Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Ex-presidents' titles and adverbs of location
From: thayes@desire.wright.edu
Date: 21 Jul 92 09:32:01 EST
 <1992Jul20.142000.17099@news.eng.convex.com> <1992Jul20.133659.2986@desire.wright.edu> <1992Jul20.195714.19977@news.eng.convex.com>
Organization: Wright State University 


Tom--- I'm going to post this, and I expect you will reply, but I would
suggest that after that we take this onto e-mail between us if you like.

Now...

You still *LOSE* (thanks for being intolerant of misspellings, Tom).
You have in NO WAY demonstrated the utility or validity of the trailing
"at".  The rest is commentary, as they say; for example:

> I get it: we're lazy so we ADD words?  I think not.  

Adding words in this case is a sign of misusing the language.  I'm sure that
as a computer user you understand the difference between efficient and
inefficient programming?
 
> While brevity may be the soul of wit, any poet will happily inform you

(tech note: I've never met either a happy poet or a happy golfer!)

> that merely shortening an utterance to its semantic equivalent does not
> necessarily make it better; in fact, for some purposes, it definitely
> makes it worse.

You have presented no evidence that "at" is superior, only that some
people use it.  My point has been that it's useless.  You have obviosuly
taken umbrage at this but, since your only defense has been snide remarks,
again you lose.


> :> Excuse me?  "hippy argot"?  I think not.  This use has been around
> :> since long before the flower children.
> :No, not "hippy argot" -- *hippie argot*.  This is a.u.ENGLISH, not
> :a.u.ANATOMY, man!
> 
> Ah, how deftly you've countered this point!  
> 
> In fact, you address it not at all.  Try again.  

OK, thanks: you have absolutely no sense of humor, do you?

> :Yes, the point is that not all dialects are equally valid simply because
> :someone uses them.  
> 
> Say fucking what?  [ <-note use of English infix particle ]
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				Big frigging deal!

Most of the way through your reply, still no viable defense of "at".


> Who died and made you grand linguopoobah to pass judgment upon 
> which dialects have validity and which don't?

Still no defense.  And becomming continually more nasty & irrelevant. 


> 
> 
> No information has been loosed, as you so inadroitly misput it, nor 
> for that matter has any been lost, either.
> 
> Do not dispute what occurs in a dialect with which you appear to have not
> even passing familiarity, or at least tolerance.  You say "now"; others
> say "at".  Attempting to attribute validity to a person's dialect is an
> endeavour frustratingly futile.
> 
> :[deleted]
> My goodness, but you ARE easily annoyed, aren't you?  And you seem
> to enjoy it as well.  What an unpleasant life you must lead if this
> should be the case.

Actually the unpleasantness comes from a lack of real discussion here. 
I made assertion A.  You counter.  I rebut your argument.
You cast aspersions on my personal life.  I say, enough of this bullshit.
If you have nothing to say, I think I will no longer reply over the net to
this (see my suggestion above & below).

> 
> :Look: if you want to spoil your life trailing "at"s, go forth.  
> 
> Maybe none in YOUR dialect, but let's not be passing value
> judgments on others'.  Embrace diversity, don't stifle it.
> 
> --tom

Got it.  I expect you to reply.  Then let's move this onto e-mail and
leave this space for rent!

-----ted hayes
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english