Magic cross question....

monokrome <monokrome@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think everyone should just realize that Kavin here is retarded and
> let him believe what he wants.

go away.

<KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179414458.622895.258290@y80g2000hsf.googlegr oups.com...
> On May 16, 11:02 pm, "hoot" <r...@tat.com> wrote:
>
>> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
>
> And in response to your very correct post, Curt will probably only
> point out your use of "it's" instead of "its"
>
> But then, within the context of the sentence, we know what you mean.
>
> Kavin

Curt has much more serious problems than my erroneous apostrophe.
Wait 'till me catches me out using you're instead of yaw, yore or your.

H.

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> And in response to your very
> correct post, Curt will probably
> only

Oh, I've got a few things to say. Stay tuned.

> point out your use of "it's"
> instead of "its"

That was a... hoot, wasn't it? ;o)

SEE? SEMICOLONS *ARE* USEFUL!

> But then, within the context of the
> sentence, we know what you mean.

Likewise gauging as a verb synonymous with stretching.

--
Curt

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
> > And from Urban Dictionary
> > A word that describes the act
> > of stretching a piercing.
>
> Really?

Really.

> Try

To assist you with basic comprehension?

> again.

Why not!

"A word that describes the act of stretching a piercing.

1.How long did it take you to gauge your ears.
2.I think I'm going to gauge my ears today."

> It says the opposite.

Is that all that it says?

> It's so sad when 40-somethings
> try to act withit.

Cool, daddy-o, cool.

> Kavin

--
Curt

monokrome wrote:
> I think everyone should just
> realize that Kavin here is
> retarded <snip>

Imo, that comparison is grossly unfair to anyone mentally retarded.

> Fin.

Oh, don't call it finished so soon, mon.

Post a follow-up to your piercing conundrum!

--
Curt

hoot <r...@tat.com> wrote:
> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote

heh :o) Izzat email REALLY "@tat.com"? HA! That's ironic in no small
fashion, imo.

Gauge, tat, tribal, etc. Demonized RAB yadayadas.

Anyway.

> > hoot wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >> From Wikipedia,

HEY, ARE YOU USING WIKI, HOOT?

Didn't you say that an open-source dictionary or encyclopedia is not,
by its nature, a credible source?

> >> the free encyclopedia
> >> Jump to: navigation, search
> >> Stretching (sometimes incorrectly
> >> referred to as gauging), <snip>
>
> > And from Urban Dictionary
> > A word that describes the act of stretching a piercing.
>
> > 1.How long did it take you to gauge your ears.
> > 2.I think I'm going to gauge my ears today.

> [expletive deleted] off curt.

[...]

> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.

Sweet. Well, your buddy Kavin's already noted your incorrect use of
it's, but I'd like to repeat that sentence a few times just for its
(or should that be it's) humor value.

Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.

Somethingsomething petard. Yeah, funny schtufff.

> Show a credible source to
> prove that gauge or gauging is
> synonymous with stretching.

That kid on the skateboard is just as credible, imo, as the
lexicographer in the tweed suit.

Check this copy and paste action:

The question, "How many words are there in English?" is based on a
misunderstanding of language. It is based on the false assumptions
that (1) words are objects that someone creates and (2) stores in a
published dictionary. Neither assumption is true. Words that are
simply spoken but never published do not enter dictionaries. That does
not mean that they are not words, for language is a spoken medium, not
a written one. Only about 2,400 of the world's roughly 7200 languages
and dialects have writing systems, most of these created only for the
translation of the Bible. If words were the things found in
dictionaries, the majority of the world's languages would have no
words!

In point of fact, all languages are equipped to produce however many
words are necessary for communication either internally, by derivation
rules (lawyer > lawyerly) and compounding (water + fall > waterfall),
or externally, by borrowing from other languages. So, one answer to
the question in the title is: the number of possible words in any
language at any given moment is infinite, for there is no limit on the
number of possible words in any human language. However, we may
distinguish between possible and actual words, so how many actual
words are there in English? /from http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw004.html

> Show a credible source to
> prove that gauge or gauging
> is a verb.

(yawn)

> Tip - An open-source dictionary
> or encyclopedia is not, by it's nature,
> a credible source.

So, perhaps you shouldn't have used Wiki in your argument against
gauged as a verb? Naaaaah.

Me? I'll use Wiki and UD all I want. But I'm not the one whiiiiining
about correct language.

> As evidenced by the conflicting
> entries for the words gauge and
> gauging in the urban dictionary.

Newsflash, hoot! Newsflash! PEOPLE DISAGREE! Welcome to planet Earth,
pal.

> In your offering above you do
> the same as the OP and omit
> the info that doesn't suit you.

Just as you omit the info that doesn't suit you. Fair's fair, imo.

> It's no surprise that he found
> an ally in you.

Well, I wouldn't call him an ally. That was a very meanspirited thing
he said about mentally retarded people, imo. ;o)

> Using gauge in the way you advocate
> is slang

Slanguage!

> at best,

That's nice.

> and to claim it as the right
> choice of word in the context
> of RAB is

Where'd I make that claim? I stated that gauge and stretch are
synonymous, iirc. You didn't suddenly look around all puzzled when the
OP used the term, I suspect, so what's the problem?

> just dumb.

Ahhh! Okay.

[...]

--
Curt

On May 17, 9:37 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Likewise gauging as a verb synonymous with stretching.

Except, of course, to gauge does not mean to stretch.

I'm sure your piercer said he would pierce you to a 0 stretch?
Because if gauge means to stretch, then stretch must mean the same as
gauge.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
> > Likewise gauging as a verb
> > synonymous with stretching.
>
> Except, of course, to gauge does
> not mean to stretch.

Tell that to all the people who say gauge does mean to stretch.

Go ahead.

No, really.

I'll wait.

> I'm sure your piercer said he
> would pierce you to a 0 stretch?

(burp)

> Because if gauge means to stretch,
> then stretch must mean the same as
> gauge.

Oh, Kavin, Kavin, Kavin. Really, what's in a name? That which we call
a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

But you? You still steeenk! ;o)

(cue faux indignation)

--
Curt

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179454636.952622.233650@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> hoot <r...@tat.com> wrote:
>> "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> heh :o) Izzat email REALLY "@tat.com"? HA! That's ironic in no small
> fashion, imo.
>
> Gauge, tat, tribal, etc. Demonized RAB yadayadas.
>
> Anyway.
>
>> > hoot wrote:
>> > [...]
>>
>> >> From Wikipedia,
>
> HEY, ARE YOU USING WIKI, HOOT?
>
> Didn't you say that an open-source dictionary or encyclopedia is not,
> by its nature, a credible source?
>
>> >> the free encyclopedia
>> >> Jump to: navigation, search
>> >> Stretching (sometimes incorrectly
>> >> referred to as gauging), <snip>
>>
>> > And from Urban Dictionary
>> > A word that describes the act of stretching a piercing.
>>
>> > 1.How long did it take you to gauge your ears.
>> > 2.I think I'm going to gauge my ears today.
>
>> [expletive deleted] off curt.
>
> [...]
>
>> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
>
> Sweet. Well, your buddy Kavin's already noted your incorrect use of
> it's, but I'd like to repeat that sentence a few times just for its
> (or should that be it's) humor value.
>
> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
> Correct use of a word is governed by it's definition.
>
> Somethingsomething petard. Yeah, funny schtufff.
>
>> Show a credible source to
>> prove that gauge or gauging is
>> synonymous with stretching.
>
> That kid on the skateboard is just as credible, imo, as the
> lexicographer in the tweed suit.
>
> Check this copy and paste action:
>
> The question, "How many words are there in English?" is based on a
> misunderstanding of language. It is based on the false assumptions
> that (1) words are objects that someone creates and (2) stores in a
> published dictionary. Neither assumption is true. Words that are
> simply spoken but never published do not enter dictionaries. That does
> not mean that they are not words, for language is a spoken medium, not
> a written one. Only about 2,400 of the world's roughly 7200 languages
> and dialects have writing systems, most of these created only for the
> translation of the Bible. If words were the things found in
> dictionaries, the majority of the world's languages would have no
> words!
>
> In point of fact, all languages are equipped to produce however many
> words are necessary for communication either internally, by derivation
> rules (lawyer > lawyerly) and compounding (water + fall > waterfall),
> or externally, by borrowing from other languages. So, one answer to
> the question in the title is: the number of possible words in any
> language at any given moment is infinite, for there is no limit on the
> number of possible words in any human language. However, we may
> distinguish between possible and actual words, so how many actual
> words are there in English? /from http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw004.html
>
>> Show a credible source to
>> prove that gauge or gauging
>> is a verb.
>
> (yawn)
>
>> Tip - An open-source dictionary
>> or encyclopedia is not, by it's nature,
>> a credible source.
>
> So, perhaps you shouldn't have used Wiki in your argument against
> gauged as a verb? Naaaaah.
>
> Me? I'll use Wiki and UD all I want. But I'm not the one whiiiiining
> about correct language.
>
>> As evidenced by the conflicting
>> entries for the words gauge and
>> gauging in the urban dictionary.
>
> Newsflash, hoot! Newsflash! PEOPLE DISAGREE! Welcome to planet Earth,
> pal.
>
>> In your offering above you do
>> the same as the OP and omit
>> the info that doesn't suit you.
>
> Just as you omit the info that doesn't suit you. Fair's fair, imo.
>
>> It's no surprise that he found
>> an ally in you.
>
> Well, I wouldn't call him an ally. That was a very meanspirited thing
> he said about mentally retarded people, imo. ;o)
>
>> Using gauge in the way you advocate
>> is slang
>
> Slanguage!
>
>> at best,
>
> That's nice.
>
>> and to claim it as the right
>> choice of word in the context
>> of RAB is
>
> Where'd I make that claim? I stated that gauge and stretch are
> synonymous, iirc. You didn't suddenly look around all puzzled when the
> OP used the term, I suspect, so what's the problem?
>
>> just dumb.
>
> Ahhh! Okay.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Curt


Unlike you curt i'm mostly aware of my own foibles, i work on some and embrace others and i don't even mind that sometimes people point out new ones i hadn't noticed.
For someone with such a wide and superior knowledge of language you do seem to have trouble with the comprehension and application of it.
The email address would only be ironic if i use the word tat when i mean tattoo, i don't.
My original reply to monokrome, and the wiki reference, was merely an attempt to point out the folly of quoting what does suit and omitting what doesn't. But then, that's your stock and trade in any argument isn't it. In fact you did it in the very next post.
If language to you is only a spoken medium. Why were you compelled to correct my errors in the written form. Surely if we were having a conversation face to face you wouldn't stop me and ask weather i meant its or it's. For reference i think i would stop you and say its stretch not gauge.

Or would i...
Curt: "I'm going to gauge my piercing"
Hoot: "Cool, what stretch are they now and what stretch will they end up"

I wonder if, in your mind, the fact that i think you are a fuckwit just means i think you like to have sex with ingeniously humorous people.

H.

hoot wrote:
[...]

> Unlike you curt i'm

Not prone to snip any text? Hmm.

> mostly aware of my own foibles,

Mostly being the keyword?

[...]

> If

Big if, imo.

> language to you is only
> a spoken medium. <snip>

There's mime, of course.

And given my tendency to post like I do, yeah, it's safe to say that I
appreciate text.

> For reference i think

I doubt that, actually.

[...]

Hth.

--
Curt

On May 17, 11:14 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kavin Taylor wrote:
> > Curt wrote:


> > Except, of course, to gauge does
> > not mean to stretch.
>
> Tell that to all the people who say gauge does mean to stretch.

I do. "But mom, all the cool kids say it."
Do you really need the adulation of 15 year-olds that badly?
Oh wait, probably.

Kavin

hoot <ratat@tat.com> wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity why did you give up on wikipedia when trying to define gauge?
> 'Cos you could have easily found this

Just for kicks, look for the word 'sentuaint'. A word which, to the best of
my knowledge, doesn't exist. Still, you'll find a bunch of references, all
on lyrics pages for the song 'kevin and mephisto' by primus.

If you look closer, you'll probably find that other mistakes are reproduced
as well. Now does that mean the word has a meaning after all, and we just
haven't found this meaning to date, or does it rather mean a bunch of people
have copied the lyrics without checking... Wikipedia is the same. It's good
to get a first glimpse on an issue, but if you want to dig deeper, it's
better to ask someone who _really_ knows something.


--
Martin Barre had some elbow surgery before Christmas and is doing fine,
strumming with just the stump. Doane Perry is considering surgery for a
variety of complaints and the results might be interesting. I am not
having surgery but I did have a haircut. Didn't take long. -Ian Anderson

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179485706.241763.158320@y80g2000hsf.googlegr oups.com...

> Not prone to snip any text? Hmm.

Yeh good point curt good strong argument that, should realy get poeple wondering.

> Mostly being the keyword?

I didn't use it accidently, but pointing it out is good that shows you're really trying to be helpful.

> Big if, imo.
> There's mime, of course.
> And given my tendency to post like I do, yeah, it's safe to say that I
> appreciate text.

Did you bother to read your "copy and paste action"

> I doubt that, actually.
> Hth.
> Curt

Very weak post all-round curt. What was it that made you decide this discussion was over, just so i know for next time.

H.

"Frank Wuest" <schrottpresse@gmx.net> wrote in message news:f2kjuh$5e3$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de...
>
> Just for kicks, look for the word 'sentuaint'. A word which, to the best of
> my knowledge, doesn't exist. Still, you'll find a bunch of references, all
> on lyrics pages for the song 'kevin and mephisto' by primus.

I'm not familiar with the song but at first sight of that word i thought it might be a bastardised spelling of sentient.

> If you look closer, you'll probably find that other mistakes are reproduced

So, what makes them mistakes? I mean is it the spelling, the definition? How do we know?

> as well. Now does that mean the word has a meaning after all, and we just
> haven't found this meaning to date,

Sure that's possible. A newly made up word, may take some time for the meaning to filter through.
But i don't think the improper use of a word, that already has a clear meaning, is the same thing.

>or does it rather mean a bunch of people
> have copied the lyrics without checking...

If it's a mistake then i'd say that that's most likely.

>Wikipedia is the same. It's good
> to get a first glimpse on an issue, but if you want to dig deeper, it's
> better to ask someone who _really_ knows something.

Agreed. And in my first post i was trying to highlight the fact that the OP was using wiki for magic cross reference but chose to abandon wiki for google to define gauge, i assume because the wiki reference for gauge did not support his argument. I wasn't endorsing wikipedia, but rather pointing out the selective nature of his "research".
Later in the thread i wrote that by ITS nature an open source Dictionary or Encyclopedia is not a good source.

H

hoot wrote:
[...]

> Very weak post all-round curt.

Start a journal. Keep a log. Post reports.

> What was it that made you decide
> this discussion was over, just so
> i know for next time.

Who's having a discussion?

Just so you know for next time. ;o)

--
Curt