| Author |
Message |
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
Bob wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:33:50 -0500, Robert Lieblich wrote:
It's "INTELLIGENT", dammit.
Please take note.
Got it. I've grown lazy and depend on a spell-checker but my mail client
doesn't make it easy to invoke one.
Thank you.
You are welcome.
|
I have to say I rather liked 'waiving off'.
--
john
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:25 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
John O'Flaherty wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | I have to say I rather liked 'waiving off'.
|
Britannia waives the rules.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:23 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | John Stanton writes:
One wonders how excepting you would be ...
(Sigh)
|
How did you feel about "inauspicuously"?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:46 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
John Stanton:
| Quote: | One wonders how excepting you would be ...
|
Mark Brader:
R.H. Draney (in another branch of the thread):
| Is that an "OY!" with the air let out of it?
Not bad!
"Skitt":
| Quote: | How did you feel about "inauspicuously"?
|
Actually, I didn't get to where he said "inauspicously" [sic], so
I don't have to decide about that.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The three dots '...' here suppress a lot of detail
msb@vex.net | -- maybe I should have used four dots." -- Knuth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:35 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | John Stanton:
One wonders how excepting you would be ...
Mark Brader:
(Sigh)
R.H. Draney (in another branch of the thread):
Is that an "OY!" with the air let out of it?
Not bad!
"Skitt":
How did you feel about "inauspicuously"?
Actually, I didn't get to where he said "inauspicously" [sic], so
I don't have to decide about that.
|
Well, it was there in the sentence after the one mentioning "intellgent
designer".
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:58 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
"Skitt":
| Quote: | How did you feel about "inauspicuously"?
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | Actually, I didn't get to where he said "inauspicously" [sic], so
I don't have to decide about that.
|
"Skitt":
| Quote: | Well, it was there in the sentence after the one mentioning "intellgent
designer".
|
Obviously, since I knew how it was spelled. And now you know exactly
where I stopped reading.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Logic is logic. That's all I say."
msb@vex.net -- Oliver Wendell Holmes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:28 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
Skitt wrote:
| Quote: |
Mark Brader wrote:
John Stanton writes:
One wonders how excepting you would be ...
(Sigh)
How did you feel about "inauspicuously"?
|
A superb portmanteau word -- flagrantly ill-omened. I've lost track
of who coined it, but he deserves a free copy of TTLGAWAFT autographed
by Humpty Dumpty.
--
Bob Lieblich
Here, here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Pennsylvania disses the Darwin dissers |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:33:50 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Bob wrote:
[ ... ]
I'll grant you that the existence of a Chrysler strongly hints that
it was (intelegently) designed. But "science by analogy" can only go so
far. All analogies break down at some point. The existence of an appendix
does not mean that it was intelegently designed. In contrast, it can be
explained, or is at leadst consistent with, by the current theories of
evolition.
I know spelling flames are non-U, but after about a half-dozen or more
iterations of variants of "intellegent," I think it's time to say
something. So here is that something:
It's "INTELLIGENT", dammit.
|
Give the poor man a break. Perhaps "intelegent" will be the result of
evolition of the language.
Correct spelling is of equal importance to the boil on my butt that
developed, then left me, some time ago. I don't know why such a fuss
is made over it in those cases where a writer's meaning is conveyed
nonetheless.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in