Hamilton Saint

"Pre-Owned Cars", instead of Used Cars. Think about it. If you really think this will work, then it ought to be Previously-Owned Cars, eh? "Pre-Owned Cars" implies cars right off the factory floor - cars that have not been owned yet.

The web site run by The Atlantic magazine, The Atlantic Wire, recently did an on-line poll of disliked words and phrases. The word 'moist' was cited most often and most emphatically. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/dictionary-despicable-words/55464/

Yellow shirt, blue shorts, white socks.

As far as the cooking method goes, though ... !

You're correct about the PL; I don't know about the FL.

OK - thanks! I think I'll add that to the "Words and sayings that wind you up" thread in the Muppet Show!

I just want to know what he means. "Worldy"?

I spoke to some guys doing a hog roast in Frome, Somerset in early July. You could talk to them. Hinton HogRoasts: www.hogroasts.webs.com. They're based in Edington, Wilts.

"worldy" goal?

Man, this is boring. Have we scored yet?

Each to his own, I suppose. I reckon wit requires an element of intelligence and self-deprecation.

Exactly - tiresomely predictable.

The thread title is a statement. Then you post something in the form of a question. Or is it actually an either/or question? Or is it really two questions. It helps to be a bit more precise.

What exactly do you mean - that's a bit ambiguous.

I think you'll find that for any bird to fly successfully, the right wing and the left wing need to coordinate perfectly. Hmmmmm ...

That's classic! Once in a while, I'll come across this notice posted on a door: "Caution, this door is alarmed".

I've been fretting on here about people who take a word that exists as one part of speech (e.g., medal - a noun) and then turn it into another (to medal - a verb). Here's another gruesome example of this from earlier today. A poster on here used the word 'navalise' in a thread about the military. And then a little later he used the word 'navalisation'.

Forget "Ignore" - can we have an "Exterminate" function, please!

Kids snacking kids! Now you're talking!

Yes, I know. Just wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt!

You're wrong there. You're just not able (or willing) to follow the nuances and subtleties of the debate. Never mind.

I've gone back and re-read most of them, I think. I still don't understand your comment about me staying awake. Are you insulting me, or insulting him? I found his posts to be interesting and wise - and in the middle of one he mentions briefly a child "responding in fear" to a form of discipline based on smacking and hitting. He doesn't talk about the child "quaking in fear". Maybe, he uses those words elsewhere. But you seem to prefer to put words in other people's mouths. and mis-characterise their true attitude by setting up a straw man you can attack.

The debate has moved about because people have responded to each other's comments - which invariably start to take a few tangents. For example, one poster said: "the State has absolutely no role to play in how I bring my children up. You bring your chidren up how you want and I will bring mine up how I think is best." To which I replied: "Yes, granted, but the state does have a duty - a legal obligation - to intervene when children are being abused." It's a nuanced debate, but you seem to want to simplify it and reduce it to a simple black-and-white situation. And label other people to suit your own bias.

Why the phrase there in parentheses?

Again, you mis-characterise the debate. Noone is saying that a smacked child is "quaking in fear".