# A silly digression on nits and how to pick them. *The Urth list — 14 messages, 8 voices, 14 Aug 2008* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Kieran Mullen *14 Aug 2008, 04:08* On Wednesday night I read: > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:18:57 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) A second dream team: Mucor, Oreb, and Pike > > > Why is it important to you that other people should conform to your > standards of correctness, Mark? If you understand what they are > saying, is > it really necessary that you point out to them that they are wrong? > Why do > you do this, if it is not necessary? And I immediately thought: "Eye suppoze ewer rite. If ewe can sea watt peephole are saying itz knot raleigh kneaded two poynt out tooth em that they are rung." Mr. Millman may have been a bit exasperated in his corrections, but they were short and to the point. I learned something from them. We should aspire to use these unfamiliar words correctly. Kieran "Should anal-retentive be hyphenated?" Mullen --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *14 Aug 2008, 04:34 · in reply to Kieran Mullen* Kieran, Since you asked, "Anal retentive" should be hyphenated when used as a compound adjective -- "Oh, that's just my anal-retentive tendencies" -- but not when used as a noun phrase -- "He is SUCH an anal retentive." --Dan'l "is it okay to shout Movie in a crowded firehouse?" Danehy-Oakes > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Kieran Mullen wrote: > > On Wednesday night I read: > > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:18:57 -0400 (EDT) > From: brunians at brunians.org > Subject: Re: (urth) A second dream team: Mucor, Oreb, and Pike > > > Why is it important to you that other people should conform to your > standards of correctness, Mark? If you understand what they are saying, is > it really necessary that you point out to them that they are wrong? Why do > you do this, if it is not necessary? > > > And I immediately thought: > "Eye suppoze ewer rite. If ewe can sea watt peephole are saying itz > knot raleigh kneaded two poynt out tooth em that they are rung." > > Mr. Millman may have been a bit exasperated in his corrections, but they > were short and to the point. I learned something from them. We should > aspire to use these unfamiliar words correctly. > > Kieran "Should anal-retentive be hyphenated?" Mullen > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dave Tallman *14 Aug 2008, 11:40 · in reply to Kieran Mullen* > Kieran Mullen wrote: > Mr. Millman may have been a bit exasperated in his corrections, > but they were short and to the point. I learned something from them. > We should aspire to use these unfamiliar words correctly. > As the corrected poster, I would like to say that I didn't mind too much. I would rather have had feedback on the substance of my post, but it was an interesting response anyway and it showed me that someone was reading and paying attention. I do attempt to use words correctly and the gender-neutral use of "inhumi" was a bit of a grammatical stretch. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *14 Aug 2008, 12:05 · in reply to Dave Tallman* But would a gay inhumu be an inhomo? I am ashamed. . > Kieran Mullen wrote: >> Mr. Millman may have been a bit exasperated in his corrections, >> but they were short and to the point. I learned something from them. >> We should aspire to use these unfamiliar words correctly. > As the corrected poster, I would like to say that I didn't mind too > much. I would rather have had feedback on the substance of my post, but > it was an interesting response anyway and it showed me that someone was > reading and paying attention. I do attempt to use words correctly and > the gender-neutral use of "inhumi" was a bit of a grammatical stretch. > > _______________________________________________ --- ### hammstu at sbcglobal.net *14 Aug 2008, 15:04 · follows brunians at brunians.org* Excellent!! ------Original Message------ From: brunians at brunians.org Sender: urth-bounces at lists.urth.net To: The Urth Mailing List ReplyTo: The Urth Mailing List Sent: Aug 14, 2008 5:05 AM Subject: Re: (urth) A silly digression on nits and how to pick them. But would a gay inhumu be an inhomo? I am ashamed. . > Kieran Mullen wrote: >> Mr. Millman may have been a bit exasperated in his corrections, >> but they were short and to the point. I learned something from them. >> We should aspire to use these unfamiliar words correctly. > As the corrected poster, I would like to say that I didn't mind too > much. I would rather have had feedback on the substance of my post, but > it was an interesting response anyway and it showed me that someone was > reading and paying attention. I do attempt to use words correctly and > the gender-neutral use of "inhumi" was a bit of a grammatical stretch. > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net --- ### Matthew King *14 Aug 2008, 20:19 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:05 AM, wrote: > But would a gay inhumu be an inhomo? I think he'd just be an inhumu in good humor. --- ### brunians at brunians.org *14 Aug 2008, 20:29 · in reply to Matthew King* > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:05 AM, wrote: >> But would a gay inhumu be an inhomo? > I think he'd just be an inhumu in good humor. I remember the Good Humor man. I guess inhumu flavored ice cream just didn't take off. I know that liver flavored ice cream was a big flop. . --- ### jayrwasdf at comcast.net *14 Aug 2008, 20:52 · follows brunians at brunians.org* Wouldn't that be a inhoho? sorry. -j -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Matthew King" > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:05 AM, wrote: >> But would a gay inhumu be an inhomo? > I think he'd just be an inhumu in good humor. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Matthew King *14 Aug 2008, 21:14 · in reply to jayrwasdf at comcast.net* > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:52 PM, wrote: > Wouldn't that be a inhoho? Tu quoque? --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *14 Aug 2008, 21:27 · in reply to Matthew King* I think it's time to inhume this thread... > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Matthew King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:52 PM, wrote: >> Wouldn't that be a inhoho? > Tu quoque? > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant ----- http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer http://www.danehyoakes.com I once absend-mindedly ordered Three Mile Island dressing in a restaurant and, with great presence of mind, they brought Thousand Island Dressing and a bottle of chili sauce. -- T. Pratchett ``` --- ### brunians at brunians.org *14 Aug 2008, 21:28 · in reply to jayrwasdf at comcast.net* I believe that would be one that is creme-filled and chocolate covered. . > Wouldn't that be a inhoho? > sorry. > -j > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Matthew King" > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:05 AM, wrote: >>> But would a gay inhumu be an inhomo? >> I think he'd just be an inhumu in good humor. >> _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *14 Aug 2008, 21:30 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* I tried, Lord knows. Maybe put a big rock over it? . > I think it's time to inhume this thread... > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Matthew King > wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:52 PM, wrote: >>> Wouldn't that be a inhoho? >> Tu quoque? >> _______________________________________________ >> Urth Mailing List >> To post, write urth at urth.net --- ### Adam Thornton *14 Aug 2008, 23:26 · in reply to brunians at brunians.org* > On Aug 14, 2008, at 4:30 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: > I tried, Lord knows. > > Maybe put a big rock over it? Throw it in a deep pit. That always works. No one ever escapes from deep pits. Adam --- ### brunians at brunians.org *14 Aug 2008, 23:41 · in reply to Adam Thornton* > On Aug 14, 2008, at 4:30 PM, brunians at brunians.org wrote: >> I tried, Lord knows. >> >> Maybe put a big rock over it? > Throw it in a deep pit. That always works. No one ever escapes from > deep pits. Except that one guy in that Jack Vance novel. Aillas. That was him. Suldrun's Garden. Lyonesse I. . ---