08-31-2011, 04:20 PM
Jail/ Jell.  As in, he got drunk and had to spend the night in jell.
Then/than
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
Jail/ Jell.  As in, he got drunk and had to spend the night in jell.
08-31-2011, 04:31 PM
"You're just begging the question."
"Oh that's so ironic."
Paradox vs. oxymoron.
Ambivalence vs. apathy.
ATM machines, PIN numbers, etc.
Anything involving Moore's "Law."
"Oh that's so ironic."
Paradox vs. oxymoron.
Ambivalence vs. apathy.
ATM machines, PIN numbers, etc.
Anything involving Moore's "Law."
08-31-2011, 07:14 PM
Not a real usage error as such, but I think it's funny how waiters have begun reflexively and near-universally been telling people "We'll be taking care of you today..." Was there some sort of memo I wasn't privy to?
Not a real usage error as such, but I think it's funny how waiters have begun reflexively and near-universally been telling people "We'll be taking care of you today..." Was there some sort of memo I wasn't privy to?
08-31-2011, 07:33 PM
One from the sports world: Football announcers have taken to talking about the "skill sets" of a player. That is, "he has some great skill sets". Not just skills, not just a set of skills or a skill set, but skill sets, plural. Huh?
One from the sports world: Football announcers have taken to talking about the "skill sets" of a player. That is, "he has some great skill sets". Not just skills, not just a set of skills or a skill set, but skill sets, plural. Huh?
mark3k
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-31-2011, 08:33 PM
and the classic baseball stat mis-quote: "he had 3 RBIs in that last game..." (of course, the plural is still RBI)
and the classic baseball stat mis-quote: "he had 3 RBIs in that last game..." (of course, the plural is still RBI)
08-31-2011, 10:07 PM
"He can really score the rock."Â (Or "score the ball."Â Cringing and gnashing of teeth.)
08-31-2011, 10:45 PM
There are a few sports phrases that I really dislike.Â
"He caught the ball at its highest point!"Â Whenever I hear this phrase, typically used in relation to passes whose trajectories have a noticeable arc, I imagine a receiver jumping about 20+ feet in the air somewhere close to halfway along the path the passer meant the ball to follow.
"The sum is greater than the parts!" I sincerely hope it is because if it were not the players would have to be out there tripping each other or something. I think what they mean to say is that whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying synergy.
"He caught the ball at its highest point!"Â Whenever I hear this phrase, typically used in relation to passes whose trajectories have a noticeable arc, I imagine a receiver jumping about 20+ feet in the air somewhere close to halfway along the path the passer meant the ball to follow.
"The sum is greater than the parts!" I sincerely hope it is because if it were not the players would have to be out there tripping each other or something. I think what they mean to say is that whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying synergy.
There are a few sports phrases that I really dislike.Â
"He caught the ball at its highest point!"Â Whenever I hear this phrase, typically used in relation to passes whose trajectories have a noticeable arc, I imagine a receiver jumping about 20+ feet in the air somewhere close to halfway along the path the passer meant the ball to follow.
"The sum is greater than the parts!" I sincerely hope it is because if it were not the players would have to be out there tripping each other or something. I think what they mean to say is that whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying synergy.
"He caught the ball at its highest point!"Â Whenever I hear this phrase, typically used in relation to passes whose trajectories have a noticeable arc, I imagine a receiver jumping about 20+ feet in the air somewhere close to halfway along the path the passer meant the ball to follow.
"The sum is greater than the parts!" I sincerely hope it is because if it were not the players would have to be out there tripping each other or something. I think what they mean to say is that whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying synergy.
08-31-2011, 11:54 PM
I've messed up my usage of "comprise" - thanks for the edification.
My adds to the list of common errors:Â (i) "untapped potential" (is there any other kind?), and (ii) "would of" and "should of" (those are just brutal!).
P.S. And I echo 76lsjump on the "I could care less" when it is exactly opposite of what is meant: "I could not care less."  That's why I've adopted more direct phrase "could give a rat's a$$ . . ." It's a little punchier, too!
My adds to the list of common errors:Â (i) "untapped potential" (is there any other kind?), and (ii) "would of" and "should of" (those are just brutal!).
P.S. And I echo 76lsjump on the "I could care less" when it is exactly opposite of what is meant: "I could not care less."  That's why I've adopted more direct phrase "could give a rat's a$$ . . ." It's a little punchier, too!
I've messed up my usage of "comprise" - thanks for the edification.
My adds to the list of common errors:Â (i) "untapped potential" (is there any other kind?), and (ii) "would of" and "should of" (those are just brutal!).
P.S. And I echo 76lsjump on the "I could care less" when it is exactly opposite of what is meant: "I could not care less."  That's why I've adopted more direct phrase "could give a rat's a$$ . . ." It's a little punchier, too!
My adds to the list of common errors:Â (i) "untapped potential" (is there any other kind?), and (ii) "would of" and "should of" (those are just brutal!).
P.S. And I echo 76lsjump on the "I could care less" when it is exactly opposite of what is meant: "I could not care less."  That's why I've adopted more direct phrase "could give a rat's a$$ . . ." It's a little punchier, too!
09-01-2011, 07:30 AM
So, teejers, there are some things worth a rat's a$$ to you, or did you mean "couldn't give a rat's a$$"?
(I used to know a salty-tongued professor whose favorite phrase was "I don't give a rat's a$$." Stated in front of freshmen who might not have ever heard a teacher swear in the classroom -- this was in the early '70s when teachers didn't -- I'm sure it got their attention.)
(I used to know a salty-tongued professor whose favorite phrase was "I don't give a rat's a$$." Stated in front of freshmen who might not have ever heard a teacher swear in the classroom -- this was in the early '70s when teachers didn't -- I'm sure it got their attention.)
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
So, teejers, there are some things worth a rat's a$$ to you, or did you mean "couldn't give a rat's a$$"?
(I used to know a salty-tongued professor whose favorite phrase was "I don't give a rat's a$$." Stated in front of freshmen who might not have ever heard a teacher swear in the classroom -- this was in the early '70s when teachers didn't -- I'm sure it got their attention.)
(I used to know a salty-tongued professor whose favorite phrase was "I don't give a rat's a$$." Stated in front of freshmen who might not have ever heard a teacher swear in the classroom -- this was in the early '70s when teachers didn't -- I'm sure it got their attention.)
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
09-01-2011, 10:41 AM
Regarding the value that teejers puts on rodent rear-ends, of course, it's really hard to tell unless you know the size of the rats with which [whom?] he has had to deal over the years...
09-01-2011, 08:44 PM
"those kinds of things" -- or worse, "those kind of things"
"those kinds of things" -- or worse, "those kind of things"
09-01-2011, 09:20 PM
Giving a rat's ass about something reflects little value, doesn't it? "I could give a rat's ass about Cal doing well on the hardcourt" - to me that implies the value of cal doing well on the hardwood is about that of a rat's ass. I couldn't give a rat's ass suggests that the value of something - in this example cal doing well on the hardwood - is worth even less than a rat's ass.
Either way, it works (but perhaps only for me!).
Either way, it works (but perhaps only for me!).
Giving a rat's ass about something reflects little value, doesn't it? "I could give a rat's ass about Cal doing well on the hardcourt" - to me that implies the value of cal doing well on the hardwood is about that of a rat's ass. I couldn't give a rat's ass suggests that the value of something - in this example cal doing well on the hardwood - is worth even less than a rat's ass.
Either way, it works (but perhaps only for me!).
Either way, it works (but perhaps only for me!).
People saying "could care less" when they mean "couldn't care less."
(08-31-2011, 04:31 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:"You're just begging the question."
...when they mean raising the question.
I'm also beginning to see, more and more, the following phrase in print "take a different tact" when referring to an alternate course of action. It isn't "tact" it's "tack" the origination of which referenced maritime course correction.
And because it's been bugging me for ten years, I had a nitwit blond secretary who kept insisting it was a "mute" point when she meant that it was a "moot" point. I told her that I wished her point was mute instead of moot and she just looked at me and cocked her head like my labrador does when the lab absolutely has no clue as to what I'm saying....
And now, back to your regularly scheduled rant...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-31-2011, 04:31 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:"You're just begging the question."
...when they mean raising the question.
I'm also beginning to see, more and more, the following phrase in print "take a different tact" when referring to an alternate course of action. It isn't "tact" it's "tack" the origination of which referenced maritime course correction.
And because it's been bugging me for ten years, I had a nitwit blond secretary who kept insisting it was a "mute" point when she meant that it was a "moot" point. I told her that I wished her point was mute instead of moot and she just looked at me and cocked her head like my labrador does when the lab absolutely has no clue as to what I'm saying....
And now, back to your regularly scheduled rant...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-02-2011, 03:13 PM
(08-31-2011, 11:19 AM)garvin link Wrote:Apostraphe errors, for some reason, especially horrify me.
How about spelling errors?
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-02-2011, 05:11 PM
Gotta love a Stanford football board.
It's Christmas Eve (the night before the first game of the season) and we have a three-page discussion about our grammar pet peeves. The schoolmarm in me relishes this.
Having grown up in Oklahoma, I spend a fair amount of time on their boards. (Yes, I was conflicted by the Sun Bowl - and surprised to find myself rooting for Stanford more than I expected.) Occasionally, a skirmish will break out over their/they're/there, but that's about the extent of it.
Most of the real battles are concerning whether khakis + a polo shirt or jorts + a jersey is the most appropriate gameday attire. Either that or why Texas, Oklahoma State, or the color orange (in general) sucks. Yes, Oklahoma has class warfare.
It's a nice change of pace to come over here where people know how the sign in the Express lane at the supermarket should be worded. You might even be able to thank Peter McGowan ('64, I think) for ensuring that the signs were changed.
The OU season has a lot of potential and I'm sure I'll fritter away numerous hours on Owen Field, but if one more poster exclaims how they expect the team to be "dominate" this season, my head may implode. The subtleties of affect/effect and further/farther are lost on much of that group.
That said, let's go smash 'em in the mouth tomorrow.
It's Christmas Eve (the night before the first game of the season) and we have a three-page discussion about our grammar pet peeves. The schoolmarm in me relishes this.
Having grown up in Oklahoma, I spend a fair amount of time on their boards. (Yes, I was conflicted by the Sun Bowl - and surprised to find myself rooting for Stanford more than I expected.) Occasionally, a skirmish will break out over their/they're/there, but that's about the extent of it.
Most of the real battles are concerning whether khakis + a polo shirt or jorts + a jersey is the most appropriate gameday attire. Either that or why Texas, Oklahoma State, or the color orange (in general) sucks. Yes, Oklahoma has class warfare.
It's a nice change of pace to come over here where people know how the sign in the Express lane at the supermarket should be worded. You might even be able to thank Peter McGowan ('64, I think) for ensuring that the signs were changed.
The OU season has a lot of potential and I'm sure I'll fritter away numerous hours on Owen Field, but if one more poster exclaims how they expect the team to be "dominate" this season, my head may implode. The subtleties of affect/effect and further/farther are lost on much of that group.
That said, let's go smash 'em in the mouth tomorrow.
Gotta love a Stanford football board.
It's Christmas Eve (the night before the first game of the season) and we have a three-page discussion about our grammar pet peeves. The schoolmarm in me relishes this.
Having grown up in Oklahoma, I spend a fair amount of time on their boards. (Yes, I was conflicted by the Sun Bowl - and surprised to find myself rooting for Stanford more than I expected.) Occasionally, a skirmish will break out over their/they're/there, but that's about the extent of it.
Most of the real battles are concerning whether khakis + a polo shirt or jorts + a jersey is the most appropriate gameday attire. Either that or why Texas, Oklahoma State, or the color orange (in general) sucks. Yes, Oklahoma has class warfare.
It's a nice change of pace to come over here where people know how the sign in the Express lane at the supermarket should be worded. You might even be able to thank Peter McGowan ('64, I think) for ensuring that the signs were changed.
The OU season has a lot of potential and I'm sure I'll fritter away numerous hours on Owen Field, but if one more poster exclaims how they expect the team to be "dominate" this season, my head may implode. The subtleties of affect/effect and further/farther are lost on much of that group.
That said, let's go smash 'em in the mouth tomorrow.
It's Christmas Eve (the night before the first game of the season) and we have a three-page discussion about our grammar pet peeves. The schoolmarm in me relishes this.
Having grown up in Oklahoma, I spend a fair amount of time on their boards. (Yes, I was conflicted by the Sun Bowl - and surprised to find myself rooting for Stanford more than I expected.) Occasionally, a skirmish will break out over their/they're/there, but that's about the extent of it.
Most of the real battles are concerning whether khakis + a polo shirt or jorts + a jersey is the most appropriate gameday attire. Either that or why Texas, Oklahoma State, or the color orange (in general) sucks. Yes, Oklahoma has class warfare.
It's a nice change of pace to come over here where people know how the sign in the Express lane at the supermarket should be worded. You might even be able to thank Peter McGowan ('64, I think) for ensuring that the signs were changed.
The OU season has a lot of potential and I'm sure I'll fritter away numerous hours on Owen Field, but if one more poster exclaims how they expect the team to be "dominate" this season, my head may implode. The subtleties of affect/effect and further/farther are lost on much of that group.
That said, let's go smash 'em in the mouth tomorrow.
09-02-2011, 05:24 PM
doublespiral-- Are the good citizens of OU's fanboards confident in the linebacking corps and offensive line? Those would be my key concerns from a personnel standpoint.
09-02-2011, 05:51 PM
The Sooner faithful is pretty fired up, in general.
Obviously, the loss of Austin Box is a h:uge blow - both to the heart of the LB corp, and to many individuals emotionally - but the team seems to be rallying around his memory. Many expect Tom Wort to step in admirably, however. He was a bit of a loose cannon last year, but should benefit from an additional year of maturity. The injury to Travis Lewis shouldn't be too detrimental if he is back soon - though Florida State looms large. His backup, Corey Nelson, received lots of praise in the off-season.
Most seem sanguine about the offensive line. They didn't lose much and have some additional players rounding into form. The skill players on O are impressive. Though not as gifted as Luck, Landry Jones is surrounded by impressive athletes everywhere you look, and should put up impressive numbers in an explosive offense. Ryan Broyles and some of the young receivers really make him look good.
The largest nagging concern is the defensive line. They had issues at DT last year and teams were able to run between the tackles on them. They have some highly-touted guys; it's just a question of whether they rise to the level of their hype. There is also a question about eligibility of the DE Ronnell Lewis. Scary athletic ability, but hasn't really put it all together - on the field or in the classroom. He's a menace on special teams though where his only assignment is to hammer the guy with the ball. Jeremy Beal is gone to the NFL and someone needs to step up to put pressure on the opposition's QB and firm up run support.
Sorry to highjack the thread. I'll try to behave better in the future.
(Apparently, there is some Board software that also does some highjacking. I worked around it for this post, but will consult my thesaurus for future entries.)
Obviously, the loss of Austin Box is a h:uge blow - both to the heart of the LB corp, and to many individuals emotionally - but the team seems to be rallying around his memory. Many expect Tom Wort to step in admirably, however. He was a bit of a loose cannon last year, but should benefit from an additional year of maturity. The injury to Travis Lewis shouldn't be too detrimental if he is back soon - though Florida State looms large. His backup, Corey Nelson, received lots of praise in the off-season.
Most seem sanguine about the offensive line. They didn't lose much and have some additional players rounding into form. The skill players on O are impressive. Though not as gifted as Luck, Landry Jones is surrounded by impressive athletes everywhere you look, and should put up impressive numbers in an explosive offense. Ryan Broyles and some of the young receivers really make him look good.
The largest nagging concern is the defensive line. They had issues at DT last year and teams were able to run between the tackles on them. They have some highly-touted guys; it's just a question of whether they rise to the level of their hype. There is also a question about eligibility of the DE Ronnell Lewis. Scary athletic ability, but hasn't really put it all together - on the field or in the classroom. He's a menace on special teams though where his only assignment is to hammer the guy with the ball. Jeremy Beal is gone to the NFL and someone needs to step up to put pressure on the opposition's QB and firm up run support.
Sorry to highjack the thread. I'll try to behave better in the future.
(Apparently, there is some Board software that also does some highjacking. I worked around it for this post, but will consult my thesaurus for future entries.)
The Sooner faithful is pretty fired up, in general.
Obviously, the loss of Austin Box is a h:uge blow - both to the heart of the LB corp, and to many individuals emotionally - but the team seems to be rallying around his memory. Many expect Tom Wort to step in admirably, however. He was a bit of a loose cannon last year, but should benefit from an additional year of maturity. The injury to Travis Lewis shouldn't be too detrimental if he is back soon - though Florida State looms large. His backup, Corey Nelson, received lots of praise in the off-season.
Most seem sanguine about the offensive line. They didn't lose much and have some additional players rounding into form. The skill players on O are impressive. Though not as gifted as Luck, Landry Jones is surrounded by impressive athletes everywhere you look, and should put up impressive numbers in an explosive offense. Ryan Broyles and some of the young receivers really make him look good.
The largest nagging concern is the defensive line. They had issues at DT last year and teams were able to run between the tackles on them. They have some highly-touted guys; it's just a question of whether they rise to the level of their hype. There is also a question about eligibility of the DE Ronnell Lewis. Scary athletic ability, but hasn't really put it all together - on the field or in the classroom. He's a menace on special teams though where his only assignment is to hammer the guy with the ball. Jeremy Beal is gone to the NFL and someone needs to step up to put pressure on the opposition's QB and firm up run support.
Sorry to highjack the thread. I'll try to behave better in the future.
(Apparently, there is some Board software that also does some highjacking. I worked around it for this post, but will consult my thesaurus for future entries.)
Obviously, the loss of Austin Box is a h:uge blow - both to the heart of the LB corp, and to many individuals emotionally - but the team seems to be rallying around his memory. Many expect Tom Wort to step in admirably, however. He was a bit of a loose cannon last year, but should benefit from an additional year of maturity. The injury to Travis Lewis shouldn't be too detrimental if he is back soon - though Florida State looms large. His backup, Corey Nelson, received lots of praise in the off-season.
Most seem sanguine about the offensive line. They didn't lose much and have some additional players rounding into form. The skill players on O are impressive. Though not as gifted as Luck, Landry Jones is surrounded by impressive athletes everywhere you look, and should put up impressive numbers in an explosive offense. Ryan Broyles and some of the young receivers really make him look good.
The largest nagging concern is the defensive line. They had issues at DT last year and teams were able to run between the tackles on them. They have some highly-touted guys; it's just a question of whether they rise to the level of their hype. There is also a question about eligibility of the DE Ronnell Lewis. Scary athletic ability, but hasn't really put it all together - on the field or in the classroom. He's a menace on special teams though where his only assignment is to hammer the guy with the ball. Jeremy Beal is gone to the NFL and someone needs to step up to put pressure on the opposition's QB and firm up run support.
Sorry to highjack the thread. I'll try to behave better in the future.
(Apparently, there is some Board software that also does some highjacking. I worked around it for this post, but will consult my thesaurus for future entries.)
09-02-2011, 05:58 PM
A lot of Stanford fans would have liked to see how Stanford would have done in the Sun Bowl if Andrew Luck had played. He broke his finger at the end of the regular season and missed the Sun Bowl against Oklahoma. Toby Gerhart did his part with 135 yards or so, but Stanford didn't have a passing game . . .
I'd love to see a Stanford-Oklahoma rematch in New Orleans in the second week of January. Laissez le bon temps rouler!
I'd love to see a Stanford-Oklahoma rematch in New Orleans in the second week of January. Laissez le bon temps rouler!
A lot of Stanford fans would have liked to see how Stanford would have done in the Sun Bowl if Andrew Luck had played. He broke his finger at the end of the regular season and missed the Sun Bowl against Oklahoma. Toby Gerhart did his part with 135 yards or so, but Stanford didn't have a passing game . . .
I'd love to see a Stanford-Oklahoma rematch in New Orleans in the second week of January. Laissez le bon temps rouler!
I'd love to see a Stanford-Oklahoma rematch in New Orleans in the second week of January. Laissez le bon temps rouler!
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »