Re: More on dating sites

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> Remember the episode when Data got the chip that allowed him to have

> a sense of humor? It's better that way, because I'm not sure it's

> something that can be taught. I could try, but we'd both get frustrated.

:

I would be irritated if you tried to teach me. It is presumptive of you

to assume that your view of sense of humor is the only kind there is.

Mine is quite sufficient.

Me:

Now I'm thinking of an episode where Data says, " Ah, jocularity! "

He's always so serious, and takes everything seriously, and also

misunderstands so much, because they weren't said in a serious

vein. Yes, I was trying to be funny, and neglected to put any sort

of smiley face there, but the thing is, sometimes a thing is only

funny if it's subtle. Not a big, thigh-slapping funny thing, just a

little dry humor. " Quite sufficient " is another quote from Data,

yes?

Definition of terms:

Main Entry: joc·u·lar

Pronunciation: 'jä-ky & -l & r

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin jocularis, from joculus, diminutive of jocus

Date: 1626

1 : given to jesting : habitually jolly or jocund

2 : characterized by jesting : <A

HREF= " aol://4344:1708.D0052440.40160474.672503564 " >PLAYFUL</A>

synonym see <A HREF= " aol://4344:1708.D0079271.40187308.672606377 " >WITTY</A>

Me:

> See? Even that got me to laughing. No, not AT you, but I do know of

> your strict obedience to the rules of grammar. No one writes Emails,

:

" Email " is not a proper noun.

Me:

But we are in the process of developing ewords, and the e never seems

to be capitalized. Their name would be Harmony, but it's on the net and

you communicate via emails, so it's eHarmony instead. Makes sense to me.

Me:

> and there's such a thing as ecommerce,

:

That is not a proper noun either.

Me:

> so if a company wants to set up a name that involves emails and

> their business, that sort of thing is what they'd come up with.

>They would want a name unique enough that people would re-

>member it and not confuse it with others.

Me again:

So is eHarmony a proper noun? Maybe, but the name of a business

necessarily IS whatever the owners wish to do business as.

:

It is the starting of a proper noun with a lowercase letter that is

objectionable. You certainly know about that particular peeve of

mine.

Me:

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bloody rebellions in Liberia and Haiti,

suicide bombings in Israel, all the corrupt politicians in the world - I

could go on and on about all the things that get ME uptight. I believe

that respecting peoples' personal preferences about their own name is

more important than respecting rules, which don't even care if you do

or not.

A sense of humor may require a grasp and acceptance of the ridiculous

and ludricrous nature of the human condition. If one could step back

and see how absurd it all is, maybe then he could laugh.

Clay

PS. I did try to call, but got a message saying there was no one there

at the time, and to call back later. That was at 8:30, and I decided not

to call later than that. Maybe tomorrow. But now I'm wondering if

she has caller ID, and has my name and number recorded.

[Guest guest]

> It is the starting of a proper noun with a lowercase letter that is

> objectionable. You certainly know about that particular peeve of

> mine.

I seem to have the opposite problem -- I have a lot of trouble

converting something that was clearly meant to be uncapitalized to

capitals. It took me forever to write " Muskie " instead of " muskie " ,

for example, because muskie's handle is " muskie " , not " Muskie " . I'm

sure I would have the same reaction with someone's handle if it were

something like " xErxEs " -- I would have a lot of trouble saying

" Xerxes " . I was surprised to find this sort of thing listed in the

Jargon File:

" One quirk that shows up frequently in the email style of UNIX hackers

in particular is a tendency for some things that are normally

all-lowercase (including usernames and the names of commands and C

routines) to remain uncapitalized even when they occur at the

beginning of sentences. It is clear that, for many hackers, the case

of such identifiers becomes a part of their internal representation

(the `spelling') and cannot be overridden without mental effort (an

appropriate reflex because UNIX and C both distinguish cases and

confusing them can lead to lossage). A way of escaping this dilemma

is simply to avoid using these constructions at the beginning of

sentences. "

However, what I have is a momentary cringe while using standard

capitalization convention on names of that nature, not a pet peeve.

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

>

> I seem to have the opposite problem -- I have a lot of trouble

> converting something that was clearly meant to be uncapitalized to

> capitals. It took me forever to write " Muskie " instead of " muskie " ,

> for example, because muskie's handle is " muskie " , not " Muskie " . I'm

> sure I would have the same reaction with someone's handle if it were

> something like " xErxEs " -- I would have a lot of trouble saying

> " Xerxes " .

Proper nouns are capitalized. I will either capitalize them, or place

them in quotation marks. They are invalid otherwise.

> However, what I have is a momentary cringe while using standard

> capitalization convention on names of that nature, not a pet peeve.

I dislike it when various entities disregard rules of English and then

expect me to follow their incorrect usages, thus forcing me to make

" errors " that I would not make normally. In formal writing, things of

this sort would be cited with [sic] following the error. That would

work for me, but using quotation marks works too.

[Guest guest]

adamsCLAYADAMS@... wrote:

> Me: Now I'm thinking of an episode where Data says, " Ah, jocularity! "

> He's always so serious, and takes everything seriously, and also

> misunderstands so much, because they weren't said in a serious vein.

> Yes, I was trying to be funny, and neglected to put any sort of

> smiley face there, but the thing is, sometimes a thing is only

> funny if it's subtle. Not a big, thigh-slapping funny thing, just a

> little dry humor. " Quite sufficient " is another quote from Data,

> yes?

Possibly. It was not intended as such.

>

> Definition of terms: Main Entry: joc·u·lar Pronunciation: 'jä-ky & -l & r

> Function: adjective Etymology: Latin jocularis, from joculus,

> diminutive of jocus Date: 1626 1 : given to jesting : habitually

> jolly or jocund 2 : characterized by jesting : <A

> HREF= " aol://4344:1708.D0052440.40160474.672503564 " >PLAYFUL</A>

> synonym see <A

> HREF= " aol://4344:1708.D0079271.40187308.672606377 " >WITTY</A>

Good thing you provided a definition, because you did not provide an

example.

> Me: But we are in the process of developing ewords, and the e never

> seems to be capitalized. Their name would be Harmony, but it's on

> the net and you communicate via emails, so it's eHarmony instead.

> Makes sense to me.

" eHarmony " is the name of an organization or site. That makes the name

a proper noun, as is the case with " eBay. "

> Me again: So is eHarmony a proper noun? Maybe, but the name of a

> business necessarily IS whatever the owners wish to do business as.

And as a proper noun, it must be capitalized.

> : It is the starting of a proper noun with a lowercase letter

> that is objectionable. You certainly know about that particular

> peeve of mine.

>

> Me: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bloody rebellions in Liberia and

> Haiti, suicide bombings in Israel, all the corrupt politicians in the

> world - I could go on and on about all the things that get ME

> uptight.

That is irrelevant to this topic.

> I believe that respecting peoples' personal preferences

> about their own name is more important than respecting rules, which

> don't even care if you do or not.

Only if that name is in compliance with the language in which it was

created. Otherwise, it is in error, and should be treated as such.

People's wishes are irrelevant. I wish people would all send me a

thousand dollars. It is not likely to happen just because I wish it.

> A sense of humor may require a grasp and acceptance of the ridiculous

> and ludricrous nature of the human condition. If one could step

> back and see how absurd it all is, maybe then he could laugh.

I don't care for humans or their condition all that much anyway.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> Good thing you provided a definition,

> because you did not provide an example.

The example was when I said, " I could try,

but we'd both just get frustrated. " That

was funny, but you didn't recognize it.

> " eHarmony " is the name of an organization or site.

> That makes the name a proper noun, as is the case

> with " eBay. " And as a proper noun, it must be

> capitalized.

So you're saying you like them as they are, as opposed

to " eharmony " and " ebay " , or you think they should call

themselves " Eharmony " and " Ebay " , or " EHarmony " perhaps?

(If it were " EHarmony " , we might think it was a Canadian

dating service.) 8<{)

But seriously, it is " eHarmony " and " eBay " , because that

is correct internet usage, and also because those are the

names those companies have chosen for themselves. The

rules of English can change, because it's a constantly

evolving language. I think in England they still use the

word " automobile " , but Americans are much more casual than

that, and we said, " Screw it, we'll just call it a car. " (Short for

carriage.)

> It is the starting of a proper noun with a lowercase letter that

> is objectionable. You certainly know about that particular

> peeve of mine.

Yes, but I thought you had finally " gotten it " last week when

you wrote several responses to jypsy that started out with:

jypsy [ janet norman-bain ] wrote:

We know you could have deleted they whole thing at the

beginning and typed in " Jypsy wrote " instead, but you deleted

the " AutisticSpectrumTreehouse " then

skipped over her name, and also deleted her screen address.

That seems to be more trouble than just deleting the whole

thing and replacing it with " Jypsy wrote " , so I thought maybe

you were granting the validity of her usage, and not being so

intent on always being grammatically correct.

> > Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bloody rebellions in Liberia and

> > Haiti, suicide bombings in Israel, all the corrupt politicians in the

> > world - I could go on and on about all the things that get ME

> > uptight.

> That is irrelevant to this topic.

It was an attempt to put some perspective on the subject. I was

comparing the infraction of grammatical rules with the enormity of

things that are actually worth getting upset over. I notice that when

Seven of Nine says, " I fail to see the relevance of... " there's always

an answer for her, but she had just failed to see it.

> > A sense of humor may require a grasp and acceptance of the

> > ridiculous and ludricrous nature of the human condition. If one

> > could step back and see how absurd it all is, maybe then he

> > could laugh.

> I don't care for humans or their condition all that much anyway.

Too late, you already are one. Better luck next time around. ;-)

8<{)