Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (52396)	8/21/1999 3:13:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Only two comments, Michael. 1) I have never referred to the OED here. You have me confused with Christopher. He is the owner of the 20-volume OED. I don't have a single volume. 2) Your hypothesis specified that only two people were left on earth. That would imply that some catastrophe had occurred -- e.g., nuclear war. Under those circumstances, the survivors might very well think that the human race did not deserve continuation. Logic.

To: Michael M who wrote (52396)	8/21/1999 12:38:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Perhaps the woman simply had a deep-seated moral abhorrence of incest, which would be necessary to reproduce the human race, under the circumstances you posit. Further, the parties have not been joined in matrimony, so sexual relations would be adultery, which is contrary to the seventh commandment. I know you are a Christian, and I know you think incest is abhorrent. You are saying that this woman should put aside her religious convictions? If she procreated under these circumstances, she would be violating God's law, and would surely be damned, under religious tenets which you hold dear, and think we should all follow. She might think that refusal to procreate is simply following God's will.

To: Michael M who wrote (52396)	8/22/1999 1:38:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<It's my strong opinion that some of this OED one-upsmanship is about as smug and elitist as it gets.>>> You aren't the first person to express contempt for the word-arguments and games some of us play, usually on the Grammar thread, and I don't understand it. Those of us who think it's interesting and fun, play it. I don't think we ram it down the throats of those who don't think language, and language-talk, and language-play, are fun. I think you'll notice if you visit the Grammar Lab that there is a small group of us who play very goodnatured Gotcha with each other. We threaten to bring each other to the Grammar Tribunal... the whole thing is a form of sport. I don't know why people go around insulting other people because their idea of sport isn't like their own. Maybe you can explain that to me. Michael, we who participate, enjoy language, and find exploring it, and playing with it, and teasing each other with it, fun. It would be harder to imagine any activity more deserving of the description "good clean fun" than looking things up in the Oxford English Dictionary and debating the fine points, making jokes about it all! Can you explain to me, and I mean this, why a number of people post quite scathingly about this harmless, educational fun? Has any one of us ever taken you to task for a language lapse, as I have been taken to task many times, to my mixed chagrin and delight? If you have been forced to be an involuntary participant in a Tribunal, of course I can see why you would be irritated. But I don't think that has happened to any of those who make cracks similar to your OED crack. I think they just don't want us playing together with words as the game. But... why? (It is true that almost everyone who hangs out at Grammar is a Feelings person, too; so sometimes there is a spilling over. But at worst, isn't that just an off-topic sin? And on Feelings? Off topic? I don't know. I haven't seen much insulting of people for being off-topic on this thread.) I wish you'd explain the antagonism toward our word-play to me, Michael. Seriously.