Poor language
Jan 12, 2015 16:17:38 #
DrWilk wrote:
"Pint" of sugar??? Sugar now comes in pints?
Remember, two cups of sugar is a pint.
Sugar is measured for a cake and other goodies.
Jan 12, 2015 16:21:18 #
Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.
MacMom wrote:
Remember, two cups of sugar is a pint.
Sugar is measured for a cake and other goodies.
Sugar is measured for a cake and other goodies.
Jan 12, 2015 17:21:52 #
I know you are correct about "it's" vs "its." I was trying to be a tad facetious by using "hi's" instead of the correct "his."
Jan 12, 2015 17:22:40 #
Maybe so, but don't knock it if you haven't tried it. I promise to send you all 16 of my grandkids after they have filled up on "pints of sugar"....then you will understand the term a little better, ;)
c=DrWilk]Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.[/quote]
c=DrWilk]Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.[/quote]
Jan 12, 2015 17:27:19 #
I'll retaliate and send you back one particular one of mine when she's "normal." She more than makes up for all the others.
I wasn't knocking cups and pints etc. but the metric system is so clearly superior to the old standard measures. I was brought up the old way with feet, inches, ounces and pounds etc but use metric exclusively now. So much easier and logical.
I wasn't knocking cups and pints etc. but the metric system is so clearly superior to the old standard measures. I was brought up the old way with feet, inches, ounces and pounds etc but use metric exclusively now. So much easier and logical.
tlbuljac wrote:
[/quote]Maybe so, but don't knock it if you haven't tried it. I promise to send you all 16 of my grandkids after they have filled up on "pints of sugar"....then you will understand the term a little better, ;)
c=DrWilk]Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.
c=DrWilk]Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.
Jan 12, 2015 17:27:48 #
TXYank wrote:
I know you are correct about "it's" vs "its." I was trying to be a tad facetious by using "hi's" instead of the correct "his."
You want facecious?
Geez...then it follows suit that "tits" and "tit's" as well as "what's" and "watts" both fall into the same category. LOL.
And why are "feet" plural but "teet" singular?
Jan 12, 2015 17:28:08 #
tlbuljac wrote:
[/quote]Maybe so, but don't knock it if you haven't tried it. I promise to send you all 16 of my grandkids after they have filled up on "pints of sugar"....then you will understand the term a little better, ;)
c=DrWilk]Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.
c=DrWilk]Never used pints for a dry measure, always cups etc. before, and now strictly mililiters and kilograms.
"Maybe so, but don't knock it if you haven't tried it."
Do you EVER reread your posts before sending them, and check them for "does this even make ANY sense at all?"
:roll:
Jan 12, 2015 18:06:37 #
To respond to several of you at once:
Batman: I really do take your point about those who cannot communicate because of some impairment. I just believe that those of us who CAN use language accurately should try to do so. I wouldn't want a surgeon or a pilot to get it 'nearly right' in their professional activities.
Dr. Wilk: I saw fairly big plums being sold by the litre in Finland. That still has me confused. Maybe litres and kilos are seen as interchangeable.
One of my pet hates: 'each and every'.
Batman: I really do take your point about those who cannot communicate because of some impairment. I just believe that those of us who CAN use language accurately should try to do so. I wouldn't want a surgeon or a pilot to get it 'nearly right' in their professional activities.
Dr. Wilk: I saw fairly big plums being sold by the litre in Finland. That still has me confused. Maybe litres and kilos are seen as interchangeable.
One of my pet hates: 'each and every'.
Jan 12, 2015 18:46:18 #
Well "Editor-In-Chief". I do at times, but when I intend to piss off those like yourself, I say "what the hell"....
apparently my message is much clearer than you thought, as it worked on you......hahahahha...Have a good day "SIR" ;) ;) :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
apparently my message is much clearer than you thought, as it worked on you......hahahahha...Have a good day "SIR" ;) ;) :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Batman wrote:
"Maybe so, but don't knock it if you haven't tried it."
Do you EVER reread your posts before sending them, and check them for "does this even make ANY sense at all?"
:roll:
Do you EVER reread your posts before sending them, and check them for "does this even make ANY sense at all?"
:roll:
Jan 12, 2015 18:47:53 #
Thank you SIR....have a great day :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
DrWilk wrote:
I'll retaliate and send you back one particular one of mine when she's "normal." She more than makes up for all the others.
I wasn't knocking cups and pints etc. but the metric system is so clearly superior to the old standard measures. I was brought up the old way with feet, inches, ounces and pounds etc but use metric exclusively now. So much easier and logical.
I wasn't knocking cups and pints etc. but the metric system is so clearly superior to the old standard measures. I was brought up the old way with feet, inches, ounces and pounds etc but use metric exclusively now. So much easier and logical.
Jan 12, 2015 19:24:18 #
I'm irritated by broadcasters/newsreaders who say two thousand fourteen instead of twenty fourteen. We rarely heard nineteen hundred ninety nine. What changed in the new millennium?
Jan 12, 2015 19:48:19 #
MikeyB wrote:
I'm irritated by broadcasters/newsreaders who say two thousand fourteen instead of twenty fourteen. We rarely heard nineteen hundred ninety nine. What changed in the new millennium?
MikeyB,
Stay in hiding since saying the year as "two thousand fourteen" is abosolutely correct. Your suggestion of using "twenty fourteen" could be mistaken if you say January 20, '14 since that could be taken as January 20, 1914 or any other century above or below 1014 for that matter.
And I'm irritated by all the irritating people on this forum who are irritated about misrepresentation or misunderstanding of correct speech. Let all get irritated together. LOL.
Seriously, can't there be something more important to discuss than mistaken grammar and spelling?
Jan 12, 2015 19:48:36 #
tlbuljac wrote:
Thank you SIR....have a great day :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Thanks. I will now say twenty fifteen.
Jan 12, 2015 19:51:20 #
MacMom wrote:
Thanks. I will now say twenty fifteen.
And I'll use " '15" just so I don't feel so old. Let the bank figure out if that check is still valid. LOL.
Jan 12, 2015 20:01:22 #
singleviking wrote:
And I'll use " '15" just so I don't feel so old. Let the bank figure out if that check is still valid. LOL.
I'm so old, I won't remember it's 2015 until about June. :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.