Does Silver Slimer means thief?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:55:07 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 12:47 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:24:27 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 12:12 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

No, I wasn't. g And back in those days (the 1950s) there were very
few female chess players, and most of them were old and ugly. And very
few of them played well. There were *many* American men who played
much better than I did, but I was approximately the same strength as
all the best American woman players.

In my case, I'm probably the worst chess player you would ever play
with. I would assume that the best players are the ones who are
generally good at planning ahead in their own lives. I'm not one of
those people.


Those days are well behind me, but I was a very active tournament
players in those days. I worked very hard at it, and hoped to become
world's champion one day. The reason I was a poor Latin student (and
other subjects too) was because I spent much more time studying chess
than what I should've g been studying.

I got better at chess and was a fairly highly-rated player in those
days, but I never got anywhere near world champion strength.

In my case, the moment puberty hit and girls became triply appealing to
me, my brain's resources were allocated to admiring the fairer sex
rather than advancing my mathematical and scientific knowledge. I did
pretty well for myself considering everything but not as well as I could
have.

That would have been the time when you decided NOT to be gay, Right???
Do gays and lesbians have any more choice in their gender orientation
than you or I had. I fell in love with my first little sweetheart when
we were both 5 years old. She lived across the street from my
grandparents' general store and I would go visit her every time my mom
went to the store to buy groceries.

I'm quite sure that at the age of 5 this was not a physical sex
oriented attraction we had for each other. It was the way our minds
were programmed and I really had no other option. Gordon

Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:55:07 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 12:47 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:24:27 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 12:12 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

No, I wasn't. g And back in those days (the 1950s) there were very
few female chess players, and most of them were old and ugly. And very
few of them played well. There were *many* American men who played
much better than I did, but I was approximately the same strength as
all the best American woman players.

In my case, I'm probably the worst chess player you would ever play
with. I would assume that the best players are the ones who are
generally good at planning ahead in their own lives. I'm not one of
those people.


Those days are well behind me, but I was a very active tournament
players in those days. I worked very hard at it, and hoped to become
world's champion one day. The reason I was a poor Latin student (and
other subjects too) was because I spent much more time studying chess
than what I should've g been studying.

I got better at chess and was a fairly highly-rated player in those
days, but I never got anywhere near world champion strength.

In my case, the moment puberty hit and girls became triply appealing to
me, my brain's resources were allocated to admiring the fairer sex
rather than advancing my mathematical and scientific knowledge. I did
pretty well for myself considering everything but not as well as I could
have.

That would have been the time when you decided NOT to be gay, Right???
Do gays and lesbians have any more choice in their gender orientation
than you or I had. I fell in love with my first little sweetheart when
we were both 5 years old. She lived across the street from my
grandparents' general store and I would go visit her every time my mom
went to the store to buy groceries.

I'm quite sure that at the age of 5 this was not a physical sex
oriented attraction we had for each other. It was the way our minds
were programmed and I really had no other option. Gordon


Gender orientation isn't a correct term.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity are the correct terms each unique
and with different definitions.
- The former applies to an individual's attraction to the same or
opposite sex (i.e. straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual)
- The latter applies to a persons innate identification as man , woman
or some other gender not necessarily the same as that which was assigned
at birth.

Neither of the above should be confused with gender expression,
transgender, gender transition, or gender dysphoria.

Thus the answer to your question (Do gays and lesbians...gender
orientation?) is no. That answer would be the same for straight or
bisexuals too.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:27:11 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon wrote:

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language
and of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what
you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't
know when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't
happened yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is
completely wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong
tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70% of
competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive. would
you still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your judgment not
based on something other than actual usage?


My judgment is based primarily on what the experts (Fowler, Strunk,
etc.) who write the highly respected grammar and usage books say.


Yes, I know the examples I used are people who wrote many years ago, and
they are those who argue that their views are so old that they are
outmoded. But I grew up with them, so their "rules" are what I go by (at
least those that I *try* to go by; unfortunately I am not perfect, and I
do make some mistakes).

ok but be careful doing that Strunk and White stuff. apparently (I don't
have a copy here so citing at second remove) in Chapter 4 they say that
the split infinitive "should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place
unusual stress on the adverb"! in the next chapter they concede "some
infinitives seem to improve on being split." (note they also forbid use
of the passive voice!)

great talking to you!

F.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:18:53 -0500, felmon
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:27:11 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon wrote:

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language
and of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what
you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't
know when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't
happened yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is
completely wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong
tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70% of
competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive. would
you still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your judgment not
based on something other than actual usage?


My judgment is based primarily on what the experts (Fowler, Strunk,
etc.) who write the highly respected grammar and usage books say.


Yes, I know the examples I used are people who wrote many years ago, and
they are those who argue that their views are so old that they are
outmoded. But I grew up with them, so their "rules" are what I go by (at
least those that I *try* to go by; unfortunately I am not perfect, and I
do make some mistakes).

ok but be careful doing that Strunk and White stuff. apparently (I don't
have a copy here so citing at second remove) in Chapter 4 they say that
the split infinitive "should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place
unusual stress on the adverb"!


I just checked. Yes, that's what they say.

But I don't have to agree with *everything* they say. g

in the next chapter they concede "some
infinitives seem to improve on being split." (note they also forbid use
of the passive voice!)

great talking to you!


Same here.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:10:40 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:18:53 -0500, felmon
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:27:11 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon wrote:

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of language
and of people, and there's nothing that can done about it. Can what
you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely, although I don't
know when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this instance it hasn't
happened yet, and that why I say that "if I was a carpenter" is
completely wrong." It's still wrong today, but it may not be wrong
tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70% of
competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive. would
you still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your judgment not
based on something other than actual usage?


My judgment is based primarily on what the experts (Fowler, Strunk,
etc.) who write the highly respected grammar and usage books say.


Yes, I know the examples I used are people who wrote many years ago, and
they are those who argue that their views are so old that they are
outmoded. But I grew up with them, so their "rules" are what I go by (at
least those that I *try* to go by; unfortunately I am not perfect, and I
do make some mistakes).

ok but be careful doing that Strunk and White stuff. apparently (I don't
have a copy here so citing at second remove) in Chapter 4 they say that
the split infinitive "should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place
unusual stress on the adverb"!


I just checked. Yes, that's what they say.

But I don't have to agree with *everything* they say. g

in the next chapter they concede "some
infinitives seem to improve on being split." (note they also forbid use
of the passive voice!)

great talking to you!


Same here.

Those dangling modifiers are the kind of thing up with which I shall
not put! Gordon

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:10:29 -0500, Gordon wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:10:40 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:18:53 -0500, felmon wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:27:11 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon
wrote:

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of
language and of people, and there's nothing that can done about
it. Can what you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely,
although I don't know when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this
instance it hasn't happened yet, and that why I say that "if I
was a carpenter" is completely wrong." It's still wrong today,
but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70%
of competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive.
would you still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your
judgment not based on something other than actual usage?


My judgment is based primarily on what the experts (Fowler, Strunk,
etc.) who write the highly respected grammar and usage books say.


Yes, I know the examples I used are people who wrote many years ago,
and they are those who argue that their views are so old that they
are outmoded. But I grew up with them, so their "rules" are what I
go by (at least those that I *try* to go by; unfortunately I am not
perfect, and I do make some mistakes).

ok but be careful doing that Strunk and White stuff. apparently (I
don't have a copy here so citing at second remove) in Chapter 4 they
say that the split infinitive "should be avoided unless the writer
wishes to place unusual stress on the adverb"!


I just checked. Yes, that's what they say.

But I don't have to agree with *everything* they say. g

in the next chapter they concede "some infinitives seem to improve on
being split." (note they also forbid use of the passive voice!)

great talking to you!


Same here.

Those dangling modifiers are the kind of thing up with which I shall not
put! Gordon

Churchill? maybe apocryphal. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
churchill.html

one of my favorites along this line which you probably know is: "what did
you bring that book that I don't like to be read to out of about Down
Under up for?"
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/stranded-prepositions.html.

F.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:40:46 -0500, felmon wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:10:29 -0500, Gordon wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:10:40 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:18:53 -0500, felmon wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:27:11 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:02:48 -0500, felmon
wrote:

Sure. All languages change with time. That's the nature of
language and of people, and there's nothing that can done about
it. Can what you suggest happen? Of course. It's even likely,
although I don't know when. But as far as I'm concerned, in this
instance it hasn't happened yet, and that why I say that "if I
was a carpenter" is completely wrong." It's still wrong today,
but it may not be wrong tomorrow.

just curious: suppose we had reliable statistics showing that 70%
of competent speakers don't observe the rules for the subjunctive.
would you still say "if I was a carpenter" is wrong? or is your
judgment not based on something other than actual usage?


My judgment is based primarily on what the experts (Fowler, Strunk,
etc.) who write the highly respected grammar and usage books say.


Yes, I know the examples I used are people who wrote many years ago,
and they are those who argue that their views are so old that they
are outmoded. But I grew up with them, so their "rules" are what I
go by (at least those that I *try* to go by; unfortunately I am not
perfect, and I do make some mistakes).

ok but be careful doing that Strunk and White stuff. apparently (I
don't have a copy here so citing at second remove) in Chapter 4 they
say that the split infinitive "should be avoided unless the writer
wishes to place unusual stress on the adverb"!


I just checked. Yes, that's what they say.

But I don't have to agree with *everything* they say. g

in the next chapter they concede "some infinitives seem to improve on
being split." (note they also forbid use of the passive voice!)

great talking to you!


Same here.

Those dangling modifiers are the kind of thing up with which I shall not
put! Gordon

Churchill? maybe apocryphal. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
churchill.html

one of my favorites along this line which you probably know is: "what did
you bring that book that I don't like to be read to out of about Down
Under up for?"
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/humor/stranded-prepositions.html.

F.

One reason I like that tale is that, since everyone seems to understand
it quite easily, it demonstrates that the prohibition against ending a
sentence with a preposition is groundless.

That one might not come from Latin, since 'vade mecum' is acceptable...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)