

 I just quoted you as the last person who commented on that, hadn't followed that closely.