Cool, mabye she'll write another [alleged] book.The Observer wrote:Wait a minute...are you telling us that Demo is <shudder> an illegal grammar protestor?!!
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Cool, mabye she'll write another [alleged] book.The Observer wrote:Wait a minute...are you telling us that Demo is <shudder> an illegal grammar protestor?!!
grixit wrote:Many of us were, but only because we had ignorant teachers. That rule is not part of the english language, it's something someone made up and tried to foist on us.Demosthenes wrote:I've always learned that using the generic plural form of "they" to get around the gender awkward choice of he/she was bad grammar.
And they are only a few miles apart. Really.RyanMcC wrote:PENNSYLVANIA
Blue Ball
Intercourse
Both figured in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966) (along with Middlesex, New Jersey).PENNSYLVANIA
Blue Ball
Intercourse
I used to be. Now I tend to object to bad grammar only when it causes confusion, either for the reader or the writer. Or when the use of bad grammar indicates a defect in the speaker's/writer's thought processes. Are the people who say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less" paying attention to anything they say? And when was the last time anyone used the phrase "politically correct" to mean politically correct?I'm a language snob; I readily admit it.
Did you get to ride Rosebud?I used to work as a tour guide at Hearst Castle
Nothing wrong with that. But since "they" is a pronoun that can be used either way, it is the appropriate one to use when you don't know the sex of the person you are referring to.Demosthenes wrote:grixit wrote:Many of us were, but only because we had ignorant teachers. That rule is not part of the english language, it's something someone made up and tried to foist on us.Demosthenes wrote:I've always learned that using the generic plural form of "they" to get around the gender awkward choice of he/she was bad grammar.
Why would you need a rule that says individual people should be referred to using singular pronouns but more than one person should be referred to using a plural pronoun? It's pretty obvious, and is a consistent concept in the five languages I've learned so far.
Famspear wrote:Ducky wrote:
Well, if you're saying that in order for it to be constitutional to levy a duty on the salary or payment of everyone, etc., the statute itself would have to have explicitly state it "that way" (either in the constitution or in the statute itself), that would be completely incorrect from a legal standpoint.Had it been constitutional to levy a duty on the salary or payment to everyone residing in the United States this would have been explicitly stated that way
Perhaps you meant to say: "Had it been LEGAL UNDER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION to levy a duty on the salary or payment to everyone residing in the United States this would have been explicitly stated that way."
That would be statutory argument, not a constitutional argument. However, even if that's what you meant, that would be incorrect, too. There is no legal requirement that statutes be worded that way.
This reminds me of the pseudo-legal argument -- I think it may have been by Irwin Schiff, whose history is summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff
and who can be contacted here:
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=26&y=18
--that because section 22 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code (defining gross income) included words like "salary" or "wages" and because its replacement -- section 61 of the 1954 Code -- dropped those terms and instead used the phrase "compensation for personal services", it was somehow the intent of Congress in 1954 to not tax "salaries" and "wages" under section 61. That argument has as much validity as the argument Ducky is presenting (which I guess is Peter Hendrickson's argument, not Ducky's). It's another impotent tax protester argument: that stuff has to be worded just the way they want it to be worded.
Same thing with court opinions. Again (I apologize, I noted this again just the other day), one Hendrickson supporter last year went so far as to argue, more or less, that compensation for personal services rendered by a private sector employee residing in Oklahoma was not gross income -- because there was no federal court case directly on point, involving a resident of "Oklahoma," ruling that "Oklahoma" was a "state" (thus, the employee was not a resident of the "United States," and thus not subject to the tax, so went the argument).
OK, OK, I admit the reference to Uncle Irwin was a cheap shot. I couldn't resist.
LPC wrote:I normally make great allowances for thread drift, but all of your chatter has confused Ducky (or scared "them" away).
That's when I was there. Every tour guide was allowed to write her own tour, so if you had a yound redhead who talked a lot about movie trivia, that was me.CaptainKickback wrote:Rosebud was the prop sled in the movie Citizen Kane, which was based on the life of William Randoplh Hearst and if it still exists is in some movie memorabilia collection or museum. It would most definitely NOT be at Hearst Castle. Old man Hearst was apoplectic when Citizen Kane came out.Ned Netterville wrote:Demo wrote,Did you get to ride Rosebud?I used to work as a tour guide at Hearst Castle
My dad and I visited Hearst Castle in the early 80s and did all (4) of the tours they offered at the time. Very cool. Highly recommended.
With or without the melon?Demosthenes wrote: That's when I was there. Every tour guide was allowed to write her own tour, so if you had a yound redhead who talked a lot about movie trivia, that was me.
The story of how Peculiar got its name is that the founding fathers of that city had sent a few choices to the state and all were rejected. Then they wrote back to the Secretary of State asking for help as they wanted something that was kinda peculiar, hence the name.RyanMcC wrote:MISSOURI
Peculiar
well, somehow "rational" and "Ducky" just don't seem like they go together anyway.Imalawman wrote:Seriously, this thread is doomed. We can't hold a train of thought.
I know people who live in Peculiar, MO. It's actually a very nice town.Randall wrote:The story of how Peculiar got its name is that the founding fathers of that city had sent a few choices to the state and all were rejected. Then they wrote back to the Secretary of State asking for help as they wanted something that was kinda peculiar, hence the name.RyanMcC wrote:MISSOURI
Peculiar
I'll add one to the list:
Tight Wad, Missouri which is/was home of the Tight Wad National Bank.
Can I quote you on that? [/sarcasm]Demosthenes wrote:
Why would you need a rule that says individual people should be referred to using singular pronouns but more than one person should be referred to using a plural pronoun? It's pretty obvious, and is a consistent concept in the five languages I've learned so far.
I'm a language snob; I readily admit it. But I listen to my step daughter's language skills, and it damn near kills me every time I hear, "Her and me are going to a party." She is 24, has finished her bachelor's degree in English, is working on a teaching master's, and will be teaching high school English in the next year. Lord help us all.