Dictionary.com

What Character Was Removed from the Alphabet?

ampersand

Johnson & Johnson, Barnes & Noble, Dolce & Gabbana: the ampersand today is used primarily in business names, but that small character was once the 27th part of the alphabet. Where did it come from though? The origin of its name is almost as bizarre as the name itself.

The shape of the character (&) predates the word ampersand by more than 1,500 years. In the first century, Roman scribes wrote in cursive, so when they wrote the Latin word et which means “and” they linked the e and t. Over time the combined letters came to signify the word “and” in English as well. Certain versions of the ampersand, like that in the font Caslon, clearly reveal the origin of the shape.

The word “ampersand” came many years later when “&” was actually part of the English alphabet. In the early 1800s, school children reciting their ABCs concluded the alphabet with the &. It would have been confusing to say “X, Y, Z, and.” Rather, the students said, “and per se and.” “Per se” means “by itself,” so the students were essentially saying, “X, Y, Z, and by itself and.” Over time, “and per se and” was slurred together into the word we use today: ampersand. When a word comes about from a mistaken pronunciation, it’s called a mondegreen.

(The ampersand is also used in an unusual configuration where it appears as “&c” and means etc. The ampersand does double work as the e and t.)

The ampersand isn’t the only former member of the alphabet. Learn what led to the extinction of the thorn and the wynn.

Are there other symbols or letters you would like to learn about? The most popular choice below will be our focus in the near future.

30 Crown Energy Corp. Jay Measley (801) 537-5610 P (CEO) (801) 537-5609 F in our site 1800contacts coupon code

31 Utah Medical Products Inc. Kevin L Cornwell (801) 566-1200 P (CEO) (801) 566-2062 F

32 Equity Oil Co. Paul M. Dougan (801) 521-3515 P (CEO) (801) 521-3534 F

33 Alpine Air Express Eugene Mallette (801) 373-1508 P (CEO) (801) 377-3781 F go to web site 1800contacts coupon code

34 Dynatronics Corp. Kelvyn H.

(801) 568-7000 P Cullimore Jr.

(801) 568-7711 F (CEO)

35 Sento Corp. Patric O’Neal (801) 492-2000 P (CEO) (801) 492-2100 F

1,977 Comments

  1. Joshua -  April 27, 2016 - 10:41 am

    You everyone say Y & Z that’s how it should be

    Reply
    • Conan The Librarian -  April 28, 2016 - 3:47 pm

      W X Y Z. O.K.?
      CTL

      Reply
  2. not on fire -  April 25, 2016 - 5:53 pm

    Why do you all keep fighting abt “&”??? chill, go read a book or something idk just be useful!!! you have a life to live!!

    Reply
    • larrie -  April 25, 2016 - 6:13 pm

      I agree! ++ love the username

      Reply
    • anthony rdz -  April 28, 2016 - 6:40 am

      EAT YOUR SOUP!!!

      Reply
  3. asker seeker knocker -  April 22, 2016 - 10:54 am

    Wants to know how much longer the Children of God on earth will continue to seek current information from stone tablets and mutilated, mistranslated, 2000 year old books; only to argue semantics? Did you forget to remember who you are? Get too caught up in all the things? :)

    Reply
    • one giant -  April 28, 2016 - 6:53 am

      one giant hahahahahhahahjaajjajajjajahahajajhajhajhajhajahjahjhjahjahjahjahjhajhajahjhajhajhjahjhajajhjahajhajhaahjahjhahjhajajahjaha

      Reply
    • Zaire -  May 3, 2016 - 7:57 am

      I am GODS child and I believe in him and yes i will search for those books because i love him that much :-(

      Reply
    • Zaire -  May 3, 2016 - 8:05 am

      i am GODS child and i will find those books and i never forget who i am because i came from JESUS the lord and savoir of the earth the one who created everything even YOU:-(

      Reply
  4. Nemo! -  April 21, 2016 - 2:38 pm

    Oi!
    Why do you people keep taking my stuff off the page? Eh?
    Nemo.

    Reply
    • ritz crackers -  April 23, 2016 - 12:01 pm

      nemo is a weirdo did u know that

      Reply
      • Jim Carner -  April 25, 2016 - 1:28 pm

        ritz crackers

        Ritz crackers is.

        Reply
    • anthony rdz -  April 27, 2016 - 7:21 am

      if you ever need a place to stay go to your moms house not me

      Reply
  5. Trey Lehman -  April 20, 2016 - 7:35 am

    I am still confused as to where I should use an ampersand. Is it appropriate to use it EVERYWHERE where an “and” can be placed?

    Reply
    • Björling Singt -  April 21, 2016 - 6:41 am

      No. It should only be used when the elements it connects are intended to be thought of as a cohesive unit or combination. “We had bacon & eggs for breakfast.” “This bill enjoys support from Democrats and Republicans.” Whenever considering the use of a contraction, truncation, or abbreviation I still remember (and usually try to follow) the advice a teacher gave me long ago: “When in doubt spell it out.”

      Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 22, 2016 - 8:51 am

        to Bjorling Singt, regarding 6/21/2016 6:41 am post

        Do you mean even in computer language? or especially in computer language? Example: AppNexus&utm

        Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 22, 2016 - 11:01 am

        to Bjorling Singt regarding 4/21/2016 6:41 am (clock time) post
        Greetings -
        Does your post include computer language; and maybe especially computer language? Example: AppNexus&utm The example given here may have more cookies than Grandma and Keebler combined.
        Peace,
        GG

        Reply
      • Chuck -  May 2, 2016 - 6:42 pm

        This explanation is something I can understand. Thank you

        Reply
  6. Bruce -  April 16, 2016 - 11:07 am

    can you use it like this?:
    b&ter (bETter)
    or
    w& (wET)

    Reply
    • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 6:31 pm

      lol, i like it. How about ‘& phone home’. heehee peace

      Reply
      • Awesomeness -  April 21, 2016 - 1:49 pm

        Haha

        Reply
      • Anna -  April 23, 2016 - 1:21 pm

        :)

        Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  May 2, 2016 - 7:20 pm

      Someone said, “Jackie, you mentioned St Onan. Who is/was he/she?”
      I told her, ‘Ah well, y’see, what it is, is, Onan was a man in the bible. A monosexual, he was sanctified in the 12th century and became the (unofficial) patron saint of masturbators, which is what he was up to in the bible, spilling his seed upon the ground. I think my older brother prayed to him every night.
      Since Captain Kangaroo has yet to reply, I’ll essay this: (and recall my mentioning it to you in my recent post as I was addressing Grace. “… which you and I have both used. (Randall please note the redundance in “both used”)” Remember? “…which you and I have used would have sufficed. Well, it’s my guess that the good captain was concerned by redundance and tautology, both of which are as irritating as they’re unnecessary, in most cases, though I can see why he used it – for emphasis.
      Your imperative pronoun is a new one on me and though you’ve rejected it in your latest I guess that ‘you!’ is one such? An intensive pronoun, I take to be e.g. ‘you yourself’, no? Other minor irritations occur where I personally, physically think that you yourself and I myself should both reverse backwards and go and both return again together to somewhere where we have both previously been before this present moment in time, right now. Had enough? I’m sure I certainly have. Reflexive pronouns are new on me and I take them to be I, me, we and us. If that’s the case, then they’ll sometimes have to be subjects. Or can I be wrong?
      Here’s another one: You wrote to Grace of her criticising and finding fault freely, “while you ignore the bromide you yourself (whoops!) stated…” sorry, Randy, intensified, of course. I thought, “This bloke’s actually used a word whose meaning I know not! (I usually think like that when there’s no-one watching). Well I looked to find that it is a cliché, phrase or platitude that, having been employed excessively, suggests insincerity… and I thought well what a good choice that is; that’s my man. I guess it’s an American word, like bloviate, which you used recently but which I’ve yet to hear used here, though I’ve had an American use it in the book for the purpose of ‘authenticity’. My parents were tragic fans of that awful South Pacific and I used to hear it: In Love with a Wonderful Guy:
      I’m as bright and as gay as a daisy in May
      A cliché coming true
      I’m bromidic and bright
      As a moon-happy night…
      Pouring light on the dew.
      Smashing words, though I thought I’d probably mis-heard ‘bromidic’, though it was clearly an adjective of ‘bromide’. We girl guides used to sing The Quartermaster’s Stores, whose chorus was officially “My eyes are dim, I cannot see/ I have not brought my specs with me,” except that we sang, “I have no bromide in my tea.” As we got older we discovered that bromide is what soldiers are fed to stop their erections froming – I mean forming; I’ve never seen an erection frome in my life. (Wondering whether to write ‘from forming’, of course.)
      So I thought it very bold to publicly suggest that the singer was fed bromide! It was only when I came across your use of it that I discovered that it has a literary use too.
      So I’ve learnt something else, thank you.
      Finally, a quickie; I think the poncey ‘You, as do I, recognise Jacquelyn’s…’ is the one.

      Reply
  7. HiMuJi -  April 8, 2016 - 5:24 pm

    This site is astonishing. I enjoy learning new things every day. “Thank you” is not enough.

    Reply
    • EJ -  April 19, 2016 - 5:26 am

      Interesting. Thanks

      Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 19, 2016 - 9:07 am

      HiMuJi.
      Please see below.
      Jackie.

      Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 6:22 pm

        Jacquelyn -
        Just happened back and saw the ‘& box enticer’ again. I see you asked questions of me on all-fools’ day. I answered on this day. Peace

        Reply
      • rose -  April 24, 2016 - 4:39 am

        jacquelyn r u a girl or boy

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 27, 2016 - 2:54 pm

          Rose.

          “jacquelyn r u a girl or boy”

          Yes, sometimes. Aren’t you?

          J.

          Reply
    • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 6:51 pm

      This site astonishes me also, HiMuJi. I am amused, always, to perceive how humans spend their time. I wonder how much time we will actually spend here, just doing time, before we realize: it is our mess to fix?

      Reply
  8. Grace K. -  April 7, 2016 - 12:24 am

    Hello all,
    First, a quote. PVaculla says, “I actually came to this blog via the dictionary, blog being a verb, a noun and a sphere. And into a space dominated by individuals who insist on baiting one another over grammar, and spelling.”
    I absolutely agree with this. Certainly, I did not expect to find a group of individuals who continue to debate over often-meaningless topics, pick at every small grammar mistake, and disregard social conventions of grace and kindness. I’m sure none of you would act this way ‘in real life,’ hmm? (As you can see, I stole a phrasing of the dear Miss Jackie’s. It was too annoying not to use).
    Secondly, the thing that bothers me more than the nit picking and arguments. Miss Jackie Hyde and Mr. Randall Bell seem to have a lovely relationship, and that I do not mind. However, if you two could tone down (Or eliminate entirely! how about that?) the sexual references and quotes from porn, that would be lovely. Thank you. As I’m sure you know, schoolchildren sometimes use this site. Hopefully I need to explain any further.
    And if you’ve found any grammar errors in this comment (I’m sure you will; I freely admit to not being perfect), feel free to take a crack at them. I do not begrudge anyone the chance to show their superiority. = )

    Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 8, 2016 - 2:22 am

      Grace K. 7.4.16. [Randy, baby, unless you’ve already posted, I think this a case of ‘Ladies First’, (which I’m assured is a fine, if hardly known and rarely available scotch whisky, only sold by the case.)]

      Hello, Grace. I’ll treat this conversationally if you don’t mind. Yours is in speech-marks.

      “Hello all,
      First, a quote. PVaculla says, “I actually came to this blog via the dictionary, blog being a verb, a noun and a sphere. And into a space dominated by individuals who insist on baiting one another over grammar, and spelling.””
      Hmm; more than a little hysterical, I think. No? [And I wouldn’t have used that comma there.]
      “I absolutely agree with this. Certainly, I did not expect to find a group of individuals who continue to debate over often-meaningless topics,”…
      Er – “often-meaningless” — according to whom? You? A matter of opinion rather than a fact, I think.
      …”pick at every small grammar mistake, and disregard social conventions of grace and kindness.”
      What, every time? Try seeking out my little supportive kindnesses as a corrective to your one-sided rant, my dear. They are there, I assure you.
      “I’m sure none of you would act this way ‘in real life,’ hmm? (As you can see, I stole a phrasing of the dear Miss Jackie’s. It was too annoying not to use).”
      I’m glad to hear it. Now, having stolen and used it do you feel better for it? And do you not think this, what we’re doing now, is ‘real life’? (A moment’s thought should tell you why I put ‘real life’ in scare-quotes thus.)
      “Secondly, the thing that bothers me more than the nit picking and arguments.** Miss Jackie Hyde and Mr. Randall Bell seem to have a lovely relationship, and that I do not mind. [Oh, too kind.] However, if you two could tone down (Or eliminate entirely! how about that?) the sexual references and quotes from porn, that would be lovely. Thank you. As I’m sure you know, schoolchildren sometimes use this site. Hopefully I need to explain any further.”
      [I presume that there’s a negative missing there.]
      Well yes, you do. I can’t realistically speak for Randall with his naughty but interesting flirting, but (1) I have no idea of what you’re talking about. And (2) as for quotes [quotations, actually] from porn, it seems clear that you know more on that subject than I (or is it ‘me’? The floor is open, people.) You need to be specific here, Grace; give examples, dates etc, otherwise how do Randall and I know to what you refer? And I for one, can’t be arsed to go and find out. Do the job properly, if at all…

      “And if you’ve found any grammar errors in this comment (I’m sure you will; I freely admit to not being perfect), feel free to take a crack at them.”
      Yes, there are several, though lack of logic is the main offender here.
      “I do not begrudge anyone the chance to show their superiority. = )”
      Really‽ I’m interested in your use of “superiority”, which is, of course, a relative term and which you seem to use as a pejorative criticism, as do most of its users. In fact, since this blog is that of a dictionary is it not reasonable to suppose that, despite the cretinity of many contributions, those who use it do so in a spirit of learning. Hmm? We are all teachers; we are all learners. There, let that be a lesson to you.
      Here’s another**, and I quote [actually] to save you the bother of looking: ““Secondly, the thing that bothers me more than the nit picking and arguments.”** Full stop. This isn’t a sentence. Oh certainly there are no major grammatic errors, at least, none that I discern, though I’m by no means expert at grammar – far from it, in fact. Here’s an Alician ‘quotation’: Alice considered Humpty’s remark; it seemed to make sense and yet, she wondered, had he actually said anything? Well, have you, Grace? I think not. Certainly you have the essentials: subject, object, and the punctuation is, as throughout, refreshingly near-perfect; but have you advanced your argument? Answer, No. See, you mention ‘the thing’ but you don’t say what it is. What you need here is a colon. (No rudeness intended; I bear in mind that schoolchildren sometimes use this site.) Simple, then you can easily go on to discuss whatever, concerning Mr Randall Bell and me. [Ooh dear, now is it ‘me’ or is it ‘I’, perhaps even, ‘myself’? Has Jackie made a major blunder here? Tune in next week...]

      Finally, a word on ‘nit-picking’: the main reason for my criticism is the dreadful way many people treat our beloved, potentially beautiful language. (See copious examples at the top of most issues of this blog.) I admit it’s a bit difficult, but not bothering to learn it properly and then foisting it upon innocent recipients such as me is highly insulting! [Oh, heavens, there's that tricky 'me' again.] Such people, having shown themselves unwilling or too effing lazy to learn, then try to rationalise their way out. Part of this is to use that tired old euphemistic epithet, ‘nit-picking’. No, people; it just won’t do. As I said above, “Do the job properly, if at all.”

      Incidentally, in case you (people generally) think that ‘effing’ is is a polite way of saying a rude seven-letter word that is unsuitable for schoolchildren, it ain’t; it’s what happens to those who try to seek out god, who is of course, ineffable.

      So. How do you feel, Grace? Inferior? I think you should, since I have assumed the superior position, what is known as “the moral high-ground”, and since most of ‘real life’ is relative, then neither superior nor inferior can exist without the other… Do I make my point?
      Rather than that, perhaps you can take away a little lesson, the fact that you’ve learnt something as a result of this little skirmish. Yes? That, my dear, is as it should be. If that is as it is then you may feel an improved, healthier attitude towards others.

      Fond regards,
      Jackie.

      P.S. I’m interested in what Randy has to say on this; god, I’ve missed that man.
      JMH.

      Reply
      • Randall Bell -  April 8, 2016 - 10:08 am

        Let’s get a room. Wanna ask Grace to join us?

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 3:13 pm

          Randall.

          “Let’s get a room. Wanna ask Grace to join us?”

          Splendid notion, chap! But you’ll have to ask her; I’m much too shy.

          Jackie. x

          Reply
        • Grace K. -  April 11, 2016 - 7:44 pm

          Regarding Miss Jackie’s reply:
          I do realize that not all comments on this site are unkind or meaningless, but most of them seem to be. And yes, since I am speaking from my point of view, they are meaningless according to me (or is that ‘myself’?). But it’s possible that others might agree. You certainly can’t get much worse than Bob the Chicken’s comment below; “EAT YOUR SOUP!!!!”
          I do not doubt that your little kindnesses are there, as you assure me, but “I for one, can’t be arsed to go and find out.” (arsed, oh my, have we forgotten the schoolchildren?) Do the job properly, if at all, my dear!
          As for the ‘quotations,’ (yes, I can take a hint when I’m given one!), could it be that someone has deleted something? Believe it or not, I am having trouble finding the majority of those pesky quotations. I shall have another look-and-see in a few. Anywho, there was one; Jacqelyn Hyde, December 28th, 2015.
          And your paragraph beginning, “Finally, a word on nit-picking,” irks me to the core. You have already said that “we are all teachers, we are all learners,” and I would be willing to accept that as the reason for your criticism if not for two things: first, that nit-picking can often be unkind (as is observable on this blog), and secondly, that teachers don’t nit-pick. Teachers teach. My English teacher does not doubt my intelligence because of a misplaced comma; she considers it a honest mistake and gently corrects it. Another point that this analogy brings to mind: my English teacher has been hired to teach me. Teaching is her job. I’ll just leave you to figure out the rest, dearie.
          And could not others argue that you are foisting your sharp criticism on innocent recipients who may just happen to be reading comments? Then we become wrapped in a cycle of being constantly offended by anything someone has chosen to post for the world’s reading. Certainly, it is tempting to say something about whatever annoys you (case in point: myself, at this moment). But unwanted advice is generally considered obnoxious, and those who ask for teaching are those who are willing to receive it.
          I am intrigued by your saying God is ineffable, but that lower case ‘g’ does not seem to be a mistake. Why is this? I am unsure of the official definition, but the capital ‘G’ in God seems to be a sign of respect. Surely we can spare a capital to respect something (or someone) too amazing to be described in words.
          And you are really too kind, Mr. Randall. However, I’m a minor. = )
          ~ Grace

          Reply
          • Randall Bell -  April 12, 2016 - 1:15 pm

            Greetings, Grace K. You seem a somewhat stern and judgemental individual, your name notwithstanding. You are also hypocritical. You criticize and find fault freely, while you ignore the bromide you yourself stated on Apr. 11, thus; “But unwanted advice is generally considered obnoxious….” It is that, even from you. In your first post, the one from Apr. 7, you fault those who you believe “…disregard social conventions of grace and kindness.” You posit that none would be so crass as to act so “in real life.” By real life I guess you mean when out and about in society, in the real physical world of human interaction. It may interest you to know that such conditions cause me my greatest difficulties and personal challenges, suffering as I do from Tourette’s Syndrome. My little understood condition is an inherited neuro-physical disorder that causes odd behaviours, ranging from small physical tics and grimaces in mild cases, to shouted, repetitive vocalizations, often of vulgar, taboo words and phrases. That extreme is known as coprolalia. Such outbursts are rare in my case. I count myself fortunate. So, Grace,some of us might seem to disregard social conventions, but we cannot help it. Online, I can edit, rewrite, walk away, delete, and think to my heart’s content. On the subway or at the market I cannot. Also, staff here at the home control the network, so what I compose and send out (I cannot speak for others) has the approval of my case manager. Somehow, this discussion brings to mind what my friend in elementary school once told me. “Do not criticize anyone until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize, you’ll be a mile away, and you’ll have his shoes.” There may be a lesson there. Hello to all the school children!

            Have fun.
            Randall

            P.S. I, like Jacquelyn, know nothing about quoting porn. Please specify. My case manager is mad at me.

          • Grace K. -  April 12, 2016 - 7:16 pm

            Ah, yes, here we are. Apologies for my laziness in not posting this earlier. Jacquelyn Hyde, March 4th, 2015. And let us hope that those doctor’s-office stories will not inspire any young up-and-coming doctors and nurses. “Little pitchers have big ears,” as they say.
            To ‘Tegoon,’ if you see this, look for me on the Thug blog. K? = )
            @David It’s actually pretty easy…

          • Randall Bell -  April 13, 2016 - 3:09 pm

            Sincere apologies, Grace! In my post dated Apr. 11 I failed most dreadfully in a stylistic sense, having used the word ‘you’ far too many times in my opening sentences when referring to, that’s right, you. For that crime against good composition, I apologize. I cannot blame my case manager, as his job is to protect the institution from responsibility in case I become violent, libelous, or threatening. I blame my meds instead. I looked for Jacquelyn’s ‘porn’ which you claim to have found in her posts from Mar. 4, 2015, and Dec. 28, 2015. Because of the lack of chronology in the organization in this site, I failed to find the smoking guns. Could you reproduce her exact words, or would that shame you? We had a rule when we were kids; if you were just repeating something, it wasn’t a sin. I would encourage you to use that rationalization and help me (us?) understand your objections. Perhaps those who oversee this site have concerns as well. My case manager certainly does. I wonder whether your discoveries are as hard core as what you have already pointed out: my and Jacquelyn’s admissions that we played doctor as children. Oh, the horror! “Little pitchers have big ears.” Indeed. Like kids have no innocent, independent, nor spontaneous curiosity! Geez, where do you come from? Considering such depravity, I would hope that not just schoolchildren, but delicate and genteel women such as you, avoid these pages.

            Randall the profane

          • JillianY -  April 14, 2016 - 4:28 pm

            To Jacquelyn Hyde,

            I have really enjoyed reading your comments. I’ve learned a bit and been thoroughly entertained. Your, “It’s Coca Cola, Whoops!!! ― Hokey Cokey in Great Britain. Now, doesn’t that make MUCH more sense?? Anyway, did you know that the man who wrote it died last year? Apparently, they had great trouble putting him in the coffin. You see, they put the left arm in…” post made me burst out laughing.

            What started me reading these comments was the tit-for-tat between you, Grace, and Randall. I think that intelligent, thought-provoking comments and discussions are great examples for all of us, especially the innocent school children. As a side note, would the school children who would be old enough to actually read these comments, truly be innocent? Surely the vast majority of older kids nowadays have been exposed to much worse than what’s been brought up here.

            You’ve made a fan of me and I will be coming back for more. Intellectual conversations are sadly lacking in my home and I believe reading this blog and some really great comments may provide a brief respite from the crazy, illogical chaos that permeates my life. – Thank you

          • asker seeker knocker -  April 23, 2016 - 11:15 am

            Grace K. – April 11, 2016 – 7:44 pm

            Perhaps the ‘I for one’ in the quotation could be perceived in a slightly different light. Perhaps ‘I As One’ would serve all in a more uplifting fashion.
            I As One am continually on the lookout for My own as One in All.
            In ‘other words’ you do not need to worry over the postings of others, you only need follow your higher Self and multiply Your own talents as they are given You. Go forth in the expression of pure joy. Give it freely as it flows in You; this joy is all you require to Be and to Have the Oneness you seek.
            Epeace&love as One

      • david -  April 11, 2016 - 2:33 pm

        how do u type that long message??????!!!!!

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 14, 2016 - 5:22 am

          david 11.4.16 how do u type that long message??????!!!!!

          Practise, baby, practise.

          Dr J.

          Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 28, 2016 - 8:23 am

          JillianY – 14.4.16.

          “To Jacquelyn Hyde,
          I have really enjoyed reading your comments. I’ve learned a bit and been thoroughly entertained.”
          Well, thank you very much, Jillian; it’s always good to hear from an appreciator, it really is. And I have sent this before but it vanished.
          “Your, “It’s Coca Cola, Whoops!!! ― Hokey Cokey in Great Britain …” post made me burst out laughing.”

          I know; I read it on the web an absolute age ago! And even writing this to you now, it still makes me laugh! There is a few others: I mean, I still laugh out loud over the names of the Sikh karaoke singer, who goes by the name Gidupta Singh and the great Hindu leader, Mahatma Coat. And while we’re on names, there was an obscure film in which the hero is introduced to a line of French Foreign Legionnaires, one of whom is Monsieur deja-vu. Frowning and scrutinising the hero closely he says suspiciously, “’ave we not met before, m’sieu?” It’s probably an old one but not to me and I laughed all the way to the loo.

          “What started me reading these comments was the tit-for-tat between you, Grace, and Randall…”
          Yes, I love it, and I’m sure we all treat it as a game.
          “…I think that intelligent, thought-provoking comments and discussions are great examples for all of us, especially the innocent school children.”
          Wonderful! Yes, especially the innocent school children! What a shot that was on Grace’s part! Brilliant.
          “As a side note, would the school children who would be old enough to actually read these comments, truly be innocent? Surely the vast majority of older kids nowadays have been exposed to much worse than what’s been brought up here.”
          Indeed, and I’m sure that’s the point.
          “You’ve made a fan of me and I will be coming back for more.”
          Well thanks, Jillian. As I’ve already implied, I really do appreciate it.
          “Intellectual conversations are sadly lacking in my home and I believe reading this blog and some really great comments may provide a brief respite from the crazy, illogical chaos that permeates my life. – Thank you”
          Oh, I’m really sorry to hear that. (Pause) Um – I don’t know, I’m not too good on this kind of advice – except perhaps you could get yer homesters to read it and then you can all debate it… (Shrugs) Look, here’s the commercial: keep yer eye out for my first book. If you find my humour acceptable, there’s plenty of it in Thicker Than Water, a love story with a difference, which is due out as soon as I can get it there, surely mere days now.
          Hang on in there, kid.

          JillianY – 14.4.16.
          See, it’s happened again! It appeared, then disappeared. So I rewrote it/re-sent it and lo and behold, the original’s reappeared! Are they trying to make a monkey out of me? (Does visual monkey impression, c/w ‘ooh, ooh, ooh’ sounds.) It’s just so boring. Uh-oh; now it’s gone again.
          Anyway, sorry, people; I missed out an important point that I’d meant to put into the first one (twice). So come on Grace and Randall, I’ll go in the middle – there… That’s it, hold hands. Good, now take a bow. Well done.
          …Um – I don’t know, I’m not too good on this kind of advice – except perhaps you could get yer homesters to read it and then you can all debate it… (Shrugs) That might move things in the right direction…

          Love,

          Jackie.

          Reply
      • Me -  April 12, 2016 - 1:16 pm

        I have

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 14, 2016 - 5:39 am

          Randy one. Forgive my impertinence but your P.S. might have been better reading, ‘I like Jacquelyn, but I know nothing about quoting porn.’ … My case manager is mad etc. Incidentally, mad or no, he/she/it seems to be doing well in controlling your ailment.

          J. xx

          PS. Nothing from asker seeker knocker yet then? Mind you, jimidafrique seems potential.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 15, 2016 - 5:10 am

            Grace,

            Pray, what’s the meaning of your cryptic, year+ old reference, “Apologies for my laziness in not posting this earlier. Jacquelyn Hyde, March 4th, 2015.”?
            Not a case of our CBA, well, not at first. I searched but couldn’t find it, and in the end, well I simply CBA. So do tell.

            Jacquelyn.

      • B-ball Girl ;) -  April 14, 2016 - 4:27 pm

        STOP FIGHTING IN A PROPER WAY!!! SERIOUSLY, FIGHTING ISN’T GOOD BUT FIGHTING ALL PROPER IS RIDICULOUS STOP!!! please…

        Reply
        • Alyssa -  April 21, 2016 - 11:33 am

          THANK YOU!!!! I AGREE!!! Seriously though, their argument is like a chapter book.

          Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 21, 2016 - 2:53 pm

          B-ball Girl 14.4.16
          “STOP FIGHTING IN A PROPER WAY!!! SERIOUSLY, FIGHTING ISN’T GOOD BUT FIGHTING ALL PROPER IS RIDICULOUS STOP!!! please…”

          D’you wonna try that in English? Perhaps then we could help…

          JMH.

          Reply
      • Björling Singt -  April 21, 2016 - 7:07 am

        If the phrase, “real life,” has any meaning then it most certainly does NOT include this, what we’re doing now. Unless this is your job and you’re actually getting paid real money for doing it. Sweet gig; where do I sign up?

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 28, 2016 - 5:56 am

          Björling Singt 21.4.16.
          “If the phrase, “real life,” has any meaning then it most certainly does NOT include this, what we’re doing now. Unless this is your job and you’re actually getting paid real money for doing it. Sweet gig; where do I sign up?”

          Björling. Thanks for yours. Your question first: just write wherever you see this sign: ‘REPLY’ There’s no signing, at least, not within your horizon. Doubtless you’ve found that already, but I did write this before your first reply and its mysterious disappearance. I wonder these people don’t look after their stuff, even though they get it free.

          You say, “…actually getting paid real money…” What, as distinct from, say, Monopoly money? Now, I use ‘real life’ in those speechmarks, only because ‘reality’ is such a slippery and nebulous concept. It’s not about money, mercenary one. I suggest that, taken overall, it means differently to each one of us. This proposes that we each exist in our own reality. There are many reasons for this, mostly cultural and experiential but also somewhat genetic.

          Does that make sense, or am I just jerkin’ off?

          Well, that’s about it for now, unless you wonna talk about it? Go on, press the REPLY go-stud.

          Jackie.

          P.S. Note to Grace; “jerkin’ off” is either an innocent phrase to innocent schoolchildren, or they know about it already. Either way, they won’t be harmed by its use here.
          Remember: To the pure, all things are pure.

          Dr J

          Reply
      • lolcats21 -  April 21, 2016 - 7:48 am

        tl ; dr

        Reply
      • Freshnique -  April 25, 2016 - 1:36 pm

        Jackie, I rarely feel inspired to add my own thoughts on any comment page gracing the internet. Yet I must say…

        …you are awesome.

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 28, 2016 - 3:22 pm

          Freshnique 25 April 2016

          “Jackie, I rarely feel inspired to add my own thoughts on any comment page gracing the internet. Yet I must say…
          …you are awesome.”

          Freshnique!
          I must say that I’m honoured, touched, and just tickled pink by your post. It’s really good to read this sort of comment. I do believe it’s the best I’ve had yet. Thank you so much.
          I tell you what, I love your ‘name’. Very good. Is it an original?
          And now for the plug. If you find this stuff awesome, wait till you read my Thicker Than Water.
          A different kind of love story, it’s due out shortly in Kindle’s KDP Select free lending library.
          I really think you’re gonna love it.

          Love,

          Jackie.

          Reply
    • Bryan Parkin -  April 14, 2016 - 1:12 pm

      Hopefully I do not need to explain any further.

      Reply
      • Mickey Finn -  April 21, 2016 - 4:26 pm

        No.

        Reply
    • Captain Kangaroo -  April 16, 2016 - 2:56 am

      Grace K.

      I feel I should warn you that were it not for your claim to be under legal age, which would of course need to be vouchsafed, preferably by an English Notary Public, at your own expense, (all that travelling!) what appear to be your unsubstantiated accusations of Messrs. Bell and Hyde, in alphabetical order, their dealing in pornographic material (depending on the Court’s definition of the same – it could go to a jury trial, especially in some States where it is still a Capital Offense), and especially in the actual presence of minors, i.e, the schoolchildren you yourself mentioned, (there’s that variation on ‘myself’, you see, and may I suggest that were this not a quasi-legal and forensic document it would both be and look very silly) you could be summonsed and fined a not-inconsiderable sum (of specie) for libel and defamation of character.

      The two alleged miscreants are well within their rights to do so and I should further warn you that it is my opinion that should they bring charges against you they are statistically likely to win substantial damages for your malfeasance. I suggest that you retract your allegations immediately and issue a realistic public apology to the pair. In that way they may perhaps consider releasing you from the possibility of a civil suit with a slight, right, wrist-slap in the form of a mild rebuke, issued jointly and severally.

      Furthermore, should you commit such an act again you could find yourself in some jolly hot water, see if you don’t

      Captain Kangaroo.

      Reply
    • Poppy -  April 17, 2016 - 12:58 pm

      Fbhj

      Reply
    • Ian -  April 27, 2016 - 2:30 am

      I did not see Ms Grace K’s response to Randall Bell’s note of 11 April explaining that he has Tourette’s syndrome. Assuming this to be so, a little more sensitivity may perhaps be worthy of consideration. That sounds a bit pompous, but Tourette’s is not an easy condition to cope with.

      Reply
      • Randall Bell -  April 28, 2016 - 3:52 pm

        Thanks, Ian, for your kind words of support. I too noticed that Grace K has been silent of late. Perhaps she was intimidated by Captain Kangaroo’s mention of her liability in a possible lawsuit. More likely she cannot substantiate her silly accusations, and should probably be left to fret and stew by herself. Recall that Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “Do not swallow bait offered by an enemy. Do not interfere with an army that is returning home.” Grace has, I think, packed her bags and left the building. Ciao, Grace. And Jillian Y, I do appreciate you including my contributions among the reasons you favour this site. You, like I, recognize Jacquelyn’s wonderful, varied, and creative efforts. Truth is, I’m wild about her! (I posted several days ago, as did she, and neither did my missive appear, so this too is a second go. I, however, am not clever enough to ‘save’ anything, so this is a real redo.) By the way, Captain Kangaroo, when you wrote to Grace on April 16, you composed a sentence which included “…the school children you yourself mentioned…”, then stated that such wording might look and sound silly in a non-legal context. I beg to disagree. Yours is an entirely correct use of an imperative pronoun, which, in this case, highlights Grace’s self-inflicted gun shot wound in her own foot. I gnash my teeth when I hear or read reflexive pronouns used as subjects.

        Reply
        • Randall Bell -  April 29, 2016 - 12:23 pm

          Imperative pronoun? No, silly! Intensive pronoun. Geez, get a proofreader or a new pair of bifocals.

          Yours in embarrassment,
          Randall

          Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  May 2, 2016 - 12:02 pm

          Randall Bell – April 28, 2016
          Thanks, Ian, for your kind words of support. I too noticed that Grace K … self-inflicted gun shot wound in her own foot. I gnash my teeth when I hear or read reflexive pronouns used as subjects.
          (All points taken but cut for eco reasons; it must save something, surely?)

          My dear Randall; it is with deep regret that we seem to be privy to Grace’s demise (as it were) and I for one will be sorry to see her go. I don’t think we were too rough on her, were we? She wrote intelligently, if a little hysterically, and was great fun as a moving target. Grace, dear, would you reconsider your apparent retreat? (Though not necessarily as a target at all – neither static nor dynamic.) I’m fairly sure that Randall would support this view?

          Grace, I’m putting this in as though it were a Parthian shot of yours, which, of course, it isn’t. Here it is; “I do not doubt that your little kindnesses are there, as you assure me, but “I for one, can’t be arsed to go and find out.” (arsed, oh my, have we forgotten the schoolchildren?) Do the job properly, if at all, my dear!”
          I’ve just been speaking with a Canadian friend, who said that he’d recently found the (delightful) phrase ‘can’t be arsed’, which you and I have now both used. (Randall please note the redundance in “both used”) In fact I got “can’t be arsed” from one of my schoolchildren, so I think you need have no fear of pollution from Randall and me. His manager seems to keep him well in hand, and I suggest that I’m sufficiently aware of scatology to avoid the worst of it.

          Randy, baby, I’m sorry to hear of your recent loss – of your posting, you understand. As one who has suffered much from this irritation you have my sympathy. No, that doesn’t quite work, so I’ll use one of your reflexive pronouns and a pair of parenthetic commas, like this: “As I, one who has suffered much from this irritation, you have my sympathy.” There, I think that’s better. Otherwise it looks as though you are the greater sufferer, and there’s little that upsets a Jew more than the possibility of another having to bear a greater burden than hers. (Incidentally, ‘Jewess’ is no longer used; we consider it insulting.)
          You say that you are, and I quote, “…not clever enough to ‘save’ anything…” Nonsense, dear boy, of course you are. So here’s what you do: write yer stuff in Word, or similar programme, then copy and paste it to this site. Then, when they lose it, remove it, or whatever they do to it, you can resubmit it with conspicuous ease. It’s only the short ones to piss off the idiots that I write directly. Incidentally, my Word, (programme) is pretty highly tuned; frequent, long and such tricksy-to-spell words as exist, are all set up so that I mostly just press a single letter followed by one of those little dots and the machine writes the whole word. (I did it ‘mc’ followed by the little dot just there and it wrote ‘machine’. You see? Just like that.) You can do it yourself; it’s dead easy. If I can do it so can you. (Incidentally, I have your latest post copied and pasted up on this screen, even as I write; it’s just so easy.)

          Now, here’s you: “You, like I, recognize Jacquelyn’s wonderful, varied, and creative efforts.” Well, thank you for that, darling, and you’re no mean writer, yourself or should I say, you are a mean writer? It depends what one means by ‘mean’. But I was utterly thrown by your, “You, like I…” It nearly jumped off the screen at me! I was really goshed!
          I have several simple rules to save all that grammar shit, one concerns the use of ‘I’ or ‘me’, very often a problem. My friend Liz, well acquaintance really; I shouldn’t presume to call her a friend, she is after all the Queen of England, even though we’re almost next-door neighbours, but she never gets it wrong. What a wonderful woman. Anyway, I tell people, if there’re two characters, remove one and see what happens. So when Liz says e.g. ‘The Duke and I’ etc, like at Xmas she’ll say, “The Duke and I wish you a merry Christmas. (she never calls it Xmas; too plebeian.) If we remove the duke we get ‘I wish you a merry Christmas.’ However, (comma) she sometimes says e.g. ‘It’s a merry Christmas from the Duke and me. NEVER from the Duke and I, (that would be as bad as The King and I, doubtless responsible for much misunderstanding) because if we remove the duke we get, ‘It’s a merry Xmas from me’, and NEVER ‘It’s a merry Xmas from I.’ As she pointed out to me a couple of years ago, “One does not wish to be mistaken for a Rasta person, even though one may enjoy the music.”
          With this in mind, if we remove the ‘You’ from your statement, we get, ‘I recognise Jacquelyn’s…’ etc. So you are absolutely correct, my dear. However, keeping it in (oohh!) looks as though it should be, ‘You, like me…’ (as distinct from ‘You like me,’ of course – we’ve been there, no?). Now, Americans almost invariably use ‘like’ where they should use e.g. ‘as though’. That said, would you agree to ‘You, as I, recognise Jacquelyn’s etc? Hmm, dear?
          There is a couple of other points I want to make, but I’ll save them for another post.
          Meanwhile, perhaps the good captain Kanga will reply?

          Very fonds,

          Jackie.

          Reply
  9. asker seeker knocker -  April 1, 2016 - 6:01 am

    Now will we transcend the physical and answer the ancient call to love that makes us whole? That we would understand and judge not? I do not know anything here, but perceive that we will ponder much more wonderful ideas when we forget the illusion of time and separateness and form.

    Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 8, 2016 - 3:43 am

      You see, Grace K? Beauty.

      Reply
  10. asker, seeker, knocker -  April 1, 2016 - 5:45 am

    Now will we transcend the physical, and answer the ancient call to love that makes us whole?

    Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 8, 2016 - 2:50 am

      asker, seeker, knocker 1.4.16
      “Now will we transcend the physical…when we forget the illusion of time and separateness and form”
      I’m fascinated by your all-fools’ day post; it looks to be meta-religious. Why that day? Where is it from? Can you tell us more?
      Hopefully,
      Jacquelyn.

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 8, 2016 - 3:52 am

        Sorry if I appear to hog the start of this edition, folks. I just want to tell John Mceiver that there’s something for him farther down.

        Reply
        • Randall Bell -  April 8, 2016 - 10:16 am

          Something farther down for you too, Jacquelyn.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 1:40 pm

            Oh, right.

      • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 4:27 pm

        Now is always This Present Moment. Tomorrow you will experience each and every moment as Now also. Why project illusions on the unmanifest? Why not just Be? Why not just be Life Itself? Have you forgotton Who You really Are in this dense form? Speak to yourself with a quiet mind from your own heart and remember. Elove to You Children

        Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 5:09 pm

        Greetings Jacquelyn,
        Why that day you ask? It was not the day actually, but merely the moment I spoke. Where is it from you ask? My higher Self of course. Can I tell You more? Only a bit more perhaps; and Only to point toward the indescribable with gutteral utterances of the body.

        Quiet your mind; your conditioned mind, for yacking makes it hard to hear.
        Now, go within and speak with your heart, to your heart from your heart. Now, listen with your heart. Ask anything, for You will find a true friend there.
        Elove Sister

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 22, 2016 - 10:41 am

          asker seeker knocker – 19.4.16.

          Occasionally I meet a person in whose mind I’d like to spend an hour. More than that would possibly drive me mad. There is a few contributors to this site who interest me to that extent. Yours, asker seeker knocker, is one such. I hasten to assure you that I don’t think you mad; it’s just major 3D, surround-sound, technicoloured culture shock; like a frog in a swan shop. You know what I mean? On the assumption that you’ve read Richard Bach’s Illusions, what did you think of it?

          Jacquelyn.

          Reply
          • asker seeker knocker -  April 27, 2016 - 12:50 am

            to Jacquelyn Hyde – April 22, 2016 – 10:41 am

            :( I have not read Illusions, darn it all. I would love to discuss what I thought of it with you, but am unqualified to do so.

            Perhaps there is some thing we could discuss though. I will remain hopeful until we think of it.

            Peace
            GG

          • asker seeker knocker -  April 27, 2016 - 2:08 am

            again to Jacquelyn Hyde – April 22, 2016 – 10:41 am

            Kind thanks for not thinking I am mad and for your assurance that this is so.

            It Is the very “major 3D, surround-sound, technicoloured culture shock; like a frog in a swan shop” stuff that makes life fun for me.

            It beats the heck out of staring at the wall, thinking what I’ve got to do next, when I’m doing dishes.

            It really, really beats the heck out of a sharp stick in the eye!

            :) I’ll try not to drive you mad with it.

            GG

  11. no name shared -  March 30, 2016 - 9:31 am

    Well, as a Christian, I believe there is not a 27th. God created the letters and I just believe there is no 27th! I mean, it does not mean others think about this, I just think there is 26, and 26 only!

    Sorry if i am ruining your lives, please just reply… thanks

    Reply
    • Anonymous -  March 31, 2016 - 8:00 pm

      Okay.

      Reply
    • Bob the Chicken -  March 31, 2016 - 8:35 pm

      EAT YOUR SOUP!!!!

      Reply
      • sam -  April 4, 2016 - 3:03 am

        whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Reply
      • Bolrag The Toaster -  April 4, 2016 - 9:37 am

        WHY THE SOUP!
        DX

        Reply
      • Anonymous guy says -  April 10, 2016 - 1:17 am

        Chick Chick Chicken

        Reply
    • Bob the Chicken -  March 31, 2016 - 8:36 pm

      EAT SOUP!

      Reply
      • LOL! -  April 13, 2016 - 7:35 pm

        Ok then…

        Reply
    • No one youd know -  April 1, 2016 - 3:27 am

      no name shared – 30.3.16.

      “Well, as a Christian, I believe there is not a 27th. God created the letters…”

      Oh, for god’s sake! “God created the letters”. Which day did he do that on? Where do you get this rubbish? Or do you just make it up as you go along?
      You know, there’s been some good info on this site on the languages beginning. I’ve learned a lot. Do you believe nothing but the bible? Is that all you read? Does being a Christian mean you have to have a simple, stupid, idiotic, and one-track mind? Or are you just winding us up? It is all fools day, you know!

      Nemo.

      Reply
      • the kid who is not dumb -  April 4, 2016 - 8:10 am

        Dude, god may have created the Hebrew script, i’ll give you that. But god did not directly create the English script. you should know that if you read any history at all. it was the Phoenicians that started it the whole alphabet thing, and then eventually the Romans who used Latin which is the root of English, and many other languages. also, nowhere in the bible does it say that god only created 26 letters, it would be like saying there are 1,025,109 words in the English language and there will never be any more or less. In fact 1000 years ago in old English there were only 50 or 60 thousand words in the English language.

        I would like to follow this up by saying that I understand your point of view, I myself am a christian and am telling you that you can believe what you want but god did not directly create the English Language, and does not control it any more than he controls you and I. he knows us inside and you, and he knows what is going to happen, but he doesn’t control it.

        Nemo is right that God did not create the English language, and he is also right in saying that, without knowing you and based on what you said, you don’t actually know the bible well, because so man people theses days just claim to be “Christian”, and don’t actually back it up in their actions.

        oh and also, don’t feel bad, someone was bound to say that soon enough, someone always does.

        P.S. I said before that I am Christian, and i mean it. Evolution is rubbish, the climate rising is just the human need for control. god is all powerful, but he doesn’t always fix our problems in the way that we want or think we need.

        P.P.S. Pray.

        Reply
        • The Baller -  April 7, 2016 - 6:23 pm

          TLDR

          Reply
        • Crackin up -  April 10, 2016 - 1:22 am

          i dont hav a religon. They ar silly

          Reply
          • not on fire -  April 25, 2016 - 5:45 pm

            I agree about no religion, but no need to call them silly x

          • brian -  April 30, 2016 - 9:18 am

            what would you call believing in a sky fairy. sounds silly to me.

        • Ethan -  April 15, 2016 - 8:16 pm

          “the kid who is not dumb”: Indeed, God did not invent the alphabet, or at least the Bible does not say he did. Almost certainly people did. But we also do not know who invented the alphabet. The Phoenicians spread the alphabet, but there’s no evidence that they invented it. Some say Moses invented it while living in Pharaoh’s court, then used it to write the 10 commandments and the law. Some say slaves working in the mines of the Sinai desert invented the alphabet. Fact is nobody really knows.

          Indeed, English was not directly invented by God. It is a dialect of Proto-Germanic, which in turn is a dialect of Proto-Indo-European, which actually is an invention of God, when he confounded the languages at Babel.

          P.S. I love your P.S.

          Reply
        • illuminutti -  April 18, 2016 - 4:22 am

          “may have created the Hebrew script” Seriously? It would have been a lot more logical for him or her to create ASCII code.

          Reply
        • CLT -  May 3, 2016 - 5:27 am

          I agree with the kid who is not dumb, and I would also like to say that some people posting things on here may actually be Christians and I know that I would be upset by some of the things said on here, so please just remember the whole world doesn’t revolve around you and there are other people.

          Regards Cherry xoxo ;)

          Reply
    • JACK KALAYDJIAN -  April 1, 2016 - 3:58 am

      EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE WHERE IN THE BIBLE DID GOD CREATE THE ALPHABET. ASSUMING HE DID THEN WHY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES HAVE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF LETTERS.

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 2, 2016 - 3:50 am

        no name shared

        Further to Jack Kalaydjian’s ‘ignorance’, …different numbers of letters and vastly different fonts too‼
        Was god deliberately trying to make it difficult for foreigners? Assuming he did, then why???

        Dr Hyde.

        Reply
        • Nig Nog -  April 5, 2016 - 11:15 pm

          God invented Sans Serif.

          The Devil invented Comic Sans…… ugh.

          Reply
          • The Baller -  April 7, 2016 - 6:24 pm

            Wow…Just wow

          • Dan the man -  April 8, 2016 - 3:22 am

            Nig Nog 5.4.16

            “God invented Sans Serif.
            The Devil invented Comic Sans…… ugh.”

            Nice one, Nig Nog.

            Dan.

          • asker seeker knocker -  April 23, 2016 - 11:32 am

            to Nig Nog – April 5, 2016 – 11:15 pm
            lmaool
            peace

    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 1, 2016 - 10:17 am

      Randall. It looks as though there could be some of your “outraged hyperventilation and sputtering bloviation” coming this way. See below (hopefully)

      Reply
      • chicken king -  April 5, 2016 - 1:19 pm

        i like you theory but god did not invent letters or numbers.

        Reply
      • chicken king -  April 5, 2016 - 1:20 pm

        i like your name bob the chicken!!!!!

        Reply
      • chicken king -  April 5, 2016 - 1:21 pm

        i like your name bob the chicken!!!!!111

        Reply
    • study -  April 1, 2016 - 12:31 pm

      Actually God did not invent letters. Quote book, chapter and verse, you won’t find it. In fact, symbols and characters were used for written correspondence. Many mis-interpret (misquote) Rev 22: 18 & 19. If looking at original text (Strong’s Concordance can help), you’ll find that those verses are meant to be applied to the book of Revelations. Reference – Rev 22:7, 22:9 & 10.

      Reply
    • Anonymous -  April 1, 2016 - 12:35 pm

      I am pretty sure this is sarcasm.

      Reply
    • gabriela -  April 1, 2016 - 1:01 pm

      God did not create the letters. For example, the english word alphabet comes from the first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet: Alef Bet. Countless words and letters come from different languages and cultures: Hebrew, German, Latin, Italian, Spanish, etc. Etymology is a legitimate and proffesional study and not the by-product of Jesus. Dont be so freaking arrogant about your own religion and just assume that God is the answer to everything. Let me just say that as a fact Jesus did not create the alphabet, history did. I bet arrogance will be your demise, especially since you sound like a Trump or Cruz supporter .

      Reply
      • No one youd know -  April 11, 2016 - 12:19 pm

        Gabriela 1.4.16
        “God did not create the letters. For example, the english [English!] word ‘alphabet’ comes from the first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet: Alef Bet.”

        Were that true, our letters collection would possibly be known as ‘the alefbet’. Therefore, using reverse provenance, I think we must conclude that it came from the Greek: ‘ALPHA, BETA, delta, gamma et cetera.]

        Nemo.

        Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 4:26 pm

        Gabriela 1.4.16
        “God did not create the letters. For example, the english [English!] word ‘alphabet’ comes from the first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet: Alef Bet.

        If that were true, our letters collection would possibly be known as ‘the alefbet’. Therefore, using reverse provenance, I think we must conclude that it came from the Greek: ‘ALPHA, BETA, delta, epsilon, gamma et cetera.]

        Jacquelyn.

        Reply
        • asker seeker knocker -  April 23, 2016 - 10:43 am

          to Jacquelyn Hyde – April 11, 2016 – 4:26 pm

          … continuing your thought… Alpha&Omega are My personal favorites. :)

          Reply
          • asker seeker knocker -  April 23, 2016 - 10:50 am

            to asker seeker knocker – April 23, 2016 – 10:43 am

            masculine&feminine
            active&passive
            yin&yang

            balanced, having perfect polarity, pure

    • no name believed -  April 1, 2016 - 2:46 pm

      no name shared – March 30, 2016

      “Well, as a Christian, I believe there is not a 27th”…

      Oh, for god’s sake! “God created the letters”‽ Where does it say that? Which day did he do it – the eighth? And the ampersand on the ninth I suppose.
      You know, there’s been some good info on this site. I’ve learned a lot. Do you believe nothing but the bible? Or are you just winding us up? We all know the date, you know.

      Reply
      • Mervyn -  April 17, 2016 - 12:13 pm

        I love that interrobang. Should get much more exposure which in turn will lead to more use‽

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 21, 2016 - 7:18 am

          Mervyn – 17.4.16.

          “I love that interrobang. Should get much more exposure which in turn will lead to more use‽”

          Absolutely! I find it invaluable as an emotion indicator. Look for it soon on Kindle. It features heavily in the book, Thicker Than Water. Enjoy.

          Jackie.

          Reply
          • asker seeker knocker -  April 24, 2016 - 1:28 pm

            Jacquelyn Hyde – April 21, 2016 – 7:18 am

            :) true enough for human beings, being denser than water. Don’t forget to keep leaping upward from water; there Is so much more. Understand, balance in, die to, then leap again, upward! To Air We leap!

            Repeat process in Air. Then leap once again to MORE.

            I think that is why I don’t much like books. We are rapidly becoming more, yet haven’t realized that the same old books become stagnant and mostly ignored or assumed by the general population.

            asker seeker knocker representing Green Grasshopper (aka: GG)

            Epeace to you Jacquelyn Hyde, you are clever.

            GG

      • godsgirl12 -  April 28, 2016 - 9:16 am

        well im a christian too and i also belive there is not a 27th

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  May 2, 2016 - 3:24 pm

          asker seeker knocker – April 27, 2016
          “I have not read Illusions, darn it all. I would love to discuss what I thought of it with you, but am unqualified to do so.

          Okay, sunshine; get qualified. Read Illusions. It’s only a novella; takes about half an hour, maybe an hour. I read it first while in psychiatric care and it may have done me more good than all the rest put together. I’ve read it several times since those fabulous days and I still think it pretty good. I suspect that Mr Bach is a one-book-writer. I read the sequel – rubbish; I could do better on a bad day. I’ve not read his first, J.L.Seagull, the one that brought him to fame, but it took Heller years to equal Catch 22, his first, after which, writing lots of junk, we got the hugely profound, magnificent Closing Time; still almost unknown, even though it’s a much better book – apart from the Jewish bits, which are – well – too Jewish.

          So it seems there’s hope for us all. Read Illusions; I’ve no doubt, you’ll LOVE it! Do let me know?

          “Perhaps there is something we could discuss though. I will remain hopeful until we think of it.”

          How about, “It really, really beats the heck out of a sharp stick in the eye!” Not a great analogy, since, let’s face it, most things do!

          “I’ll try not to drive you mad with it.” Well, I’m pretty safe, for the time being, unless they run out of Valium and progesterone! (Joke, Valium’s a killer.)

          “…true enough for human beings, being denser than water.” Wrong GG; if it were true we would sink, not float.

          “Don’t forget to keep leaping upward from water; there Is so much more. Understand, balance in, die to, then leap again, upward! To Air We leap!”
          “Repeat process in Air. Then leap once again to MORE.”

          Very impressive, but does it work?

          “I think that is why I don’t much like books. We are rapidly becoming more, yet haven’t realized that the same old books become stagnant and mostly ignored or assumed by the general population.”

          Mmm, yet it seems to me that most know what they like. In fact it’s the other way round; they like what they know. This is why formula books sell so well. Except to those such as you and me.

          “…asker seeker knocker representing Green Grasshopper (aka: GG)”
          Thanks, I was wondering.

          “Epeace to you Jacquelyn Hyde, you are clever.”
          This is true, but thanks for that too; it’s good to hear from others. (She takes a bow, exits stage left.)

          I was impressed and amused by your, “I suppose next you will say He wasn’t that sweet looking, blue eyed, strawberry-blonde Irish guy The Catholics show on their handout materials.”

          Now, there’s just this one thing: You wrote, “Yes, you are completely free to think as you will.”
          That nonsense only works where people bring themselves up, outside societal pressure, a thing that only happens in romantic books, films etc. (Tarzan) But it gets even worse: “You were created with free will because you were created by Your Creator.”
          I’ve yet to see a single shred of evidence for that. Where do you get it? Or do you make it up?
          But, I leave the ‘best’ till last: “He made You in His image, not the other way round.”

          He‽ – he‽ Not ‘She’ perhaps? No, my friend, I fear you’re as conditioned as most of the rest of weak humanity. You need the perpetual Father Figure, and your, “He made You in His image, not the other way round.” Is exactly wrong. I mean, exactly wrong. god is a man-made entity; a romantic delusion, a product of Man’s desire – and not a fact. Sorry, perhaps that’s something we might discuss?

          Love?

          Jacquelyn.

          Reply
    • Jacob -  April 1, 2016 - 6:04 pm

      There is also indication in the Bible the ampersand was created by Satan per se. It is clearly a devilish letter, a homosexual man blowing his own phallus!

      Reply
      • Spock's brain -  April 9, 2016 - 8:59 am

        I’ll never see an ampersand without thinking of you colorful theory.
        Some of the comments are so humorous and clever; I just can’t tell whether the indignant responses are equally tongue-in-cheek!

        Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 27, 2016 - 1:19 am

        to Jacob – April 1, 2016 – 6:04 pm

        & hmmm, I’m not seeing it at all. (poor little ampersand symbol) I also have seen no reference to your statement in the bible; you were kidding right?

        What made you precede the word ‘man’ with the word ‘homosexual’? A large number of young men I’ve met would love to have longer necks for that very reason, and most young men I’ve met are heterosexual. :) Simply the nature of the young beast’s body I suppose.

        You were kidding, just wanting to start a hail storm of words, right?
        Well done.
        Peace

        Reply
    • Jessica -  April 3, 2016 - 3:22 pm

      Please, no, I don’t think you are representing Christianity well. Where in the bible, wait let me rephrase, where did you ever get the fact that God only created 26 letters? Why would you even post that? It is not in the bible. Where did you learn it from? Our job as Christians is to spread to the good news of the lord, to be god’s messenger, to tell people about the lord not post stupid stuff online

      Reply
    • TrishB -  April 3, 2016 - 7:08 pm

      I too am a Christian. I believe God created some things, and others (like the building you probably live in) are designed and made by humans. Alphabets have developed over time, different languages have different numbers of letters, and the Bible was not written in English.

      Reply
    • Voice of Reason -  April 3, 2016 - 9:27 pm

      Wow! Now that is the most idiotic thing I have ever read from a so called Christian! What Bible are you reading? And what are you smoking?
      You are the type that gives Christians a really bad name, so please keep your ignorant comments to yourself and quit making up the word of God!

      Reply
      • Cosmic Carrie -  April 5, 2016 - 3:40 pm

        Racist, dude, racist. Calm your pits.

        Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 23, 2016 - 10:34 am

        to Voice of Reason – April 3, 2016 – 9:27 pm

        I see that many ‘so called’ Christians have no problem making their own bad name. Hmmm, I just found a 2×4 in My own Eye. I will quit this line of thinking and die to it immediately.
        Thank you for the enlightening thought, truly brother.
        Bless You with Epeace and Elove. :)

        Reply
      • carrie -  May 3, 2016 - 5:31 am

        Kindly mind your language cos some of us r Christians and what we believe is what we believe.

        Reply
    • (¡no name shared!) -  April 5, 2016 - 2:46 am

      As a Christian Catholic, I agree with you.

      Reply
      • jimidafrique -  April 8, 2016 - 11:33 am

        To ‘no name shared’: This whole thread of conversation is so interesting & [uh oh---there's that Satan's creation (re post by Jacob), the ampersand; really, Jacob, I just don't see the "It is clearly.... a homosexual man blowing his own phallus!" How can you tell from the '&' that the man blowing his own horn is homosexual? What identifies him as such?] tangential that I find it very difficult to tear myself away. Tangential speech is 1 of the lessYour having ID’d yourself as “a Christian Catholic” seems to suggest that not all Catholics are Christian. While I would agree with that assertion [I have my reasons], I am curious to learn why you offered that rather unusual description for your religious persuasion. Please respond to the question—inquiring minds want to know!

        To Jacquie: Is God “…not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday”, as posited by Jethro Tell/Ian Anderson on the absolutely stunning album, “Aqualung”, released circa 1970? Also, re your post

        To Eebs: What is “Khone” Greek, & how does it differ from garden variety Greek? That’s a new one on me.

        To Gabriela: Your post read like one from a rational person. I have to congratulate you on the substance of it—you just might be MY PEOPLE! Also, I hate to say it, but I have some of the same OCD trappings of some of the others who posted here: “proffesional”, spelled incorrectly here, as it was in your post, rather than ‘professional’, the correct spelling. This is one of those errors which could be merely a mis-keying issue. I fall prey to some of those myself, so I am not about to cast the 1st stone—this is purely informational in intent. Full disclosure: I hate spell-check, especially when it points out, as a misspelling, a word whose spelling I am quite sure of. Further, in the job from which I recently retired, I was typing on a computer all damn day. In so doing, I discovered that there are several commonly used English words which I routinely mistype, but NEVER misspell when writing by hand. What, if anything, does it all mean? And, more frighteningly, what if the hokey-pokey really IS what it’s all about? AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Sorry—I went away, but I’m back now….

        To Voice of Reason: I might be able to support your comments, if I knew to whom you’re directing them. The post directly above yours does not seem to warrant your response, but some of the other postings might.

        To ‘sam’: The answer to your hyperextended question is as follows: Imagine the voice of Yoko Ono, in your brain, @ the end of the superlong WHY, “vee-ET-nam]”. Sorry about that spelling; it had to be spelled phonetically to approximate the sound of Yoko’s answer, which can be found on the back of 1 of John Lennon’s last singles [& possibly on 1/more of John's most recent albums]. Performance art, you bet.

        Gotta head on down the page now…

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 2:58 pm

          jimidafrique 8.4.16

          My usual economy conversational format.

          “To ‘no name shared’: This whole thread of conversation is so interesting & [uh oh---there's that Satan's creation (re post by Jacob), the ampersand ... really, Jacob, I just don't see the "It is clearly.... a homosexual man blowing his own phallus!" How can you tell from the '&' that the man blowing his own horn is homosexual? What identifies him as such?]”

          Ah well, y’see, what it is, is, a man who can blow his own phallus is not necessarily homosexual; he’s more likely monosexual, and why not, if he can do that?- along with the well-known St Onan.

          ““a Christian Catholic” seems to suggest that not all Catholics are Christian. While [whilst, excuse me] I would agree with that assertion [I have my reasons], I am curious to learn why you offered that rather unusual description for your religious persuasion. Please respond to the question…”

          As you may well conclude, the simple god lot are pretty confused by anything beyond the simplest ideas. Perhaps (¡no name shared!) first language Spanish, I guess, really means a Catholic Christian?

          “To Jacquie: Is God “…not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday”, [Love it!] as posited by Jethro Tell/Ian Anderson on the absolutely stunning album, “Aqualung”, released circa 1970?”

          Hmm. Jethro Tell, eh? Didn’t he invent the seed drull? — Or was that Jethro Till?

          “To Gabriela: Your post read like one from a rational person.” [Well, almost.] “And, more frighteningly, what if the hokey-pokey really IS what it’s all about?”

          It’s Coca Cola, Whoops!!! ― Hokey Cokey in Great Britain. Now, doesn’t that make MUCH more sense?? Anyway, did you know that the man who wrote it died last year? Apparently, they had great trouble putting him in the coffin. You see, they put the left arm in…

          “I hate spell-check, especially when it points out, as a misspelling, a word whose spelling I am quite sure of.”

          It’s not necessarily yer OCD at all: the answer lies much deeper; the writers are programmed to do it in American, to further the successful spread of the peaceful arm of North American ideology. Apparently, Coca Cola isn’t quite cutting it on its own.

          “To Voice of Reason: I might be able to support your comments, if I knew to whom you’re directing them. The post directly above yours does not seem to warrant your response, but some of the other postings might.”

          You’re right; everyone should state their targets to avoid shooting themselves in the foot.Sadly, few do.

          Jacquelyn.

          Reply
        • asker seeker knocker -  April 27, 2016 - 1:49 am

          to jimidafrique – April 8, 2016 – 11:33 am

          with regard to Jacobs post, and your response to ‘no name shared’

          I just don’t see the “It is clearly…. a homosexual man blowing his own phallus!” either.

          This & symbol looks infinitely more like my sweet Granny sitting at her favorite fishing spot on the creek, to me.

          When I wrote “This & symbol”, above, I wanted to write it thus: ‘&’
          But, alas, it then looked like the flies were swarming my sweet Gran down on the river!

          Simply amazing what rolls through the mind, eh?

          Peace
          GG

          Reply
    • Jacquie -  April 5, 2016 - 8:01 am

      God is not a label. God is the relationship with the Divine, the I AM that is inside of us all. He never leaves us because HE is always within us.

      Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 5:58 pm

        Word Sister, and peace

        Reply
    • Eebs -  April 6, 2016 - 9:21 pm

      You do realize that the Bible was originally written in Khone Greek and Aramaic…

      Reply
    • LoL -  April 7, 2016 - 7:38 am

      What?! You do realize that English is not even the language Jesus himself spoke when he walked the earth don’t you? He was a jew so he spoke Hebrew. And I seriously doubt he cares if there are 26 or 62 letters. If your going to start a sentance with “As a Christian..” please, from the Christians of the world, at least make sense.

      Reply
      • jimidafrique -  April 8, 2016 - 11:58 am

        Damn! Just noticed that I started a sentence within the body of my post when most of the post had already been written. Such a syntactical faux pas can easily arise due to use of “Tangential” speech [which frequently causes those who perceive it to wonder 'WTF is your problem?'; that said, it is one of the more INNOCUOUS effects of adult ADD, an affliction to which I freely admit. Who knew, right? Besides, for what it's worth, I prefer ADD to spellcheck] is that which tends to take unsignaled left turns in conversation, making the unwarranted assumption that the afflicted speaker’s listeners are familiar with the arcane and/or trivial knowledge on which the left turn, or tangent, is based. As this is a word-centric, if not wordplay-centric website, I submit the following: “Orthodoxymoron”, a noun meaning one who continues to cling to a philosophy/way of life/idea which has long since been roundly & soundly debunked. Oh, & here’s another: “parenpathetical”, which means of, of pertaining to, a parenthetical expression which is SO long, compared to the sentence to which it is parenthetical, that it’s pathetic. Feel free to contribute your own examples of made-up, mashed-up words which could possibly could be useful additions to the English language. Or not…

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 1:23 pm

          jimidafrique 8.4.16

          Jimi!
          Loved yer “Orthodoxymoron”, so applicable to the god lot. Here’s one I find useful: ‘andor’, replacing the ugly and cucumbersome ‘and/or’, so beloved of the ontologically awkward.

          ‘Jaqi’

          Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 3:08 pm

          jimidafrique 8.4.16

          Jimi!
          Loved yer “Orthodoxymoron”, so applicable to the god lot, of course.
          Here’s one I find useful: ‘andor’, replacing the ugly and cucumbersome ‘and/or’, so beloved of the ontologically awkward. That’s ‘andor’.

          Jackie.

          Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 6:13 pm

        Hi LoL posting April 72016
        What do you mean Jesus did’nt speak English?????
        I suppose next you will say He wasn’t that sweet looking, blue eyed, strawberry-blonde Irish guy The Catholics show on their handout materials. Well I never. :} peace

        Reply
      • carrie -  May 3, 2016 - 5:34 am

        i’m glad that there’s actually some true Christians out there that are standing up for what they believe. congrats all of u’s

        Reply
    • Emma -  April 7, 2016 - 11:40 am

      Hi! I’m a Christian too, but do you realize that there are about 46 different alphabets in use today? The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, both of which use a different alphabet than English. Human beings created the alphabet as a way to aid written communication and while I believe that God placed the ability to create in human beings, He didn’t create the letters. If you are going to comment on something please make sure you are informed on the topic!

      Reply
      • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 5:51 pm

        Please refrain from judging one another, or not. We each have free will given to us.
        Each one of us is uniquely different and we are wonderfully diverse. Each one has different experiences. No one is right or wrong.
        Judgement comes from the conditioning of ego-mind, and Is Not of God. Judgements only harm the one who has judged; the judge condems himself. We are One in Truth
        Elove :)

        Reply
    • Spock's brain -  April 9, 2016 - 9:06 am

      I can’t get over the sputtering firestorm you’ve sparked with your devilishly dry humor. Did you have any idea this many people would think you were serious?

      Reply
    • asker seeker knocker -  April 19, 2016 - 5:33 pm

      Hello no name shared-
      Yes, you are completely free to think as you will. You were created with free will because you were created by Your Creator. He made You in His image, not the other way round.
      It is not possible for you to ruin anything but yourself, and that is’nt even possible in reality. Truth is not frail. Illusions leave it perfectly unharmed.
      Just a clue for you. GOD is NOT a physical form. Never was, never will be. clue: You are not a physical form, You are merelyembodied in a physical form, in a physical universe at present. This fact does not mean that You are separate from God. Go inside your heart with a quiet mind and ask anything. Do not believe me, but please prove it to Yourself. Elove to You fellow Child of God

      Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  May 2, 2016 - 3:03 pm

      Right. I can’t get this off the bottom of my shoe, so I’ll just dump it here and you’ll have to endure it again until ‘they’ remove it. Hopefully, they won’t remove both, this time.Here we go…

      Randall Bell – April 28, 2016
      Thanks, Ian, for your kind words of support. I too noticed that Grace K … self-inflicted gun shot wound in her own foot. I gnash my teeth when I hear or read reflexive pronouns used as subjects.
      (All points taken but cut for eco reasons; it must save something, surely?)

      My dear Randall; it is with deep regret that we seem to be privy to Grace’s demise (as it were) and I for one will be sorry to see her go. I don’t think we were too rough on her, were we? She wrote intelligently, if a little hysterically, and was great fun as a moving target. Grace, dear, would you reconsider your apparent retreat? (Though not necessarily as a target at all – neither static nor dynamic.) I’m fairly sure that Randall would support this view?

      Grace, I’m putting this in as though it were a Parthian shot of yours, which, of course, it isn’t. Here it is; “I do not doubt that your little kindnesses are there, as you assure me, but “I for one, can’t be arsed to go and find out.” (arsed, oh my, have we forgotten the schoolchildren?) Do the job properly, if at all, my dear!”
      I’ve just been speaking with a Canadian friend, who said that he’d recently found the (delightful) phrase ‘can’t be arsed’, which you and I have now both used. (Randall please note the redundance in “both used”) In fact I got “can’t be arsed” from one of my schoolchildren, so I think you need have no fear of pollution from Randall and me. His manager seems to keep him well in hand, and I suggest that I’m sufficiently aware of scatology to avoid the worst of it.

      Randy, baby, I’m sorry to hear of your recent loss – of your posting, you understand. As one who has suffered much from this irritation you have my sympathy. No, that doesn’t quite work, so I’ll use one of your reflexive pronouns and a pair of parenthetic commas, like this: “As I, one who has suffered much from this irritation, you have my sympathy.” There, I think that’s better. Otherwise it looks as though you are the greater sufferer, and there’s little that upsets a Jew more than the possibility of another having to bear a greater burden than hers. (Incidentally, ‘Jewess’ is no longer used; we consider it insulting.)
      You say that you are, and I quote, “…not clever enough to ‘save’ anything…” Nonsense, dear boy, of course you are. So here’s what you do: write yer stuff in Word, or similar programme, then copy and paste it to this site. Then, when they lose it, remove it, or whatever they do to it, you can resubmit it with conspicuous ease. It’s only the short ones to piss off the idiots that I write directly. Incidentally, my Word, (programme) is pretty highly tuned; frequent, long and such tricksy-to-spell words as exist, are all set up so that I mostly just press a single letter followed by one of those little dots and the machine writes the whole word. (I did it ‘mc’ followed by the little dot just there and it wrote ‘machine’. You see? Just like that.) You can do it yourself; it’s dead easy. If I can do it so can you. (Incidentally, I have your latest post copied and pasted up on this screen, even as I write; it’s just so easy.)

      Now, here’s you: “You, like I, recognize Jacquelyn’s wonderful, varied, and creative efforts.” Well, thank you for that, darling, and you’re no mean writer, yourself or should I say, you are a mean writer? It depends what one means by ‘mean’. But I was utterly thrown by your, “You, like I…” It nearly jumped off the screen at me! I was really goshed!
      I have several simple rules to save all that grammar shit, one concerns the use of ‘I’ or ‘me’, very often a problem. My friend Liz, well acquaintance really; I shouldn’t presume to call her a friend, she is after all the Queen of England, even though we’re almost next-door neighbours, but she never gets it wrong. What a wonderful woman. Anyway, I tell people, if there’re two characters, remove one and see what happens. So when Liz says e.g. ‘The Duke and I’ etc, like at Xmas she’ll say, “The Duke and I wish you a merry Christmas. (she never calls it Xmas; too plebeian.) If we remove the duke we get ‘I wish you a merry Christmas.’ However, (comma) she sometimes says e.g. ‘It’s a merry Christmas from the Duke and me. NEVER from the Duke and I, (that would be as bad as The King and I, doubtless responsible for much misunderstanding) because if we remove the duke we get, ‘It’s a merry Xmas from me’, and NEVER ‘It’s a merry Xmas from I.’ As she pointed out to me a couple of years ago, “One does not wish to be mistaken for a Rasta person, even though one may enjoy the music.”
      With this in mind, if we remove the ‘You’ from your statement, we get, ‘I recognise Jacquelyn’s…’ etc. So you are absolutely correct, my dear. However, keeping it in (oohh!) looks as though it should be, ‘You, like me…’ (as distinct from ‘You like me,’ of course – we’ve been there, no?). Now, Americans almost invariably use ‘like’ where they should use e.g. ‘as though’. That said, would you agree to ‘You, as I, recognise Jacquelyn’s etc? Hmm, dear?

      There is a couple of other points I want to make, but I’ll save them for another post.
      Meanwhile, perhaps the good captain Kanga will reply?

      Very fonds,

      Jackie.

      Reply
  12. annabell -  March 29, 2016 - 12:54 pm

    why

    Reply
    • M -  March 31, 2016 - 8:35 pm

      Because I said so!

      Reply
  13. anonymous -  March 19, 2016 - 5:55 pm

    3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375
    1058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
    82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128
    48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
    44288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091
    45648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
    72458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436
    78925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094
    33057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548
    07446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912
    98336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798
    60943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132
    00056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872
    14684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235
    42019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960
    51870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859
    50244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881
    71010003137838752886587533208381420617177669147303
    59825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778
    18577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989

    Reply
    • anonymous -  March 19, 2016 - 5:56 pm

      Pi! π!

      Reply
      • The Troll -  April 13, 2016 - 7:23 am

        I eat π.

        Reply
    • Bruce -  April 16, 2016 - 11:20 am

      Can you memorize all that or did you copy and paste it.
      This is all I can memorize:
      3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399237510582097494459230781640628620899

      Reply
    • asker seeker knocker -  April 23, 2016 - 11:50 am

      to anonymous – March 19, 2016 – 5:55 pm

      I do not eat π, but surely wish I did. I have been expressing a desire for understanding in mathematics of late, just following my leader; and have been looking at concepts in quantum mechanics. Nothing yet but a small concept that could be key. I’ll let you know at a future point in clock time.

      As for the block of numbers you post, I can almost receive a vision in form that, seemingly, have nothing to do with the numbers, yet is there if I look long enough.

      Do others see a face of sorts in these numbers, or is this entire thought an outpouring of my defective mind?

      Epeace&love – GG

      Reply
  14. UsefZ -  March 16, 2016 - 8:23 am

    Do not read the comments, it is like the comment section on any famous Youtubers’ video. It is that bad…..

    Reply
    • MLG GAMEr -  March 16, 2016 - 11:37 am

      HE NEEDS SOME Milk

      Reply
      • clegus -  March 22, 2016 - 10:46 am

        awe yeah he need sum milk

        Reply
        • GrammarGuru -  March 25, 2016 - 10:21 pm

          Haha

          Reply
      • silvergirl12 -  March 28, 2016 - 2:19 am

        i agree he needs some milk

        Reply
        • HE DEFINITELY NEEDS SOME MILK -  March 30, 2016 - 1:20 pm

          I AGREE WITH Y’ALL

          Reply
    • Hopester -  March 16, 2016 - 8:16 pm

      Thank you!

      Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 17, 2016 - 4:41 am

      UsefZ – 16.3.16

      “Do not read the comments, it is like the comment section on any famous Youtubers’ video. It is that bad…..”

      This one is, but see my comment below…

      JH

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 18, 2016 - 6:39 am

        Randall,
        There’s one for you too.
        Jackie.

        Reply
        • anonymous -  March 19, 2016 - 5:52 pm

          huh?

          Reply
          • anonymous -  March 19, 2016 - 5:52 pm

            IDK

    • anonymous -  March 19, 2016 - 5:51 pm

      Do not read the comments, it is like the comment section on any famous Youtubers’ video. It is that bad…..

      Reply
      • Anne O'Neemouse -  March 21, 2016 - 11:53 pm

        huh?

        Reply
        • jimidafrique -  April 8, 2016 - 12:01 pm

          Anne: I’d love to know the derivation of your screen name. It makes me smile ;-).

          Reply
          • Shaun O’Hare -  April 11, 2016 - 12:57 pm

            jimidafrique 8.4.16

            “Anne: I’d love to know the derivation of your screen name. It makes me smile ;-).”
            Ah, well, yes… It’s a bit obscure actually: I am Shaun O’Hare, the bald Irish lyric poet and bare knuckle fighter, well-known in all the Dublin bars, but so far, everywhere else, basically anonymous.
            Does that help?

          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 11, 2016 - 3:24 pm

            jimidafrique 8.4.16

            “Anne: I’d love to know the derivation of your screen name. It makes me smile ;-).”
            Ah, well, yes… It’s a bit obscure: I am actually the bald Shaun O’Hare, the Irish lyric poet and bare knuckle fighter, well-known in all the Dublin bars, but so far, everywhere else, basically anonymous.
            Does that help?

    • GrammarGuru -  March 25, 2016 - 10:21 pm

      :D

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 8, 2016 - 2:49 pm

        John Mceiver.

        Hello, John.

        Right. Well, having spent too much searching for the relevant stuff – I wonder the publishers don’t put an index in this blog; it would make research so much easier. How about it, guys??? – I’ve decided to slip it in here. We were discussing some stuff and you asked me three questions. I answered two and asked you to wait for the third, the trickiest, incidentally. Well, here it is. Your question is:
        “Can something (spirit) immaterial by nature, be empirically investigated?”
        It’s tempting to reply e.g. ‘If it’s immaterial then why bother to investigate it?’ But that’s far too crass, so I shan’t.
        My simple answer is, ‘Probably, yes it is. However, I don’t think it can be done (since to my knowledge it’s not been done satisfactorily yet) until the appropriate tests are devised. After all, if it’s immaterial then I don’t think it can be investigated with equipment designed to deal with material subjects.’
        How’s that? If you have a better answer, or answers, and I’m almost sure there are many, I’d be pleased to hear them. (Read them, actually, but you know what I mean.)

        Jacqueline.

        Reply
    • An -  March 27, 2016 - 5:14 am

      U r right

      Reply
    • anonymous -  March 27, 2016 - 2:44 pm

      why do they need comments?

      Reply
      • Anne O'Neemouse -  March 29, 2016 - 12:54 pm

        anonymous 27.3.16

        “why do they need comments?”

        They don’t. Why, do you think they do?

        A O’N

        Reply
      • ;) -  April 2, 2016 - 10:58 am

        ;)

        Reply
    • anonymous -  March 27, 2016 - 8:05 pm

      LOL

      Reply
    • silvergirl12 -  March 28, 2016 - 2:18 am

      i agree

      Reply
    • Luna Lovegood -  March 28, 2016 - 12:17 pm

      You know, milk comes from the crumple horned snorkack. but it is snubbed as “cow”

      Reply
  15. SAVAGE NIGS -  March 14, 2016 - 12:47 pm

    LAST COMMENT WINS! GO

    Reply
    • m -  March 29, 2016 - 9:11 pm

      savage n are you white?

      Reply
  16. Xander lee -  March 11, 2016 - 4:19 am

    LOL! I never knew that!

    Reply
  17. ampersand -  March 9, 2016 - 1:23 am

    amazing
    ampersand
    wooooow

    Reply
    • Lachlan -  March 10, 2016 - 2:37 pm

      It is not a letter it is stupid

      Reply
      • Don Summers -  March 17, 2016 - 6:59 pm

        Nobody said it was a letter. They said it WAS a letter in the early 1800′s.
        But then, nobody said everybody could read what’s written in plain english either.

        Reply
        • Jacqelyn Hyde -  March 29, 2016 - 1:05 pm

          Don Summers 17.3.16
          “Nobody…either.”
          Good point, Don!
          Now speaking of reading in plain English, do tell: why did you put an apostrophe (that’s a sort of up-in-the-air comma) after 1800 in “1800s”? Hmm?

          Jacquelyn.

          Reply
          • the kid who is not dumb -  April 4, 2016 - 8:17 am

            Rly. don’t criticize his grammar mistakes, he was trying to make a point, and he did a good job, so don’t be a nit picker. my spelling/grammar is not the best either, not is yours. you may not have made a mistake in your comment, but you HAVE in the past even if I don’t have personal knowledge of it.
            oh and also, you could read it if you could write a valid comment, the point that he was making was that the person didn’t understand the article.

    • kenzue -  March 29, 2016 - 11:57 pm

      like to comment “nothing”

      Reply
      • kenzue -  March 29, 2016 - 11:59 pm

        where you from .guyz?

        Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 4, 2016 - 12:48 pm

        To: “the kid who is not dumb” 4 April, 2016

        Okay, kid: I daresay you’ll find some ‘valid comments’ here.

        First, you say you’re not dumb.(‽) I presume that by that you don’t mean that you’re not dumb at all, but that you’re not stupid. Right? If that’s the case then let me remonstrate with you: A person who’s dumb is unable to speak; it does not mean that he or she is necessarily stupid! Don’t ever make that insulting mistake again, especially when writing to me. You could change your name to, say, ‘The Kid Who Is Not Stupid’, and then try to persuade us that that is indeed the case, which you’ve so far conspicuously failed to do. Here’s why:
        “don’t criticize his grammar mistakes”. Two points here: First, if I want advice I ask it of those wiser than I, (which, clearly you are not) otherwise I ignore it. Get it? Next, how can I possibly help Don if I don’t highlight his errors? Hmm? Or as you would say, ‘nit-pick’. By the way, I don’t see nit-picking as a pejorative verb; nit-picking is an essential part of this low-level criticism, okay?

        Now let’s look at Don’s message again: “Nobody said it was a letter. They said it WAS a letter in the early 1800′s.” Even you can hardly fail to notice his use of capitals in his second ‘was’. This, I presume to be the red-neck way of doing things. By the way, since he seems unable to say why he used either the possessive or the elisive apostrophe in his “1800’s”, perhaps, o wise one, you can tell us. Hmm?

        His problem is one of the most difficult simple things in this language; the use of different times within the same sentence, in this (as is often the) case, past and present. I come across this when, for example, dealing with inept receptionists, who typically ask, ‘What was your name?’ as though they can’t believe the name ‘Jacquelyn Hyde’, I ask them, “When?” (i.e, what was my name – when?) In Don’s case he should have said, ‘Nobody said it IS a letter. They said it WAS a letter in the early 1800s. You dig? (by the way, my IS is to alert readers to the use of ‘is’ just there).

        Finally, you said, “my spelling/grammar is not the best either, not is yours.” (I guess that’s ‘NOR is yours, careless fool.’) Please avoid the error of lumping you and me together as though we are some kind of equals! You then went on to the utterly egregious, (that’s ‘stupid’ to you; the others you’ll have to find out for yourself – try the dictionary) “you may not have made a mistake in your comment, but you HAVE in the past even if I don’t have personal knowledge of it.”‼
        What are you, some kind of a religious nut, like the fatuous and vacuous, “no name shared”, the happy-clappy Christian who wrote last month about god having given us the alphabet? Do you also deal in foolish belief – that false knowledge, knowledge without proof, fairy tales, and stuff you make up yourself? Hmm?

        Please, go away and think – before ever writing again.

        P.S. and by the way; this site’s idiot dictionary/spell-checker has questioned my 1800s, accepting 1800’s‼ Just goes to show – you can’t trust American programmers with the English langauge! (‽)

        (Doctor) Jacquelyn Hyde.

        Reply
  18. hex :L -  March 8, 2016 - 4:25 pm

    lolz X,Y,& Z i say :P x y and z

    Reply
    • Nico -  March 10, 2016 - 7:55 pm

      :O

      OH MY GOD!

      x, y,&&&&&&&&, z!!!

      AND Z!

      ampersand!!

      THIS COMPLETELY BLEW MY MIND

      Reply
      • Rowan -  March 17, 2016 - 8:18 am

        OH MY GOD! I JUST REALIZED THAT AMPERSAND BACKWARDS IS DNASREPMA!!! &&&&&&&&&&& MERRY IRELAND DAY!

        Reply
  19. derpface101 -  March 5, 2016 - 6:41 am

    :) :D :( B-)

    Reply
    • derpface101 -  March 5, 2016 - 6:42 am

      ;) :0

      Reply
      • Fuffy Bunny -  March 20, 2016 - 1:56 pm

        :-) :) Like a Boss :D

        Reply
  20. Skeeter -  March 2, 2016 - 11:24 am

    …and?

    Reply
  21. SomeGuy -  March 2, 2016 - 7:24 am

    I thought this would be about eth, yogh, or thorn.

    Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 15, 2016 - 7:53 am

      SomeGuy – 2.3.16

      “I thought this would be about eth, yogh, or thorn.”

      Well, I was honing some written stuff, trying to get it right and so I was messing with ‘this’ and ‘that’; swapping them or something. Having removed the thorns there was an ‘is’ and an ‘at’ and I wonder whether it was mere coincidence or perhaps there was an interesting etymological connection, point or reason.
      Anyone?

      Jackie.

      Reply
      • UsefZ -  March 16, 2016 - 8:17 am

        What do you mean? I have no idea what are you talking about … :’D

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 17, 2016 - 4:51 am

          UsefZ – 16.3.16

          Here’s you:
          “What do you mean? I have no idea what are you talking about … :’D”

          No, when I say “anyone”, I don’t mean you, UsefZ . I wouldn’t expect you to have even the first idea of what I’m talking about, judging by all you’ve posted so far. And I daresay you never will. Get back whence you came, in the playpen. (It’s apparently top left of this lot.) Better still, go away. Come back in thirty years and try it then – hmm?

          There! I thought that a suitably short, “well-deserved and thorough lecture”, didn’t you?

          (Dr) Jacquelyn Hyde.

          Reply
          • Randall Bell -  March 17, 2016 - 1:42 pm

            Hello again, Jacquelyn. Dr. now, is it? Dunno where your response to one of my posts may have gone. I’m sure I’d have enjoyed reading it. (Dunno much about any of this interweb stuff, truth be told.) I thought you would provoke outraged hyperventilation and sputtering bloviation from your reversal of the Adam and Eve story…remember?..making it Eve and Adam? No such thing, I guess. But there is low hanging fruit out there. You are enjoying some now, it seems. Never underestimate the wisdom of crowds, nor the foolishness of individuals. Bye for now.

            Randy

          • Randall Bell -  March 19, 2016 - 1:49 pm

            Jacquelyn, I do appreciate your responses, but wish they were not so hard to find in this jumble, attached, as some have been, willy-nilly, to posts from other people. (I found one relating to Dano from Mar. 4,2016, and one under Suzy, from Feb. 26, 2016.) Perhaps you are driven to hide, like a young and coquettishly shy girl, but because you secretly enjoy being pursued, you can always be found. You do, after all, address the oddly positioned missives to me, assuring that they will be read. And read they are! Were I to read selectively, I might detect a whiff of estrus, or would that be estrous, or even oestrus, where you are? Cases in point? You have written of me that I am your “special hobby”, “how clever you are”, “man of your talents”, obviously intelligent”, that pictures exist “showing lots more of me” which you are sure I would appreciate. Like a horndog in rut or a hapless sailor about to crash his ship onto the rocks of the sirens, I am drawn nearer and nearer to the honey trap. And even if you are male, a conjecture of mine which piqued your interest a few weeks ago, we might recall that in Tootsie, Dorothy had two ardent, age appropriate suitors, so convincing was her ruse. If it can happen in a movie, surely it can happen to me! To us! Allow me to address the sentence which you present as a “gotcha” moment, using my own gullible and gutted fish analogy to multiply the sting of the lash. You aver the word ‘that’ (and its exact placement in the sentence) should cause a reader to infer everything which follows in the sentence, and in others, is moot. Value, truth, validity, overall contribution to meaning? Mysteriously gone! Poof. I beg to disagree. You expend considerable effort to achieve that outcome by “razoring” the sentence, a term with which I was unfamiliar, but which I get. You simply eliminate the inconvenient, that which seems to compromise your newly desired conclusion. Your original intent was, I believe, to create a wonderfully humourous, outrageous, backstory for your online presence and for our exchanges. You did so masterfully. You should not toss that over by presenting a thin, legalistic parsing of your original sentence, claiming that really you were asking after my feelings and sense of well being. I meant no harm by my nit picking. Your comments are the only ones I look for on this site, and, truth be told, this is the only site I troll. Though that could change. Maybe I’ll become an internet lurker! I do have a serious question about this “razoring” stuff. Why did you choose the word ‘that’, and not the word ‘when’, as in “Now, does it make you feel better WHEN…etc.”? It seems your assertions could just as easily apply.

            Randy the puzzled

          • CJ Phillips -  April 5, 2016 - 5:06 am

            Why did you have to knock knock that person over because, she didn’t understand what was being said. Do you comprehend everything that comes your way. I highly doubt it…….I know I am not an expert on everything.

          • Cosmic Carrie -  April 5, 2016 - 3:34 pm

            OMFG. That response you got was wayyyyyyy too long! Don’t lose track!

      • asker seeker knocker -  April 27, 2016 - 12:18 am

        To Jacquelyn Hyde – March 15, 2016 – 7:53 am

        I was messing around with the words ‘Be’ and ‘Have’, and found them interchangeable. Check it out.

        Examples:

        To Have, Be. To Be, Have.

        To Be hate, Have hate. To Have hate, Be hate.

        To Be love, Have love. To Have love, Be love.

        Be joy of life itself, and Have joy of life.

        One could actually be rich, yet penniless in light of the interchangeability of these two little words. I suppose one would need quite a bit of light though, eh?

        :) peace from me, being peace and having it too!

        Reply
  22. A Person -  February 23, 2016 - 2:57 pm

    That is soo cool! Luv tha facts ;)

    Reply
    • Pops -  February 28, 2016 - 4:55 pm

      I don’t agree!!!

      Reply
      • Jordan -  March 2, 2016 - 7:57 am

        Don’t just say “I don’t agree!!!”. It means nothing. It sounds unintelligent and childish. It is similar to yelling “nu-yuh”. If you disagree with something give reasoning, support, evidence, otherwise you just sound foolish.

        Reply
        • Kian -  March 5, 2016 - 6:54 am

          And when you reply like that you just sound a bit snobby, we all have freedom of speech, if they want to reply “I don’t agree” then they can, so suck it up and move on

          Reply
        • Passerby -  March 5, 2016 - 1:50 pm

          I don’t agree because you may figure the why and reasons out yourself; I am not your handmaiden; don’t be lazy.

          Reply
          • Mike the Real -  March 8, 2016 - 4:43 am

            Kian and Passerby.

            Kian first:

            No, Jordan’s right and you’re wrong. And when you reply thus you just sound like a red-neck. As you say, ” we all have freedom of speech.” This is true. (Well, it is where you and I come from.) But we haven’t all freedom of abuse, and if all “we” reply is, “I don’t agree,” or something equally pointless and facile then we’ve achieved little, besides rudeness of expression and a poor example to others, with a potential downward spiral into a communicational morass, which for all its heat will have achieved much less than nothing, other than encouraging others to cast aside any originality and polity they may possess, and sheep-like, to take sides. We’ve seen it so many times before.

            Incidentally, your, “…if they want to reply “I don’t agree” then they can, so suck it up and move on,” though intended as a pejorative, has merely resulted in your sinking to the plebeian level. So do yerself a favour; try raising yerself up from your particular gutter before writing again. Hmm?

            Next is Passerby:
            Whether this is Pops writing by another name, I know not, but it reads: “I don’t agree because you may figure the why and reasons out yourself; (I am not your handmaiden; don’t be lazy.)
            However, the almost well-written clause and the almost perfect semi-colon use in the sentence, especially in the rude part, it’s the, “I don’t agree … yourself;” that is so dodgy, (so I doubt the ‘Pops possibility’).
            If we were all left to work out, or guess at what is meant by others’ omissions then at worst, each guess would be as good (or as bad) as the next, and the argument could grow to Babylonian proportions. If you’re going to write in here, then finish what you think you have to say; there’s no need for the exaggerated ‘handmaiden’ role; just don’t be lazy. Hmm?

            MtR

          • Draw the Line -  April 5, 2016 - 10:40 pm

            Mike the Real, trying to make a point that saying “I don’t agree!!!” makes you sound like a redneck, by replying “No, Jordan’s right and you’re wrong,” is such a hypocritical thing to say.

        • Tony -  March 7, 2016 - 12:14 pm

          Holy crap calm down You need some milk.

          Reply
          • Don Summers -  March 17, 2016 - 7:10 pm

            That’s OK! Red-Necks are people too……And that’s my opinion after loooong and thoughtful consideration. I know, I know! I’m a Red-neck too.

            Or is that to…or two…or also? Makes no difference. I’m a majority of 1 ’cause no other vote matters to me.

          • The milkman -  April 1, 2016 - 2:33 am

            What’s all this with the milk?

        • KATE -  March 16, 2016 - 1:09 pm

          you to mike the stuipid

          Reply
        • Gess X -  April 1, 2016 - 8:34 pm

          I don’t agree!!!

          Reply
          • Mike the Real -  April 8, 2016 - 3:05 pm

            Draw the Line 5.4.16

            “Mike the Real, trying to make a point that saying “I don’t agree!!!” makes you sound like a redneck, by replying “No, Jordan’s right and you’re wrong,” is such a hypocritical thing to say.”

            Why?

            MtR

        • Cosmic Carrie -  April 5, 2016 - 3:36 pm

          Eh… Don’t criticize someone else’s response. If they want to type something, let them type it, it is not your job to control someone’s typing. What if they can’t think of the reasons? Let em do their choice.

          Reply
          • Mike the Real -  April 11, 2016 - 5:07 pm

            Cosmic Carrie: 5.4.16

            “Eh… Don’t criticize someone else’s response. If they want to type something, let them type it, it is not your job to control someone’s typing. What if they can’t think of the reasons? Let em do their choice.”

            You’re none too bright, are you? “If they want to type something, let them type it…” So far, so good; I can no more control them than I can justify doing so, but “What if they can’t think of the reasons?” Well, if that is the case, then surely they have no business writing their mindless verbiage‽ I reckon you’re a brilliant example of your own thinking ‒ if ‘thinking’ is the right word!

            MtR.

        • Cosmic Carrie -  April 5, 2016 - 3:37 pm

          Rude.

          Reply
      • Your Uncle -  March 9, 2016 - 10:17 am

        Its your Uncle 8=D

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 1, 2016 - 7:46 pm

          Don Summers -17 March, 2016.

          “That’s OK! Red-Necks are people too…”

          You what‽ You’re joking!

          “…no other vote matters to me.”

          Go on; next you’ll ask us to believe you have feelings. Go on, gertcha!

          Reply
    • JOHN Kelly -  February 29, 2016 - 12:12 pm

      The ampersand shown above is in uppercase. The modern Lowercase ampersand has lost its original meaning since the introduction of the internet:
      @ no longer means AND; it now means AT.

      Reply
      • J.G.Greco -  March 5, 2016 - 4:02 pm

        Allow me to make a contribution as far as the character @ is concerned:
        It is the evolution of the Greek word “προς”, meaning “at”. \\\\\a combination of the first two letters gives us @.
        I remember in my earlier years, my father, a bank employee, writing:
        100,000.00 Drachmas προς 6% interest =… Some other times he would write
        100,000.00 Drachmas @ 6% interest =…
        I hope that helps you.
        J.G.Greco

        Reply
      • robert -  March 23, 2016 - 9:16 pm

        @ is not the lower case of &, and has never meant ‘and’. They are different symbols with no relationship to each other. Neither has an upper or lower case.

        Reply
      • Cosmic Carrie -  April 5, 2016 - 3:38 pm

        Like an ATAT?
        From Star Wars, better watch it, especially the seventh episode.

        Reply
        • Samuel -  April 7, 2016 - 7:22 am

          Oh heck yeah. The Force Awakens is epic.

          Reply
    • Another Person -  February 29, 2016 - 12:57 pm

      I know!!!! that is why we say ‘W X Y AND Z’!!!!

      Reply
    • John Kelly -  February 29, 2016 - 2:13 pm

      Pops – February 28, 2016 – 4:55 pm

      I don’t agree!!!

      I stand corrected Pops:
      Permit me to rephrase:
      The original meaning of the lowercase ampersand has; since the introduction of the internet and email systems, now metamorphosed into a symbol that bears an additional meaning.
      & means AND whilst @ currently means both AT and; AND!
      Repetition of “and” noted and or & approved.

      Reply
      • SomeGuy -  March 2, 2016 - 7:29 am

        Has @ ever meant “and”? My understanding is that this symbol, sometimes called “commercial at”, has nothing to do with the ampersand.

        Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 2, 2016 - 5:02 pm

        John.
        Here’s Pops: “I don’t agree!!!”
        I think there’s no need to grovel to Pops here. Due to the queer way this site is arranged we punters need to look carefully at the submission dates. As Jordan remarked yesterday, “Don’t just say “I don’t agree!!!”. It means nothing. It sounds unintelligent and childish.” And it probably is.
        Pops’s almost meaningless “I don’t agree!!!” is dated 28.2.16. You wrote your ‘stand corrected’ reply the following day.
        However, it looks to me as though Pops has replied to A Person, who wrote the semi-meaningful, “That is soo cool! Luv tha facts” on 23.2.16!
        If you scroll farther down, you should find Pops’s extraordinary advice to no-one specific: “You are wrong! You should just return to your native Slovakian language!” I can scarcely believe that someone who can write, can write that in the early 21st century! The fellow must be a fuckin’ idiot. Or worse.
        As The Man said, “…shape up or ship out!” I could hardly put it better myself, and I hope he does.
        Jackie.
        P.S. Are you sure about that lower case ampersand @ thingy?

        Reply
    • Kayla -  March 3, 2016 - 2:23 pm

      That is some crap

      Reply
      • Dan -  March 4, 2016 - 3:02 pm

        What is?

        Reply
      • No one youd know -  March 8, 2016 - 4:53 am

        Kayla – 3.3.16
        “That is some crap”

        Well, I guess you’d know all about that stuff.
        How good you must feel to be so well-informed!
        Go away, idiot. Leave it to the grown-ups.

        Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 22, 2016 - 4:40 am

      Randall Bell – 17.3.16

      Hiya, Randy!
      I trust this finds you where I put it!
      I think the best way to treat it is by cut and fit. Here goes:
      “Hello again, Jacquelyn. Dr. now, is it?”

      Has been for some time now. Of course it’s just a meaningless honourary(‽) degree from the Unmentionable University. There was a touching ceremony, which I quite enjoyed actually! But mostly it involved the movement of some bankstuff, (notes and things).

      “Dunno where your response to one of my posts may have gone. I’m sure I’d have enjoyed reading it.”
      Yes, I think you would, but as I suggest, I think I’ve recalled the important bit. And no, I think it must have vanished in a crash, for which this computer is notorious. I should junk it but I’m pretty anal (in the Freudian sense, you understand) and I’ve got it pretty well tweaked for speefwronog. (speedwriting). Memories of the infinite number of monkeys on my dad’s old Bob Newhart records.

      “I thought you would provoke outraged hyperventilation and sputtering bloviation from your reversal of the Adam and Eve story…remember?..making it Eve and Adam?”
      Yeah. Shame about that. Still give it time… Actually, I have to tell you, I really hate that sexist text, and the way the poor unthinking dummies accept it without question, alongside all the other nonsense. World-wide floods indeed!

      “No such thing, I guess. But there is low hanging fruit out there. You are enjoying some now, it seems. Never underestimate the wisdom of crowds, nor the foolishness of individuals. Bye for now.”
      Nice one! Well done, my man. I like it; I’m gonna use it. And its opposite. Next book (which is mostly finished). If you can assure me it’s an original I’ll credit you.

      Jackie.

      Randall Bell (Randy the puzzled) – 19.3.16
      “Jacquelyn, I do appreciate your responses, but wish they were not so hard to find in this jumble, attached, as some have been, willy-nilly, to posts from other people. (I found one relating to Dano from Mar. 4,2016, and one under Suzy, from Feb. 26, 2016.) “
      Yes, I’m sorry about that, but as I’ve explained somewhere, I have to use the REPLY pads where I can find them; you’ll observe that they’re not everywhere (unless my screen is different from all the rest) and I don’t know how to initiate these comments! Besides, I suspect they deliberately make it hard for us. I use those closest and most appropriate, but they don’t always arrive where I would wish them. See, I’ve had to put this one under some thing from A Person because there’s no pad under yours. Rubbish. (Not yours, the site arrangement.)

      “Perhaps you are driven to hide, like a young and coquettishly shy girl, but because you secretly enjoy being pursued, you can always be found.” [Why yes, of course; how perceptive of you.] “You do, after all, address the oddly positioned missives to me, assuring that they will be read.”…
      D’you know, there are so many idiots on this site, who just fire off comments with no clue as to whom they are for, and clearly they have no idea of that fact. I wonder they waste their time. Still, I suppose it keeps them off the streets…
      “…And read they are! Were I to read selectively, I might detect a whiff of estrus, or would that be estrous, or even oestrus, where you are?” (It’s œstrus in Latin/English.) And yes, you might be right. “Cases in point? You have written of me that I am your “special hobby”, “how clever you are”, “man of your talents”, obviously intelligent”, that pictures exist “showing lots more of me” which you are sure I would appreciate. Like a horndog in rut or a hapless sailor about to crash his ship onto the rocks of the sirens, I am drawn nearer and nearer to the honey trap.”… Actually, the publishers will allow you to see a rather nice rear view, which should help your little problem.
      …”And even if you are male, a conjecture of mine which piqued your interest a few weeks ago, we might recall that in Tootsie, Dorothy had two ardent, age appropriate suitors, so convincing was her ruse. If it can happen in a movie, surely it can happen to me! To us!”
      Ooh, don’t go there, Randy; a film is, at base, no more than entertainment; it is not to be taken as representive of real life – whatever that is.

      “Allow me to address the sentence which you present as a “gotcha” moment, using my own gullible and gutted fish analogy to multiply the sting of the lash. You aver the word ‘that’ (and its exact placement in the sentence) should cause a reader to infer everything which follows in the sentence, and in others, is moot. Value, truth, validity, overall contribution to meaning? Mysteriously gone! Poof.”
      What‽‼ Right! Don’t you DARE call me that again! Not ever, you effing nonce, or I’ll slash my wrists, or worse.
      I hate it when you do that; you sailors are all the same. You just take a girl for granted!*

      “I beg to disagree.” (No, it’s true; you do.) “You expend considerable effort to achieve that outcome by “razoring” the sentence, a term with which I was unfamiliar, but which I get.”
      Razoring. No, I’ve never seen it before either. I guess I’d normally use ‘shaving’, or ‘stripping’ but I was making an oblique reference to Occam’s Razor. Make sense? A quick run through the world’s dictionaries gives a number of pretty ugly definitions, of which here’s one that seems close to quite good: “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.” Similarly, and less clumsily, the razor is used to (and this is the version I first heard) shave off the inessentials. (A possible pubic reference there? (Just to feed your ardence and ‘horndog in a rut’ thing. (I know; it’s not a misread, it’s a mod, a jokette.)))
      Incidentally, one of the many ‘Best films I’ve ever seen’ is The Name of the Rose, starring ‘shorn’ Connery as William of Occam, or Old Bill Occam (Shorn – gettit?) and the young Christian Slater as the apprentice, and the props department’s glasses as the glasses. It’s taken from Umberto Eco’s eponymous book of the same name. Both come highly recommended and of course Eco is the darling of the intellectual set who pretend to understand all about semiotics. It’s much deeper than the film, though I think the film has the better version of the bit where they ‘do it’; it’s less wordy. More seriously, I think it the best love-scene I’ve ever seen. No pun intended. Try it – the film, that is. Let me know?

      “You simply eliminate the inconvenient, that which seems to compromise your newly desired conclusion.”…
      No, chap. Read my argument again, especially in light of the Occam’s Razor bit.
      …“Your original intent was, I believe,”…
      Oh, Randy, don’t. Take the advice of the late W.D.Faughty: never believe anything. Either you know a thing or you don’t know it.
      …”to create a wonderfully humourous, outrageous, backstory for your online presence and for our exchanges. You did so masterfully.”…
      Er – mistressfully? See, the bloody dictionary’s underlined it in ugly red. ‘Mistressfully’? “Oh my goodness, whatever next‽ I must stop all this,” is what it’s thinking.
      …“You should not toss that over by presenting a thin, legalistic parsing of your original sentence, claiming that really you were asking after my feelings and sense of well being.”
      We could argue this at length, but it would bore everyone else stupid. I think that if you will read it again without the pressure of needing to comment, you may find that it works. Frankly, I’ve never been certain whether ‘that’ has a real meaning or whether it’s just a question of style, aside from this case, where it was crucial. Having made my case I shall now rest it.

      “I meant no harm by my nit picking.”…
      No problem, chap; go pick away.
      …“Your comments are the only ones I look for on this site, and, truth be told, this is the only site I troll.”
      Ditto on both counts; I wonder why that is?

      “Though that could change. Maybe I’ll become an internet lurker!”
      Oh, if one only had the time! Actually, Dictionary.com does another, which is quite dictionarial, but the comments are few and pretty naff. Maybe you and I, and perhaps one or two of the better others, should meet there?
      “I do have a serious question about this “razoring” stuff. Why did you choose the word ‘that’, and not the word ‘when’, as in “Now, does it make you feel better WHEN…etc.”? It seems your assertions could just as easily apply.”
      I tried it. Now perhaps I misunderstand you, but ‘…does it make you feel better when I tell you WHEN the truth is that I…’ doesn’t make sense; not unless it’s e.g. ‘…does it make you feel better when I tell you [what?], WHEN the truth is that I WHAT…that I what?’ See what I mean?
      However, that aside, you may secretly agree that whilst ‘that’ is usually a style option, there is the odd occasion when it becomes essential, such as back there, and then. I am often charmed by the precision of the legal tongue.

      Regards,

      Jackie.

      *P.S. “Right! Don’t ever dare call me that again, you effing nonce, or I’ll slash my wrists, or worse. I hate it when you do that; you sailors are all the same.” Etc. (Or on this site, perhaps &c.)
      I don’t think for one moment that you take that seriously for one moment. However, my apology for one moment for calling you a nonce; especially an effing one, both of which were just for the mildly houmourous effect. Right. Must go; got a garden to do.

      JMH. x

      Reply
      • Randall Bell -  March 23, 2016 - 5:21 pm

        Congratulations on having received the honourific Dr., no matter how dodgy the circumstances. When I was seven years old, I too was referred to as ‘Doctor’, but for less than a week. The two red haired sisters from around the corner joined me to play medicine in their garage. We made a stethoscope from discarded odds and ends, as I recall. Those were the bad old unenlightened days of long ago, so the girls alternated between the roles of nurse and patient, while I was always the doctor. We three were becoming well versed in anatomy when two other, older girls found out about us and ratted to our parents. (I think those two were upset because of their own pubescence.) Anyway, own clinic was immediately shuttered and our medical credentials were unceremoniously revoked. Enjoy your acclaim while it lasts!
        The wisdom of crowds and the foolishness of individuals is my own little turn of phrase, not plagiarized, if that’s what you are wondering. Use it with my blessing, dear child. Dickens’s opening lines in A Tale of Two Cities set a very high bar for juxtaposition. Mine? Meh.
        I read and reread the parts of my last post that caused you to have such horrible thoughts, trying to figure why. Then it came to me. I used the word ‘poof’ as it is commonly used on my of the pond, to indicate a sudden or surprising event, as in, “Abracadabra, alakazam, poof, it’s gone.” You know, up in smoke, missing in action, etc. If you consider my sentence again, you will realize it makes perfect sense, even if you reject the argument I intended to make. We have our own coarse terms for mocking or drawing attention to the proclivities of others. ‘Poof’ as an insult might be understood by some here, but wouldn’t often be used. You probably know this stuff, and just enjoyed going off on hyperbole to again reel me in and gut me. You, after all, are still the doctor. Oh yeah, I had to look up ‘nonce’.
        It seems that many replies will attach to the same original post. You might notice two of mine, different dates, attached to your response to the mouth breather UsefZ on March 17. I think it works, might keep things closer together.
        Any opinion on Boaty McBoatface?

        Reply
        • Randall Bell -  March 25, 2016 - 9:10 am

          I guess I was thinking the word ‘poof’ (as in disappear) while typing the word ‘side’ which, consequently, is missing from a sentence above. See? The incantation works. Also, this will function as a test to see whether or not one can reply to one’s own submission. Don’t we all love doing science?

          Randy the editer

          Reply
          • Randall Bell -  March 29, 2016 - 6:13 am

            The magic of ‘poof’ also caused “our clinic” to become “own clinic”. All you kids out there, watch out for that word! Don’t even think it!

            Randy the editer

          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 1, 2016 - 11:29 am

            Randall Bell 23.3.16

            My Dear Randy Bell.

            Now that the children (at the top of this stuff) are safely tucked up in bed I can tell you that we too used to play that ‘doctors and nurses’ thing; the boy next door and I, and I was quite disappointed to learn later that I wasn’t the only one he’d played with. (My first girlie heartbreak.) Still, I got the doctorate in the end, even if it isn’t a proper one and was in words, not in medicine, and stuff like that.

            Have you managed to watch The Name of the Rose yet? I said in my last that “a film is, at base, no more than entertainment…not to be taken as representive of real life – whatever that is.” That provoked this from my old tutor, The Late W.D.Faughty(!) (to give him his full title): “A film, my dear child, is representive of nothing more than itself.” And the cheeky old bastard told me to discuss it in an essay!

            I’m pleased to find “the wisdom of crowds and the foolishness of individuals” to be your own “little turn of phrase”. And thank you for your permission, blessing and rather sweet little epithet; all of which earn you several collective bonus points. (I’m a oxymoronic sort of girl, myself, as you may be able to see.)* As you say, “Dickens’s opening lines in A Tale of Two Cities set a very high bar for juxtaposition.” Pity he didn’t keep the standard up there for the rest of that dreary tale.

            “Poof.” Well, yes it did make sense immediately but I chose to inject that houmourous hype, not realising the extent to which that word is not known over there. My main contact stateside is an English male friend who can still speak a diminishing few lines of English, as we like to call it here, and of course he knows that word very well. I trust that you found ‘nonce’ to be, besides an old word for ‘soon’, British prison-speak for a sexual prevert. (Bloody computer corrected that last word without asking me; I had to revert it manually. Tempted to write it, ‘ervert’ or ‘revret’, I decided that it is too abstruse and that ‘ervret is too obvious.)

            “It seems that many replies will attach to the same original post. You might notice two…attached to your response to the mouth breather UsefZ on March 17.” (“mouth breather” I like it.)
            Yes, I did, and I’m fairly sure I did the same thing, but I still don’t know how to initiate one.
            “I think it works, might keep things closer together.” Yeah may be; I’m only sorry mine landed so far from its intended target.

            “Any opinion on Boaty McBoatface?”
            Sorry chap, but I can’t get the faintest of who she, he or it is.

            NEXT: 25.3.16
            “I guess I was thinking the word ‘poof’…” Yes, I translated it, using the ‘oversight’ method.
            “Also, this will function as a test…to…reply to one’s own submission. Don’t we all love doing science?”
            Yes, yes we do. And I have. And it works. (And at the risk of raising the general level of paranoia, I’ll confess to having written to myself, though I promise you all (in case you care) I didn’t reply. I think it would be going too far.)
            Randy the editer
            Oh, P.S. You’ve spelt ‘editor’ wrongly.
            Jackie, the Editro.
            *It’s in the sentence before the oxymoronic sort of bit. Here’s a half-clue: How many are ‘several’?

            Too-toot and fond regards,

            Jackie.

          • Randall Bell -  April 6, 2016 - 6:07 pm

            Hello again, Jacquelyn. Things do appear to be heating up a bit. Love it that God created the alphabet with just so many letters! I will try to follow ‘asker seeker knocker’ and anyone who responds. He (?) could be a very earnest sort, maybe willing to engage. I have wondered for these past few weeks about your mentor, (The Late) W.D. Faughty. Wonder if the name is derived from the lubricant, and is trotted out whenever an untraceable citation or connection is needed. Link the name with some vague reference to an obscure branch of philosophy or linguistics…presto…instant creds! The name is considerably better than most I’ve heard…I.P. Daley, Phil MacCrevass, Ben Dover, Ho Lee Poo…because it is less obvious and less puerile, I guess. You mention you have a male friend on this side of the pond who still speaks a passable sort of English. There are Anglophiles aplenty over here who would be very impressed with his accent and phrasing. Mix in the right cultural allusions, a tweed jacket with leather patch elbows, maybe a vintage Jaguar, and his associates and colleagues will eagerly assume his IQ to be fifteen points higher than it is. I did spend some time on line finding out some about ‘The Name of the Rose’, just enough, actually, to be sure I won’t watch it or attempt to read the book. Seems moody, dark, disjointed, and dense, a bit like an art film adored and discussed by turtle-neck clad intellectuals and impressionable, out-of-their-depth adolescents. “Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow.” (Oscar Wilde) Anyway, the only Latin I can remember is ‘Quid, Me Anxius Sum?’ Oh, should you not have referred to yourself as ‘editricks’?
            Fight the good fight! Sorry Umberto Eco passed away. You really haven’t heard of Boaty McBoatface?
            Randall

      • robert -  March 23, 2016 - 9:17 pm

        Blah, blah, blah. No matter what you said.

        Reply
        • The Man -  March 29, 2016 - 2:32 pm

          robert 23.3.16
          Oi! Don’t be so rude! Or shut up.
          The Man.

          Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 8, 2016 - 7:59 pm

          Hiya, Randall.
          It’s good to hear from you again.
          I’m gonna do this chat type thing, okay? As usual, you’re in speechmarks.

          “Hello again, Jacquelyn. Things do appear to be heating up a bit. Love it that God created the alphabet with just so many letters!”
          I think that on the internet they’re called ‘posts’. No, seriously, it’s interesting that so many Xtians have come out against him/her/it, ‘name not shared’; one can see why.
          Of course much water has flown(‽) since our last chat; I daresay you’ve read Grace K’s item. Will you reply?
          “I will try to follow ‘asker seeker knocker’ and anyone who responds. He (?) could be a very earnest sort, maybe willing to engage.”
          Well, by now you’ll see that I’ve responded and yes, he (?) could well be very earnest. I hope he is willing to engage. Meanwhile, I wonder what has happened to John Kelly.
          “I have wondered for these past few weeks about your mentor, (The Late) W.D. Faughty.”
          Ah, yes, good old William Denis. Incidentally, the name on his baptismal certificate (he’s an Irish Catholic Atheist, you understand) and by personal reputation – or in his case I think ‘personal disreputation’ to be the better sobriquet, is The Late W.D.Faughty(!). If you read through the notes on this site you’ll see why. Can’t find them? Perhaps best wait till the sun shines, Nelly, I mean till the book gets into Kindle’s library; it must be any second now…
          “Wonder if the name is derived from the lubricant,”… D’you know, I’d never thought of that? …“and is trotted out whenever an untraceable citation or connection is needed.” Nor that. “Link the name with some vague reference to an obscure branch of philosophy or linguistics…presto…instant creds!”
          Yes, I think you may be right. I’ve never worked out what his main discipline is, and I doubt that he’ll remember. (He’s a terrible piss-artist, you know. Sorry about that, Grace; it’s just that I do so love that word.)
          “The name is considerably better than most I’ve heard…I.P. Daley, Phil MacCrevass, Ben Dover, Ho Lee Poo…because it is less obvious and less puerile, I guess.” Indeed. in fact my father’s masseuse’s name is Ophelia Gently and we once had a Scottish housekeeper named Flora McKitchen. One of my friends is a karaoke singer; a Sikh who goes by the name Gidupta Singh.
          “You mention you have a male friend on this side of the pond who still speaks a passable sort of English.” Well, only just. “There are Anglophiles aplenty over here who would be very impressed with his accent and phrasing.” Oh no, Randy; this guy speaks with the most appalling mid-Atlantic accent, closer to New York than to Southampton, and complete with such words as Worcestershire sauce, I’ve heard him almost choke on it (the word, not the sauce – everyone here calls it ‘wooster sauce’, presumably from ‘Woostershire’, he seems to have forgotten that; a scotch egg is a Scottish egg to him and no-one else and Las Vegas becomes very clearly, ‘Los Vegas’. In fact he has a book called, The Insults of Oscar Wilde. That accent thing works in reverse; we went to an informal jazz gig in California, where I requested Satin Doll. Multiple heads turned at the posh English voice, cutting through the marijuana smoke haze, but before they began clamouring for more, the bandleader said, ‘Say what‽’, which I translated to, ‘I beg your pardon, Miss?’ I repeated it and watched him frown and scratch his head. This happened a couple more times until my friend eventually closed the impasse, saying, ‘She wants Sat’n Dahl,’ with the emphasis on the first word. I took this to be a curry order and wondered. I thought we were doing Chinese to night. ‘Well, what’s with her;” said the bandleader. ‘Don’t she talk English?’ Furious, we left before they finished playing.
          “Mix in the right cultural allusions, a tweed jacket with leather patch elbows, maybe a vintage Jaguar, and his associates and colleagues will eagerly assume his IQ to be fifteen points higher than it is.”
          Now, believe it or not, I had the jacket, (no patches) which I gave to a fave girl student. Harris Tweed, it was about four million years old and still no sign of wear, but it was getting too tight around the bust. And I’ve still got the Jaguar, not vintage but a majorly improved copy; it’s an essential 5” wider and with some thirty years improvement via the XJ6 donour(‽). Space frame, lightweight GRP body, manual overdrive box, 94% more carburation area and literally half a ton of weight removed, it goes like the clappers! It’s a real hunter’s car. I reckon my IQ goes up about fifteen points when I drive it; certainly my street cred does. Everyone loves it. And I don’t think it’s just the blonde wig.
          “I did spend some time on line finding out some about ‘The Name of the Rose’, [good man] just enough, actually, to be sure I won’t watch it or attempt to read the book. Seems moody, dark, disjointed, and dense, a bit like an art film adored and discussed by turtle-neck clad intellectuals and impressionable, out-of-their-depth adolescents.” Yep, it’s all of those; we love it. ““Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow.” (Oscar Wilde) Anyway, the only Latin I can remember is ‘Quid, Me Anxius Sum?’” Is that, ‘What, me worry?’ “Oh, should you not have referred to yourself as ‘editricks’?”
          Peut-etre, but then I’d have to forgo ‘editro’
          “Fight the good fight! Sorry Umberto Eco passed away. You really haven’t heard of Boaty McBoatface?”
          I hadn’t. Thinking it to be one of yer presidential candidates I looked it up. How despicably English! I’d rather see it called ‘Name of Vessel’ as shown on the photo. I wrote to Faughty on this; he replied, “Well, if you must have democracy,” and left it at that. So I’m none the wiser.
          Okay, well it’s 2.25a.m. real time so I’m off to bed. Good night, dear.

          Jackie.

          Reply
  23. Max Gowers -  February 23, 2016 - 8:40 am

    Wow!

    Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 1, 2016 - 10:24 am

      I think I need someone’s help on this:
      It’s quite a way back in the blog, but on the 29th of January, Janee wrote “…when John says…to “calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man”, he literally means to add up the letters of his name and they will equal 666.” [Incidentally, someone on this blog* has yet to indicate what these numbers are, or might be, and I can only presume at least some of them to be greater than 26 – or is it 27? Or 25? Or what?]

      Now, I can’t see how she works out “…to add up the letters of his name…” to mean “…his own name, as ‘the beast’!” especially since ‘his’ is her word and is not taken from her quotation. Indeed, “a man” is as vague as is most of that Great Big Book of Nonsense – it could mean a single and certain man, or man in general – i.e, Man. I’ve used a variant of that in the paragraph above, where “someone on this blog*” might mean someone whom both he (or she) and I, know. Or it might mean just anyone. We don’t know since it is written in deliberately vague terms. Your guess is at least as good as mine.

      As do most of the best essayists, she leaves her best point to the end: “…men have had pet-names for their penises since there have been men!”

      Right. Suppose we make a little change to that and say, ‘Men have had pet-names for their penises since there have been penises.”

      I think it time for a change of fantasies. That leads to the concept that Eve was the first to appear in Paradise, and when she told her God that she was lonely, he realised this was his second mistake and so he borrowed a certain part of her, and having copied it, enlarging it in exchange for making a pair of her other parts smaller, gave it to the second of his wonderful creations, another woman, who thus became a man! My goodness, what a different world that could be!

      Reply
      • Randall Bell -  March 1, 2016 - 5:13 pm

        I have a sex change/sex ambiguity fantasy. It rather parallels the wonderful movie Tootsie, which I saw again a few weeks ago. Dustin Hoffman plays Michael Dorsey, a difficult, argumentative, perfectionist actor whose conflicts with other actors, and especially directors, render him unemployable. His agent tells him to get lost. In desperation, he dresses as a woman, Dorothy Michaels, and secures a paying part as administrator in a weekday hospital soap opera. On set, he (she) becomes the same volatile,unpredictable trouble maker he always was, but his TV character is instantly loved by audiences, so sponsors insist that “she” be renewed for another season, and not written out, as the long suffering director wants. Maintaining these two identities in the small world of New York theatre causes many conflicts, some comedic, some serious. The rising dramatic tension must be broken. When an episode has to be aired live, “Dorothy” improvises a big scene, outing himself as a man. He pulls off his wig, and claims to be Dorothy’s twin brother, avenging a wrong the hospital had previously inflicted upon her. So he’s out of the show in spectacular fashion, having avoided a lawsuit, and earned
        new creds and a partially rehabilitated reputation. Why the long re-hash of an old movie? Because Jacquelyn Hyde has been carrying this column, or whatever it’s called, as Dorothy carried the TV show. Jacquelyn has provoked strong reactions, including professions of admiration and love…fandom, I guess…as Dorothy did. Jacquelyn has introduced sex/gender into the discussion, as Dorothy did. Makes me wonder whether she is planning a big reveal, as Dorothy did. A long way from a simple conversation about an ampersand! I look forward to reading through the theological arguments that will ensue. Jacquelyn will offer easy bait to hungry and gullible fish before landing and gutting them. It’s almost a shame. Too easy.

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 4, 2016 - 11:34 am

          Randall.
          Well‼ This has taken a long time and several attempts to put together. How can you write such things‽ You are such a horrible man. Obviously intelligent, how can you spend your time writing such snide, gutter-press material? I hardly know how to respond to your cynical attack. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. At present I’m still doing both – both alternately and both together. I think I’m still in shock. I was quite enjoying re-living that splendid film until your question “Why the long re-hash..?” Your answer to it makes me think that this is what it must feel like to have been assaulted!

          LATER. I’ve settled down a bit now, and started to think, but it was a bit of a shock to read the first time. I’m interested in what motivated you to write. Was it just the film? Or was that the trigger for something explosive that’s been building for some time? And do I sense some hyperbole and just a touch of jealousy, and more than a tad of hubris? “…carrying this column…as Dorothy carried the TV show. …provoked strong reactions including professions of admiration and love…fandom I guess…(I wish)… as Dorothy did. Oh, come off it, matey; I’m not that good. …introduced…gender into the discussion, as Dorothy did.”
          However, otherwise, so far, so good, as analogies go, but then I think you do go too far: “…wonder whether she is planning a big reveal, as Dorothy did.” You are still working within the analogy but you also extrapolate, which is dangerous, as I’m sure you know, and you do so on the bases of your belief that ‘Jacquelyn’ is not a woman and that the analogy will continue. Not good thinking, Randall; not good at all. Otherwise your post is quite well written, amusing and original, but this has never happened to me before, anywhere.

          EVEN LATER. “Makes me wonder whether she is planning a big reveal…” It wouldn’t be nice of me to mention the fact that you should have used the word ‘revelation’ there, so I shan’t.
          Now, does it make you feel better when I tell you how clever you are, congratulate you for sussing me out as a man and that the truth is that I fought for my country in Vietnam, which has left me poor, fifty-seven years old, computer-bound in a wheel-chair, who otherwise gets around slowly on two sticks, or better on his dad’s old Korean war crutches; a man who can barely move, apart from his fingers, and spends all his time bleeding and pretending to be an English woman and writing nonsense for this and other web sites? A man with no web site of his own, no life and whose only happiness is got from the computer.
          Otherwise my happiness is due to the menial, and other services, of a big, brunette, and very attractive full-time nurse. This nurse lives in, bathes me every day, cooks my meals, washes up, gets me to the loo and cleans me up afterwards, as well as cleaning my house top to bottom. (A little suggestitivity there.) Even stranger is that outdoors the nurse dresses in leather and a white silk scarf, rides a nine-fifty Kawasaki, has tattooed arms and knees, smokes a pipe and has a full beard. Oh yes, and indoors he is also a part-time transvestite. Looks queer with the beard, but he’s happy that way. Takes all sorts, doesn’t it?

          I don’t need to explain anything to you. So keep wondering, Randall, for who knows? In the absence of a revelation, perhaps you should read part one of the book, Thicker Than Water (intendedly available FREE this month from Kindle’s lending library, KDP Select) before you decide. Maybe then you will ‘know’ whether it is written by a man or a woman. And whether
          it matters? Perhaps you’ll discover that as well, and stop fussing.

          Here then, is a little taster for you; it’s on the first page. It begins:

          “Naked, Moira’s reflection stares out at her.
          Carefully, scanilly, it looks her down, then back up again. It repeats all that, from tip to toe; almost as though it were considering buying her.
          For what? A slave‽ — A love – slave‽ —— A sex – slave‽‽
          ‘And…?’ Curious-eyed, Moira is quizzical.
          The mirror replies: it smiles – nothing more.
          But Spring’s in the air – there’s magic everywhere! They are upstairs, in the bedroom. They are alone – they are young – and they are in love! And surely it can’t be much better than that?
          ‘Girl,’ says the mirror. ‘You look –– fabulous!’ A deep, admiring sigh. ‘Absolutely magnificent!’ Its deep brown eyes positively sparkle.
          Moira traces her slim bikini lines for the umpteenth time today. She shrugs, less interested than she had been earlier this year, when the tan began. However, she’s still delighted by the sun’s growing gift — the white against the brown background. Or so it appears.”

          Meanwhile, what makes you think I’m not as I purport to be? What are the clues? It’s not the almost complete baldness and the grey beard, is it?

          All right, I’ll own up, it would be wrong of me to continue lying to you: I’m not really blonde! Though I wish… My hair is black – and pretty thick, if a bit straggly at present. I am of mixed nationality, darkish skinned and very, very attractive. I’d show you but I doubt that this site (that’s what it’s called by the way, a site) can carry it. My picture though, is in the book. I’m sure you’ll like it. There is another picture, showing lots more of me, which I quite like, and so would you, but my lawyers have advised my company against its publication – anywhere.

          Incidentally, in case you suspect the name, which perhaps seems too good to be true, I doubt that my parents, in choosing my first name, had even the slightest notion that I would one day marry a handsome young man called Harry Hyde, amusing and embarrassing both of us and all our friends, and which lasted as long as the marriage. I’ve kept the surname for obvious reasons.

          As you say, this is “A long way from a simple conversation about an ampersand!” And perhaps people will take sides. But I think you and I, at least, will watch this site with interest and bated (ooh no, sorry, that’s obviously ‘baited’) breath.

          Good luck with your theorising.

          Jack! (tee-hee) xx

          Reply
          • Randall Bell -  March 8, 2016 - 7:02 pm

            Oh dear, Jacquelyn! (Aside to those less observant than you are: Please note that I did not write ‘Oh, dear Jacquelyn!’ I am a bit old fashioned, and do not want to seem forward, presumptuous, or overly familiar so early in this relationship.) I assume that you read my first contribution while suffering from the vapours. I trust that the bearded nurse got you to your fainting couch and offered smelling salts before any permanent damage occurred. It is distressing for me to imagine that you might be always so tightly wound. I hope that is not the case. Incidentally, the only other person who ever referred to me as a horrible man is my first ex-wife. I am intrigued and excited by the pictures you mention. Brings to mind a long ago road trip to Mexico with a couple of teen age buddies. A guy in Matamoros lured us into an alley promising to show us “peectures of hes seester” but when we wouldn’t pay ten bucks in advance, he reneged. So near, but yet so far! As with us! I trust you will allow me to respond to a few more of your comments. This whole site thingy revolves around parry and thrust, badinage, and wit, does it not? Kind of like the time I spent in my university’s debating society? You claim to be a fifty-seven year old disabled veteran of the Viet Nam conflict. Now math has never been my strong suit, especially the math that has letters and Greek symbols and stuff in it…makes my head explode. But sums and differences? You know, the simple stuff? I’m good at that! Direct US involvement in Viet Nam ended in August of 1973, and the fall of Saigon was in April of 1975. You must have been a child soldier. Damn those Yankees for that! You posit that I used the word ‘reveal’ incorrectly, that I should have written ‘revelation’ instead. (Sounds a bit ecclesiastical, but it is quite a good word.) Both the Oxford and the Cambridge online dictionaries accept ‘reveal’ as a noun, and in the exact context I wrote. No inferior colonial patois here! Oddly, you did not challenged my use of the word ‘creds’. Only the Cambridge online acknowledges its validity, and only when linked with the modifier street, as in ‘street cred’. It is referred to it as slang. Damn those Yankees for that, too. I consider this online stuff to be much like a permanent Hallowe’en party, in which and at which any identity can be assumed and milked for all it’s worth, so whether you are male or female, pretending or not, makes little difference to me. I am libertarian at heart…fiscally conservative, socially liberal. There are skeletons in my family’s closet. No big deal. I would say, though, that you are unlike any woman I have ever known, in that you display varied intelligence, considerable endurance, an eager readiness to argue, and you attack with considerable glee when an ‘opponent’ exposes a vulnerable flank. So much for the stereotype of the nurturing, encouraging, collaborative female who doesn’t want any hurt feelings. (FYI, one of my sons wanted a Kenner Easy Bake Oven, powered by a light bulb, when he was in grade two. We got one for him. He’s straight.) I am starting to become weary, but allow me one final observation in response to your question, “Meanwhile, what makes you think I’m not as I purport to be?” I already wrote that I don’t really care, but your more vigourous responses bring to mind Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude. In Act III, Hamlet stops the Murder of Gonzago, his play within the play, and demands of Gertrude what she thinks of the Player Queen. Her response: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

          • Randall Bell -  March 11, 2016 - 3:57 pm

            Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I get your name, and find it most clever. Hope to hear back.

            Randy Randall

        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 4, 2016 - 4:08 pm

          Dano.
          Among all the warm responses, your mild crit of my stuff has moved and interested me to a surprising extent.
          If I can ever get back one issue of my long reply to Randall’s crit, which is currently off-screen but contains a very short extract from the beginning of my book which is due out this month, (unless I get my own way), I’d like your opinion on it.
          In fact, I’d like any intelligent responses from all of you please, including those who have yet to enter the forum, if you’d be so kind.
          Thanks.
          Jackie.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 15, 2016 - 4:45 am

            Randy!

            Sorry about this; I’ve had to find a spare REPLY pad. Doh. Well, get on with it; I haven’t got all day.

            “Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I get your name, and find it most clever. Hope to hear back.”

            Well, flatterer, I have in fact since replied to yours of 8.3.16 but I can’t see it on the screen. I think these people may have lost it. Have you seen it? Send us a copy if you can, there’s a good chap.
            My computer crashed recently and seems to have destroyed the original too. It’s only an old German WWII thing that I got in exchange for a couple of blinded spies I’d captured but I’ve grown rather fond of it, even though it takes up half the house. Now where was I…?

            Oh yes. So look, I’m surprised that a man of your talents should miss what appears to be such an obviously assumed name for so long. Can you imagine this: I’m driving with the radio on Three, (that’s the posh person’s programme) and there’s some harpsichord stuff on it. It finishes and the announcer announces (well what else are they good for?) that it was somebody’s highly complex 87th concerto, or something and it was played by Jacquelyn…
            I didn’t hear the other name because my humour muscles are massively overdeveloped and very fast, due to some trauma as a child – or was it the other way about? Anyway, they substituted the famous or infamous surname in perfect time to fit in with the announcement, causing me to hear that this dreary thing being played for so long was played by Jacquelyn Hyde, or the famous/infamous schizofreud doctor andor his psychopratic other half. Well I think you can believe that I nearly laughed out loud so much that I ran over a policeman.

            It was then that I thought, ‘Why Mary, if you were writing a woman’s book, that would be a brilliant name for you; much better than your own, which is so plebeian.Then I thought, ‘But Mary, you ARE writing a woman’s book! So I suppose you, Randy, may imagine that to be how the name evolved.

            How’s that for your cheeky cred; street or not? At least a part of it is true, perhaps.

            More if I find it. Otherwise we’re out of luck.

            Regrets,

            Jackie.

      • James Adams -  March 1, 2016 - 7:41 pm

        666 would have been expressed as DCLXVI making it somewhat difficult to add up the numbers of a name to that total. Not impossible, but Robert Graves had posited that the Roman numerals may have stood for something like, “Domitianus Caesar Legatus Christi Vincerebunt [something, I don't remember.] Meaning, IIRC, Caesar, murderer of Christ.

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 3, 2016 - 6:47 pm

          James, thank you for that. It helps considerably. Reading through it I was disappointed by your slight, possibly momentary amnesia, though it sounds more Greek than Latin as I read and made an instant insertion thus: ““Domitianus Caesar Legatus Christi Vincerebunt [something, I don't remember.] Ignoramus?(!) I really hope you find that as funny as I.
          Jackie.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 3, 2016 - 6:50 pm

            Sorry James, I forgot to ask. What does IIRC mean?
            Jackie.

          • Peter Groot -  March 10, 2016 - 7:19 pm

            Jaquelyn, IIRC means “if I recall correctly”

      • Peter Groot -  March 10, 2016 - 7:27 pm

        Revelation 13:18 The number of the beast 666 is usually supposed to be NERON CAESAR, written in Greek and transliterated to Hebrew as Nron Qsr. If written in Latin and transliterated as Nro Qsr it comes out 616, which appears in some versions of the Bible.

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 14, 2016 - 12:17 pm

          Peter Groot:
          Oh god, Peter. And there was I thinking it was I… I… Rex Christi or something. Simples. Thanks for that.

          You dropped an N, and Nron became Nro, finally summing out to 616. It is surely way too naive of me to think that were the ‘missing’ N re-placed the number would be 666?

          Jackie.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 15, 2016 - 6:46 am

            James (1.3.16) or perhaps Peter (10.3.16)

            It may interest you to know that I always e-mail Christine, one of my friends, hailing with Xtine. Charing Cross Station is often signposted Charing X, and another friend lived in Gerrards Cross and called it G X, after L A I suppose. It seemed to work. So X = things that sound a bit like cross or Christ and I daresay that Kris Kross members could sign their name with an X: (XX)

            Your translation of DCLXVI into Domitianus Caesar Legatus Christi Vincerebunt et cetera makes me wonder whether there’s a cruel Latin andor Hebrew irony here, whereby the crucified, famously offered vinegar on a sponge, you’ll recall, and previously called Jesus, or whatever, inherits the ‘X-word’ as a memento of the manner of his death. And the inscribed I N R I for cruelly ironic Latin andor Hebrew or Greek, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’. Thus those two crucified thieves could now be known as, say, Ronnie and Reggie (Kray) Christ. Or Ronnie Christ and Reggie Christ for short.
            Despite the mildly houmourous effect, it is a serious question.

            And James, if I’ve upset you with my ‘ignoramus’ joke, I’m really very sorry. Believe me, if I’d thought it true in the circumstance I’d not have said it. Clearly there are those who deserve whatever I can hand out, but on that occasion you weren’t one of them.

            Jackie.

    • jeff jefferson -  April 18, 2016 - 9:55 am

      hi, my name is jeff. do you like a mint? starbucks

      Reply
  24. Sirveathil -  February 22, 2016 - 4:36 pm

    I’m having WAY too much fun looking through these comments…is just me or is everyone a grammar nazi? lol!

    Reply
    • joe -  February 23, 2016 - 8:51 pm

      lol true dat.
      Or should I say ‘True That’ before someone stabs me? haha

      Reply
    • Tracy S. -  February 24, 2016 - 9:21 am

      I too was having way too much fun reading the comments, but I have to mildly disagree with the grammar Nazi comment. My take on grammar these days (and I am certainly not an expert but try to write and speak accurately) is that there is such a weak foundation provided to students in our school systems that folks like Jacquelyn (who appears to be well-versed in the language) begin to twitch when they read some of the prose that passes for well-written material (reading articles on the WWW drives me insane, are there any editors anymore). Her response, while I will say it digressed a bit, was spot on and (dare I say) fun to read…

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  February 29, 2016 - 3:09 pm

        Thanks, Tracy S for your kind mention of me in your post of 24.2.16; it’s most gratifying.
        I’m delighted that despite the digression you found my latest post “fun to read”. I do try, and I feel obliged to try to lead the likes of poor Gaurav who have already been led astray by such North-American nonsense, apparently mis-spoken by most NA (US) plebs, as the egregious “different than.” But even real English has to contend with the awful ‘different to’ from the many low-level scholastic achievers we get in the media these days. Yes, we have our plebs too.

        As to the twitching, you are so right there: I’ve emended many otherwise learned articles in Wikipedia for their mediocre grammar. (See my recent entry on ‘darling’ in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18, line three (or should that be ‘line 3’?)

        When it comes to the pop-pulp scene, well I managed to squirm my way through Dan Brown’s best-selling Da Vinci Code, which most I’ve spoken to disliked as much as I, even though it was an ‘un-put-down-able page-turner (via several very cheap tricks)’.
        ‘I read only a little of Ms James’s horribly styled pastiche Fifty Shades of Grey, before giving it up as a bad job. Perhaps if I’d got as far as page five I might have found it less awful.
        I give no reason for my dislike of these two items of ‘lit-richer’, except to say that they were not my style – at all. I hated them, indeed there are serious arguments regarding the advisability of allowing this kind of stuff to be published at all.

        Since you found my post fun to read, then perhaps you will like some of my books; they’ve been fun to write. Part one of the first-released is due out on loan next month in Kindle’s Library, their KDP Select. It’s a big love story, with a difference – a big difference.
        The rest follows shortly: parts 2 – 5 are offered for sale, including part one, some music and a big index that is almost a book in itself. You’ll also learn the answer to the Irish knock-knock joke – it’s never been done before.

        All the best,

        Jackie.

        Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  February 29, 2016 - 5:06 pm

        Thanks, Tracy S, for your kind mention of me in your post of 24.2.16; it’s most gratifying. I’m delighted that despite the digression you found my latest post “fun to read”. I do try, and I feel obliged to try to lead the likes of poor Gaurav who have already been led astray by such North-American nonsense, apparently mis-spoken by most NA (US) plebs, as the egregious “different than.” But even real English has to contend with the awful ‘different to’ from the many low level scholastic achievers we get in the media these days. Yes, we have our plebs too.
        As to the twitching, you are so right there: I’ve emended many otherwise learned articles in Wikipedia for their mediocre grammar. (See my recent entry on ‘darling’ in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18, line three (or should that be ‘line 3’?)
        When it comes to the pop-pulp scene, well I managed to squirm my way through Dan Brown’s best-selling Da Vinci Code, which most I’ve spoken to disliked as much as I, even though it was an ‘un-put-down-able page-turner (via several very cheap tricks)’.
        ‘I read only a little of Ms James’s horribly styled pastiche Fifty Shades of Grey, before giving it up as a bad job. Perhaps if I’d got as far as page five I might have found it less awful.
        I give no reason for my dislike of these two items of lit-richer, except to say that they were not my style – at all. I hated them, indeed there are serious arguments regarding the advisability of allowing this kind of stuff to be published at all.
        Since you found my post fun to read, then perhaps you will like some of my books; they’ve been fun to write. Part one of the first-released is due out on loan next month in Kindle’s Library, their KDP Select. It’s a big love story, with a difference – a big difference.
        The rest follows shortly: parts 2 – 5 are offered for sale, including part one, some music and a big index that is almost a book in itself. You’ll also learn the answer to the Irish knock-knock joke – it’s never been done before.
        All the best,
        Jackie.

        Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 1, 2016 - 9:36 am

        Tracy S. This may be the third time this reply appears. It keeps vanishing, only to be replaced after I’ve re-submitted it. So far there’ve twice been two posts on the screen in immediate succession; I wish whoever is running this site would sort it out.

        Okay, that’s enough of that particular whinge; what I want to say is thanks for your kind mention of me in your post of 24.2.16; it’s most gratifying. I’m delighted that despite the digression you found my latest post “fun to read”. I do try, and I feel obliged to try to lead the likes of poor Gaurav who have already been led astray by such North-American nonsense, apparently mis-spoken by most NA (US) plebs, as the egregious “different than.” But even real English has to contend with the awful ‘different to’ from the many low level scholastic achievers we get in the media these days. Yes, we have our plebs too.

        As to the twitching, you are so right there: I’ve emended many otherwise learned articles in Wikipedia for their mediocre grammar. (See my recent entry on ‘darling’ in the exegesis of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18, line three (or should that be ‘line 3’?)
        When it comes to the pop-pulp scene, well I managed to squirm my way through Dan Brown’s best-selling Da Vinci Code, which most I’ve spoken to disliked as much as I, even though it was an ‘un-put-down-able page-turner’ (via several very cheap tricks).
        I read only a little of Ms James’s horribly styled pastiche Fifty Shades of Grey, before giving it up as a bad job. Perhaps if I’d got as far as page five I might have found it less awful.

        I give no reason for my dislike of these two items of ‘lit-richer’, except to say that they were not my style – at all. I hated them, indeed there are serious arguments regarding the advisability of allowing this kind of stuff to be published at all; ‘f’rinstance’ it encourages the use of words such as that.

        Since you found my post fun to read, then perhaps you will like one of my books; they’ve all been fun to write, and they’re intentionally didactic, but part one of the first-released is due out on free loan this month in Kindle’s Library, their KDP Select. It’s a big love story, with a difference – a big difference. It’s called Thicker Than Water.

        The rest follows shortly: parts 2 – 5 will be offered for sale, including part one, some music and a big index that is almost a book in itself. You’ll also learn the answer to the Irish knock-knock joke – it’s never been done before.

        All the best,

        Jackie.

        Reply
    • suzy -  February 26, 2016 - 7:12 am

      true

      Reply
    • Curtis -  February 26, 2016 - 8:38 pm

      I found most of it to be beyond pompous.

      Reply
      • Mike the Real -  February 29, 2016 - 2:33 pm

        Curtis:
        Yeah, we thought you would. We all laughed when we read it, We also think you say ‘different than’, yeah? – and a bloke in the office made a book and took bets on it. So — do you?
        MtR

        Reply
      • Mike the Real -  March 1, 2016 - 4:40 am

        Curtis:”I found most of it to be beyond pompous.”

        Yeah, we thought you would; in fact, we took bets on it in the office My boss reckons you also say ‘different than’. Come on, be honest – do you?

        Mike the Real.

        Reply
    • Mike the Real -  March 15, 2016 - 7:30 am

      Sirveathil – 22.2.16(pm)

      “I’m having WAY too much fun looking through these comments…is just me or is everyone a grammar nazi? lol!”

      No, it’s just a few of us ( I do like that phrase, incidentally); the rest are either here to learn, enjoyably it seems, and one hopes, or they’re idiots who’s purpose in life is to hang around till they get kicked into corners and get forgotten. One usually finds them in the playpen, top left of the new stuff, where they provide good mouse edge-wheel practice. Er – lol? (It seems obligatory everywhere.)

      Mike the Real.

      Reply
  25. xXGoDsWaGgErXx -  February 19, 2016 - 6:36 pm

    The frik is that…

    Reply
    • Sirveathil -  February 22, 2016 - 4:37 pm

      It’s called the “and” symbol. O_O -_- O_O

      Reply
      • suzy -  February 26, 2016 - 7:11 am

        no then.. it isn’t called the and symbol

        Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 18, 2016 - 5:44 am

      Randy Randall. (Dr Bell? — THE Dr Bell?)

      Good news – well, goodish. No, tragically all trace of my post to you has gone. But since you’ve become my special hobby I’ll rehash the important bit, thus:
      Some while ago a semi-illiterato wrote to say that I’d used two too many ‘that’s in my previous post. He was, of course, wrong, and he may have learnt the error of his ways as a result of my admonition. It is a general observation (of mine) that Americans use ‘that’ too seldom, whilst the English (language speakers) too often use ‘which’ where they should use ‘that’.

      This entertaining little opener’s purpose is to highlight a case where the ‘that’ is critical. And I do mean critical. Let’s reconsider this item from my first reply to yours: “Now, does it make you feel better when I tell you how clever you are, congratulate you for sussing me out as a man and THAT the truth is that I fought for my country in Vietnam, which has left me poor, fifty-seven years old…”

      Razoring it gives, ‘…does it make you feel better when I tell you THAT the truth is that I…’ (Note, I’m ignoring the minor function of the second ‘that’.)
      Razoring yet more gives ‘…does it make you feel better when I tell you ____the truth is that I…’

      Note the difference? It’s the ‘that’. I cut the second shaven example, so I’ll put it aside as we consider the first. This hinges on the question of your feelings: ‘…does it make you FEEL better when I tell you THAT the truth is…’ I was very careful to include the ‘that’ because I’m not dealing with truth here, not at all; this is a hypothesis. Neither did I state that I was; I was only questioning your feelings when I tell you something. What that something is, is irrelevant since the rest of my post is concerned not with facts or otherwise, but with your feelings.
      I did it less subtly is my latest: “Can you imagine this: I’m driving with the radio on Three…” Nothing about truth, you’ll note; I’m wondering about your imagination, at which point we could be into pure fantasy…
      Be warned, the next bit is cruel, and I apologise in advance: Randy, remind me, who was it said, “Jacquelyn will offer easy bait to hungry and gullible fish before landing and gutting them. It’s almost a shame. Too easy.”

      Sorry, but you’ve only yourself to blame.

      I reckon that’s one to the lawyers.

      Cheers, chap.

      Jacquelyn.

      Reply
  26. Gaurav -  February 6, 2016 - 1:13 am

    Hey Guys,

    Now English is not my first language, so I need the hivemind to help me settle this. I have always been of the belief that the symbol &’s function is slightly different than the word ‘and’.

    For instance:

    INCORRECT
    She wore blue jeans, a red shirt, & brown shoes.

    CORRECT
    She wore blue jeans, a red shirt, and brown shoes.

    CORRECT AMPERSAND USAGE
    She wore blue jeans, a red & black shirt, and brown shoes.

    After reading this article I feel I have been way off base. What does the hivemind think?

    Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  February 8, 2016 - 2:36 pm

      Gaurav,

      Of course I can’t answer for the entire hivemind, but here’s my take on it. You are correct in each case and well-stated too, particularly as regards the “red & black shirt” (though I’d have worn black boots). However, as you may have gathered, I’m not a great fan of the ampersand, but since you’ve elected to use it you could leave out the second comma. Note that had you written ‘She wore blue jeans, a red and black shirt, and brown shoes’ the comma remains optional since it doesn’t affect our understanding either way. Stylistically, I’d have left it out.

      What bothers me more is your misuse of ‘than’: “…slightly different than the word ‘and’.” Though popular in North America, ‘than’ is wrong; it is not strong enough for the degree of separation you require here. You should use ‘different from’, keeping ‘different than’ as a (rare) relative-comparator i.e, more/less, bigger/smaller, hotter/colder. Thus if we compare black with white, using grey, we might say that grey is less ‘different than’ white is from black, or that black is more ‘different than’ grey is. Make sense?

      Nothing to do with any of that, but while I’m on, I can’t help noticing that the words ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’ are making deep inroads into the public consciousness, notably by the many who don’t know whether to use ‘I’ or ‘me’, when refering to ‘you and I’ or ‘you and me’. They don’t realise that ‘I’ and ‘me’ constitute a variable feast. Supposed to conceal this grammatic limitation, it is in fact, a dead giveaway.

      I’ve just been looking at stuff, like ‘thorn’ and things, now apparently gone. I’ve long wondered about ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’, as featured in the Christian Bible and similar ancient writings, whereas we now use ‘you’ and ‘yours’. It seems that Latin had its equivalent of our once-common* ‘you’ (*see anon) but that it was used in the accusative mood (or mode).
      Now, correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that this accusative mood is very direct, whereas ‘thee’, ‘thou’ etc are polite, less ‘in yer face’, and that Latin also had its equivalent of ‘thee’ etc; something less accusative. Should this be the case then we seem to be moving into an even politer mood where ‘you’ is becoming less common and the egregious and face-slap-provoking ‘yourself’, is more often than not used by strangers trying to sell you something, as though ‘you’ were too direct, and therefore impolite.

      I think this comes from North America, which has a short but lengthening history of fear of the (crudeness of the) English language. To illustrate:
      In North America we no longer go to the shop, but to the store. We do this in Great Britain too. What used to be a shop is a store and a supermarket is a superstore. A shop, you’ll recall, is where things must be bought in order to possess them, whereas one can enter a store and simply take stuff, a store is where stuff is kept; there’s no implication of the nasty business of fiscal exchange, actually parting with one’s hard-earned money. This, remember, happens almost invariably via the creditcard, (even less painful if we say it quickly, as one word) another painless transaction, involving no expense of filthy lucre. Heaven forbid we soil our hands with such as that! (And don’t you just love the way you can lay that card onto the face of the device? Money was never so easily spent!)

      We no longer ‘have’ stuff, we ‘own’ it. “I own a set of these,” said the assistant pro, proudly demonstrating a set of Wilson’s best clubs. Great ponce! And nothing is second-hand nor used any more; it is all ‘pre-owned’. We don’t even buy stuff, we take it, or get it; ‘Oh, I’ll take two of those.’ Or ‘Oh, can I get a coffee in here?’

      Defecation and urination too have long gone out of fashion. We went to the urinal but I don’t think we ever went to the defecatory, but to the lavatory (from ‘lave’, to wash). Then that became too much and so we had to go to the toilet, another wash-word and little to do with our real reason. Now, of course we go to the ‘rest room’, presumably to rest; well, we do in North America. Blimey mate, whatever next?

      Toot-toot.

      Jackie.

      Reply
      • Ben -  February 29, 2016 - 4:52 pm

        I surely hope you aren’t going to a bill me for that English lesson! Not that math teachers don’t help with their English.

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 2, 2016 - 8:24 am

          Ben.
          Thanks for yours.
          “I surely hope you aren’t going to a bill me for that English lesson!”
          No, I can’t, for whilst I have your bank account and credit card details, of course, I need your written permission to make a withdrawal. However, you are free to enjoy, or otherwise, the benefits of my hard-earned erudition.

          “Not that math teachers don’t help with their English.”
          You confuse me here; did you mean, ‘not that maths teachers don’t NEED help with their English’? That makes more sense since most of them seem to (e.g. a “dice” is not a dice; it is a die).
          Jacquelyn.

          Reply
      • John Kelly -  March 1, 2016 - 12:03 pm

        Defecation and urination too have long gone out of fashion. We went to the urinal but I don’t think we ever went to the defecatory, but to the lavatory (from ‘lave’, to wash). Then that became too much and so we had to go to the toilet, another wash-word and little to do with our real reason. Now, of course we go to the ‘rest room’, presumably to rest; well, we do in North America. Blimey mate, whatever next?

        Toot-toot.

        Jackie.

        I had to smile at this one!
        When I were yungg lad; many, many year-ago: T’wernt none of that poncy “toilet” nor “rest w’ yer feet-up, room” me an’ family went to, at bottom of ‘t garden… It were t’ “lavvy” we used fer’ our business!
        (Yorkshire accent not supplied)!

        Apologies in advance to all contributors blessed with delicate sensibilities!

        Reply
        • Tookah -  March 2, 2016 - 5:38 am

          And if you came from the North East ( of England that is) you just went to the netty

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 3, 2016 - 10:00 am

            “And if you came from the North East (of England that is) you just went to the netty.”
            Thanks for that, Tookah.
            I must say it’s a new one on me, and as an engineer I thought I knew pretty-well most lavatorial words and phrases. Here’s a coupla best ones.
            I used a freshly decorated ‘netty’ or ‘bog’ (as we used to say at Eton) early in the new season and the only graffito on the wall read, “The painter’s work was all in vain, for the shit-house* poet strikes again!” It was the first time I’d seen it and it made me laugh. *I’ve kept the vernacular word in there, without apology, as it’s important to the humourous(‽) effect, though of all those poncey alternatives it comes closest to the reason for going into the place, though despite all those wash-words, I’ve yet to find a public bidet!
            The other is shorter and subtler: “Whither entropy?” I love that!
            Regards,
            Jackie.

        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 2, 2016 - 9:07 am

          Dear John (as ‘they’ say).
          Thanks for yours.

          “Defecation and urination…whatever next?”
          “I had to smile at this one!…(Yorkshire accent not supplied)!”

          Fear not, yungg man; that were so well doon that I were well into t’ Yorkshire accent by the word ‘yungg’, an’ by “…many year-ago:” I were thinkin’ of a nice glass of Château Le Chatelet, Obadiah. By t’time I got t’ t’werd ““lavvy”” I were laffin’ fit ter bust! (I’d have typed ‘boost’ there but people would’ve read it as ‘boost’.)

          Actually, (using that stereotypically English word to change the accent back to ‘normal’) there was an item omitted there; it was the silly euphemism, Powder Room, or Ladies Powder Room, and my grand-dad, who almost certainly blessed – or cursed – me with his sense of humour, used to say that he was off to the Gents’ Powder Room. Boom-boom.
          Well done! And welcome to the site.

          Jackie.

          Reply
    • Brooklyn -  February 22, 2016 - 2:37 pm

      People can express the way they want and you can’t do anything about it.
      For an example:
      I saw a bee & a bird
      _______________________________________________________
      I saw a bee and a bird.

      See? It means the same thing but showed differently. I don’t get why you guys are making a fuss about this. “&” and “and” has the same meaning. It’s not even a slight different. “&” is an easier way to say the actual word “and”

      Reply
      • Sirveathil -  February 25, 2016 - 2:01 pm

        That is true. But, some people prefer to have the sentence written so it can be readable.

        Reply
        • jacquelyn Hyde -  February 27, 2016 - 6:34 am

          Yeah, nice one, Sirveathil.

          Jackie.

          Reply
          • W.D.Faughty(?) -  February 27, 2016 - 7:48 am

            Brooklyn.

            You say, “I don’t get why you guys are making a fuss about this. (‘&’ and ‘and’”

            Simple: We do it because we can!

            W.D.Faughty(?) himself.

      • jacquelyn Hyde -  February 27, 2016 - 6:06 am

        Brooklyn, my dear… No, I’ll start that again: Brooklyn. – Oh dear…

        Your bombastic opener, “People can express the way they want and you can’t do anything about it.” is sadly true. However, that cuts both ways since there’s nothing you can do about my way of expression either. Except perhaps improving yours by copying mine! So nah, nah, na-na nah!

        Had you entered one of my classes with that spoken attitude I’d have thrown you out as a waste of my precious time and considerable talent. We had counselors for people like you – those not yet ready for the adult world.

        In fact I had a mature student with your attitude. I gave him a personal lecture in front of the class (a bit like this, really) and watched him shrink. He behaved perfectly for the whole course, absolutely refusing even to make eye contact. He scored well in my tests too. He was probably too humiliated to thank me at the course end, though I daresay he appreciated his little lesson; certainly the rest did.

        Somebody earlier posted a little nonsense – or was it a joke?- where he said ‘fart’ but spelled it ‘phart’. Since his ‘phart’ sounded the same as his ‘fart’, I wondered whether it smelled the same, for the word sounds just as offensive however one spells it – or smells it. It’s rather like the nonsense of ‘fat’ and ‘phat’, or ‘fishing’ and ‘phishing’, the latters of which I read as ‘pat’ and ‘pishing’, as I refuse to even think silly (North-American?) alternative and redundant-at-birth words.

        Your last, rather crudely punctuated sentence, my correction of which may teach even you something, goes: “It’s not even a slight differen(ce); “&” is an easier way to say the actual word “and”.
        Nonsense, Brooklyn; the speech mechanism of each word is identical; thus “&” and “and” will sound exactly the same. Doh!

        This next bit connects with Lila’s (23.2.16)
        It may be easier to type, but I don’t find it so; an almost-touch-typist, I type the oft-used little word ‘and’ almost without thought; the ampersand requires that I look for the 7 key, then move my entire left hand one letter to the left to find the shift key, then press it before pressing the 7 in order to get the required ‘&’. It almost involves thinking, a thing I’d rather avoid, wouldn’t you?

        Some have described the & as hard to write well, as do I, so I use a variant: it’s a reverse 3 with an extended horizontal, crossed by a short vertical line, rising to form a crucifix-type cross. Looks complicated written her, but a very short amount of practice gets it okay. (PractiSe is all, guys.)

        Well Brooklyn, I’m sure we all anticipate your next post eagerly. (I’d have typed ‘eagerly anticipate’ but as you know (?) it’s a split infinitive and I hate it when it does that.

        Jackie xx.

        Reply
      • John Kelly -  March 1, 2016 - 12:10 pm

        “&” is an easier way to say the actual word “and”

        suspect you probably mean “write” instead of “say”!
        Nit-picking; I know, but that is half the fun of these forums!
        The other half is realizing our own errors and owning up to them. We all slip up on grammar, yours’ truly; no exception.

        John

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 4, 2016 - 12:40 pm

          John.

          “Nit-picking; I know, but that is half the fun of these forums!”
          Absolutely right, my man! (which means nothing more than that I agree wholeheartedly; it is half the fun of these fora, no?).

          “The other half is realizing our own errors and owning up to them. We all slip up on grammar, yours’ truly; no exception.”

          Do you know, John, I was within an ace of writing something like, ‘and also our punctuation, dear?’ This was to refer to your, “…yours’ truly; no exception.”
          It was that “yours’” with the apostrophe in the ‘wrong’ place. Then I realised that you weren’t writing to me alone; you were addressing us all! And so the apostrophe moves from the singular to the plural position. Well done, that man. That is possibly the second trickiest apostrophe case I’ve ever encountered.
          Actually though, there is a couple of not-so-goods in there; they’re in the last sentence. Any offers anyone?
          Come on, I’ve got loads o’ coconuts and (especially for Randall’s benefit), plenty of balls.

          Jackie.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 18, 2016 - 3:22 am

            Doh! After claiming an athletic wit I then find a perfectly good opportunity missed. Humbly then: Come on, don’t be shy! I’ve got loads o’ coconuts and (especially for Randall’s benefit), plenty of balls.
            JH.

    • Lila -  February 23, 2016 - 10:46 am

      Dear Gaurav,

      & (and) and can be used in the same context but some believe that & is more formal than it spelled out. Using & is easier unless you are writing it out then it’s harder, so some people just use and.

      Love,
      Lila

      Reply
    • Vivtoria -  February 24, 2016 - 9:01 am

      No, you pretty much got it right from what you typed. If anything you’re more on base than most people I know.

      Reply
    • Pops -  February 28, 2016 - 4:58 pm

      You are wrong! You should just return to your native Slovakian language!

      Reply
      • The Man -  February 29, 2016 - 3:57 pm

        Pops.
        “I don’t agree!!!”
        With what or whom do you disagree? Your post is useless, ineffectual without this small but essential information. You’ve wasted your time and ours.

        “You are wrong! You should just return to your native Slovakian language!”
        Once again: who is “wrong!”? And who should “just return to [their] native Slovakian language!”

        Btw: Yours is not the sort of language that wins prizes, nor the appreciation of others; lunatics, racists etc excluded. Perhaps they think as you do where you (originally) came from, but we don’t do it here.
        So, shape up or ship out!

        The Man.

        Reply
      • The Man -  March 1, 2016 - 8:21 am

        Pops.
        Here are yours so far.

        First, the utterly vague, “I don’t agree!!!”
        With what or whom do you disagree? Your post is useless, ineffectual without this small but essential information. You’ve wasted your time and ours.

        Next, this:
        “You are wrong! You should just return to your native Slovakian language!”
        Once again: who is “wrong!”? And who should “just return to [their] native Slovakian language!”

        Btw: I don’t particularly care who is your target; yours is not the sort of language that wins prizes, nor the appreciation of others – racists and other loonys, etc excluded. Perhaps they think as you do where you (originally) came from, but we don’t do it here, okay?
        One of the things I like about this blog is the way it is fairly well-regulated by the punters. So, Pops, either shape up or ship out! Or else.

        The Man.

        Reply
  27. Post169 -  February 5, 2016 - 6:59 pm

    I would really like to know more about the %, which I intuitively call the “percent sign”, but after taking Java programming in high school, I always think of as the “modulo”.

    Reply
    • Nikolai -  February 19, 2016 - 9:02 am

      It seems that “percent” is the correct name for the symbol; modulo is the mathematical operation it denoted in some programming languages.

      Reply
    • Anonymouse -  February 21, 2016 - 5:00 pm

      It’s like the “!” symbol in english and math.
      What do you instinctively call it, the “exclamation mark” or “factorial operator”?

      Reply
      • Mike the Real -  March 7, 2016 - 3:11 pm

        Depends what I’m doing; English or maths.

        Reply
  28. John -  January 31, 2016 - 5:34 pm

    Eons ago in the UK there was another symbol I recall being used as an equivalent to the & it was a like a t without the right hand bottom serif but with a flattened loop on the left hand serif.

    Reply
    • Rox -  February 9, 2016 - 3:20 am

      Was it a bit like one of your American yellow ribbons ? I never looked on this as separate from & , I think it was just a rough handwritten attempt at & .

      Reply
    • jomi -  March 3, 2016 - 7:18 am

      This is actually a plus sign made without lifting one’s pen, and is the quickest and simplest way to signify “and,” and is often used when taking notes, or when writing rough drafts and outlines, and in informal writing, such as in letters to friends (when all of these examples are written by hand).

      Reply
  29. widgel -  January 26, 2016 - 11:38 pm

    Can ‘&’ function both as an uppercase and lowercase letter (not necessarily at the same time, but possibly)? If so, are both uppercase and lowercase ‘&’ written in the same manner? If not, I find it strange that it would be a part of the alphabet. Perhaps I lack knowledge from the history of the alphabet, but in our modern alphabet, all letters function as both uppercase and lowercase letters. Could this be another reason for removing ‘&’ from the alphabet?

    Reply
    • widgel -  January 26, 2016 - 11:43 pm

      (By “If not,” I meant if ‘&’ cannot function in both uppercase and lowercase. I did not mean if ‘&’ is not written the same way in both uppercase or lowercase.)

      Reply
    • Mike -  February 9, 2016 - 9:15 am

      Uppercase and Lowercase refer to the boxes letter and character blocks were pulled from when constructing printing press plates. I believe the & had already been removed from the alphabet prior to the advent of that noble device.

      Reply
  30. jencool -  January 18, 2016 - 12:27 pm

    It looks like a stick man is draging his butt on the floor

    Reply
    • Don Knox the Informer -  January 21, 2016 - 12:06 pm

      Never done any ‘draging’. Would scraping or scratching have the same satisfactory effect?

      Reply
      • Vail -  February 10, 2016 - 10:14 am

        I found him! The only person who never committed a typo in the entire history of keyboards!! We must name a day for you, “Don Knox the Informer”, and find you an appropriate crown and perhaps some other accoutrements.

        I had a good chuckle over the “stick man” comment and rather think it looks like a stick person with quite a large, er, posterior :0)

        Reply
      • Daniel St Hubbins -  March 23, 2016 - 6:43 am

        Don Knox the Informer – 21.1. 16
        You wrote: “Never done any ‘draging’. Would scraping or scratching have the same satisfactory effect?”
        No, not at all; there is just no substitute for draging, which is so satisfying that I and my cat often do it for three or four days together.
        Daniel St Hubbins, (cousin to the other two).

        Reply
    • Quincy -  February 5, 2016 - 9:14 pm

      Great now I can never unsee that.

      Reply
    • mark -  February 26, 2016 - 6:05 am

      hahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaah

      Reply
      • No one youd know -  March 15, 2016 - 11:04 am

        Mark 26.2.16

        “hahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaah”

        Did you time yourself for that?

        Reply
  31. Jenny -  January 11, 2016 - 12:52 pm

    I thought that the description on this page of a letter that was removed from the alphabet might be referring to the ‘thorn’ that had the ‘th’ sound and results in quaint signs like ‘The Olde Coffee Shoppe’ being written as ‘Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe’

    Reply
    • Will -  January 21, 2016 - 3:32 pm

      I agree with Jenny. I thought thorn too.

      Reply
      • Matthew -  February 6, 2016 - 5:27 am

        “I thought thorn too.” Now THAT’S funny…ABSOLUTELY brilliant….congratulations…..wish I’d thought of it myself

        Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 21, 2016 - 4:17 pm

      Hmm. Interesting.

      Reply
      • pablo -  February 19, 2016 - 11:09 am

        HEY IM PABLO

        Reply
        • Jamal Johnson -  February 22, 2016 - 8:03 am

          Shut up

          Reply
          • Mike the Real -  March 4, 2016 - 12:46 pm

            Jamal,(22.2.26)
            Yes, we like like that!
            MtR

          • Mike the Real -  March 4, 2016 - 12:55 pm

            Sorry, Jamal. It probably makes little sense. Ignore it and read this instead:
            As the man from the BBC said, “Yes, we like that!”

            (This may not come out exactly where on the page I aimed it. In that case you should ignore mine following.)

            MtR

        • Juan -  February 22, 2016 - 5:39 pm

          Sup el senor Pablo

          Reply
  32. D -  January 10, 2016 - 7:30 pm

    & phoned home,

    Reply
    • hi -  January 11, 2016 - 9:37 am

      ???

      Reply
      • E -  January 12, 2016 - 6:36 pm

        E.T. phone home ;)

        Reply
        • Don Knox the Informer -  January 21, 2016 - 11:27 am

          I think he’s disconnected.

          Reply
          • Don Knox the Informer -  January 21, 2016 - 11:29 am

            As in, ‘I don’t think he made the connection’.

          • genna -  February 25, 2016 - 11:26 am

            wowww

        • T -  February 16, 2016 - 9:44 am

          E.T PHONE HOME !

          Reply
    • abbykimchi -  January 11, 2016 - 2:33 pm

      so you wouldn’t an amperstand in a sentence? like for example, “I am going to the store, then I shall go to the park, & then I shall come back home.”

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 13, 2016 - 9:32 pm

        abbykimchi 11.1.16

        so you wouldn’t an amperstand in a sentence?
        I wouldn’t understand it in a sentence!
        No, more seriously, you could, but it lacks style; rather like ‘I did this for the 5th time (instead of ‘I did this for the fifth time.’

        J.

        Reply
        • DATS ME -  January 17, 2016 - 6:50 am

          I can see &

          Reply
        • Peter B -  January 17, 2016 - 4:42 pm

          William Blake used the ampersand all the time.
          Would you say he lacked style?
          (Well I hope not)

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 22, 2016 - 2:44 am

            Peter B – 17.1.16.
            William Blake used the ampersand all the time.
            Would you say he lacked style?
            (Well I hope not)

            Well, Peter B (lake?), it looks as though you’ve got me there. I don’t like Blake but I wouldn’t deny his talent. And I wouldn’t say he lacks style either; not at all.

            (Inevitably) However, we need to compare like with like. I don’t think it reasonable to compare Mr. Blake with the rest of us; the mad genius was writing well-crafted poetry, not shopping lists. I think we can give him poetic licence.

            Thanks for your crit though.

            Incidentally folks, utility words, such as ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘with’ etc are more easily called to the screen than is ‘&’, if you set up your processor to do it. It’s dead easy. Try it.

            Jackie.

        • Myself -  January 19, 2016 - 8:11 pm

          Great article, but most of the commentors need to get out more. Seriously. 1500 plus comments critiquing each other’s grammar and dialectical differences. Slap yourselves repeatedly about the head and shoulders and go out for a beer or something. Sheesh….

          Reply
          • Krystal -  January 20, 2016 - 3:58 pm

            (said the person, critiquing others for critiquing others, also sitting on their computer, and in no position whatsoever to criticize)

            @myself: And so the pot called the kettle black.

          • Vincent St Hubbins -  February 1, 2016 - 8:50 pm

            Jacquelyne,

            You say utility words such as ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘with’ etc are more easily called to the screen than ‘&’ is. You make it sound as though these words exist somewhere in the computer. Do they – and how do we get them up on the screen, please?

            Vincent.

          • Soulvei -  February 5, 2016 - 5:33 pm

            Do you find this kind of stimulating conversation in a bar? If you do then please tell me which public house you frequent so that I can get in on the fun!

          • robert -  March 23, 2016 - 9:24 pm

            I think most went out for a beer before they started commenting.

          • asker seeker knocker -  April 27, 2016 - 6:30 am

            Myself – January 19, 2016 – 8:11 pm

            I heartily second the motion. Cheers!

        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  February 1, 2016 - 7:27 pm

          On 11.1.16, abbykimchi wrote:
          “so you wouldn’t [use] an amperstand [ampersand] in a sentence? like for example, “I am going to the store, then I shall go to the park, & then I shall come back home.”

          No, I wouldn’t; I can’t see any reason to do so. However, there is a few places where its use may contribute to a message’s clarity. A piece’s style etc is, I think, exceeded by the need to communicate most effectively; the point is well illustrated in this short tale about the Hand brothers, intrepid venture booksellers in the early 1900s, who went into business together. They were quite picky and so when they employed a signwriter to paint the firm’s name over the shop, they were at pains to instruct him as to the precise height, colour and font of the letters.

          Hand & Hand was the ingenious name they chose and instructed the artisan accordingly.
          He made a splendid job of it; gold over dark green, modified Times Roman font, ten inches high and slightly stretched, it was so placed that the ampersand was smack in the middle of the sign, whose name was, of course, equally spaced from the ends. And just a tiny tad too much.

          The twee bros Hand were impressed, no doubt. However, being ‘quite picky’ they couldn’t help but agree that it would have been better to have had, as they put it to the signwriter, “…just a little bigger gap twixt Hand and and and and and Hand. (You’ll need care with your pronunciation, of course, not just a repetition of the same dull ‘and’ sound.) The signwriter understood it, and had I not wanted to make the point about communication I’d have written it as he saw it: ‘Hand and & and & and Hand’.

          I think this to be a clear case for the ampersand’s use, no? (As a matter of faint interest, this half-witted robot, my computer’s all-seeing checking device, has refused to withdraw its ugly, wavy red lines from under the last three ‘and’ words; it had no such problem with the bit I wrote using the ampers&.) (Hm!)

          Toot-toot,

          Jackie.

          Reply
          • John Kelly -  March 1, 2016 - 12:32 pm

            Brilliant observation Jackie… &nd even more-so; the twain (twixt?) Hand in Hand Twins… or should that be Bros.? However, this is more a matter of graphics and advertising as opposed-to grammar and semiology in literature!
            Hmmm?
            John

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  March 29, 2016 - 2:18 pm

            robert – 28.3.16

            “I think most went out for a beer before they started commenting.”
            Yeah, nice one, robert – and possibly true.

            JMH.

        • Vail -  February 10, 2016 - 10:19 am

          I use (the? an?) ampersand when I need fewer characters, so it still feels useful in “Social Media” and sending text messages.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 4, 2016 - 3:27 pm

            Thank you, John. Most kind.
            Semiology eh? Where d’you get that?
            No, I really did it partly to use that five ‘and’s in a row thing (to rhyme with ‘go’ not ‘cow’!). I’ve got a similar device where, with a little imagination, one can, believe it or not, get 16 ‘had’s in a row, not counting the commas &c of course! I’d submit it, only I’ve only met one other person who understood it. He was the chap who told it to me. Very bright young man.
            Jackie.

          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  April 1, 2016 - 2:12 am

            John Kelly 1.3.16.

            Hiya John

            Beware the ides of March, and of course the first of April.
            Be that as it may, I think the Hands were bros, not twins, though it was a long time ago. Had they been around today I daresay they’d have had the sign written as Hand ‘n’ Hand (!)

            Jackie.

        • Curtis -  February 26, 2016 - 8:06 pm

          Does the fact that & is not part of the alphabet not preclude style use? It seems likely that first-year English professors may find reason to deduct purely based on annoyance, no?

          Reply
          • No one youd know -  February 29, 2016 - 3:37 pm

            No.

          • The Man -  February 29, 2016 - 4:37 pm

            No.

            So? Where is/are my other reply/replies?

          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 1, 2016 - 11:52 am

            Curtis:
            “Does the fact that & is not part of the alphabet not preclude style use?”
            No, not at all; why should it?
            The interrogative, the interjective and their combination into the rhetorative are without the alphabet, yet they are not subject to this restriction, are they? (Answer: No.)
            “It seems likely that first-year English professors may find reason to deduct purely based on annoyance, no?”
            No certainly not; at least I would expect not; that would be so silly; emotional and unprofessional. [Even unprofessorial, if you must use that poncey, bloviant term 'professor' to mean a lecturer.]
            Dr Hyde.

          • John Kelly -  March 1, 2016 - 12:56 pm

            The ampersand is really there as a symbol of convenience. It is primarily intended for shorthand, texting and notation… where speed and clarity are paramount; as- opposed to literary style and grammatical precision. For example, I would not use it in a letter to a friend… but (especially) I would not use it for business purposes!
            In this second instance the context of your letter must tell your prospective business associate something about YOURSELF! Are you slapdash? Can you efficiently connect your intentions to a wider public? Will that connection have a positive or adverse reaction on those who receive it? Do you always take the easy, speedy route instead of applying oneself to a more arduous (but perhaps a better/more profitable) course instead? Will you be a worthwhile investment of THEIR time, money, effort etc.?

            Hmmm?
            John

      • JMH... -  January 25, 2016 - 3:48 pm

        Don Knox the Informer 21.1.16
        “As in, ‘I don’t think he made the connection.’

        No, I heard he made the connection but there was no reply.

        Reply
      • Laurent Écrivain -  February 3, 2016 - 10:19 pm

        The “&” is not really appropriate in a sentence. It’s mostly used in titles.

        Reply
        • HopeJD -  February 7, 2016 - 8:18 am

          To add to all this, at some point the “&” symbol or character was replaced by something that represents the word “and”. It is drawn like a small stick with a loop with an undercurve at the end of it. IMHO it was created as an abbreviation or a shortcut say if someone were writing a quick message and didn’t want to be bothered by writing out a big word like a-n-d. Sarcastic humor. I’ve been using this particular symbol since grade school. Open.

          Reply
    • widgel -  January 26, 2016 - 10:03 pm

      hahaha, funny. et phoned home. nice

      Reply
    • ';K;'LK' -  February 4, 2016 - 10:59 am

      ASDFA

      Reply
  33. swapankumarbasu -  December 25, 2015 - 8:03 pm

    excellent.

    Reply
    • Mike the Real -  January 1, 2016 - 5:42 pm

      swapankumarbasu 25.12.15

      “excellent.”

      What is?

      MtR.

      Reply
    • Diviya -  January 5, 2016 - 2:23 pm

      I never knew that. That’s so cool !!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
    • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 21, 2016 - 2:14 pm

      Yeah, nice one Krystal.

      Myself: “…most of the commentors need to get out more.” Did you mean, ‘commentators’?
      Easy, innit? Coming back?

      Jackie. (Presses the Go stud, turns to the audiance and laughs.)

      Reply
      • Nancy -  January 22, 2016 - 12:13 pm

        Jackie, Here is just one definition from the internet:

        A commentator commentates events (like sport games on radio and TV) according to attributed time slot. That’s why he has to fill with words the pauses in games, events, etc.

        A commenter, on the contrary, comments.
        ………..
        definition of commentate = report on an event as it occurs, especially for a news or sports broadcast; provide a commentary

        Reply
        • Nancy -  January 22, 2016 - 12:17 pm

          One more thing:

          commentor is also gramatically correct although apparently rarer. Personally I like to write it with “or.”

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 25, 2016 - 2:15 pm

            Nancy 22.1.16

            “Jackie, Here is just one definition from the internet…”

            Well, thank you for that, Nancy. I’d assumed, erroneously perhaps, that ‘Myself’ had made an error there, where it looks as though ‘commentor’ is what s/he meant. (My vague dictionary didn’t understand that word.)

            Believe it or not, I had yet to encounter the word and if you, personally, like to write it with “or”, then that’s good enough for me, and so, so shall I. Oh, especially since it is “‘gramatically’ correct”. (Hmm. It didn’t understand that one either. Sorreee.)

            All in good fun, girl. Watch this space.

            Jackie.

  34. BUNNIES -  December 16, 2015 - 10:48 pm

    Doesn’t ‘&’ mean ‘and?’ I wonder how that was ever in the alphabet…

    Reply
    • R -  January 2, 2016 - 6:03 pm

      Didn’t you read the article?

      Reply
    • Emma -  January 11, 2016 - 1:43 pm

      I thought that too!

      Reply
      • daija oden -  February 3, 2016 - 2:39 pm

        NOBODY CARESSSSSSS EMMA

        Reply
        • No one youd know -  March 4, 2016 - 3:34 pm

          Don’t be so rude! Just go away.

          Reply
    • Don Knox the Informer -  January 21, 2016 - 12:03 pm

      Most letters evolved from a pictorial origin, the shape representing an object. Egyptian Hieroglyphics are the best known. Over time and usage changed these shapes as scribes tended to abbreviate the work involved for shorter, quicker versions.
      The sounds that became associated with the various letters is an interesting theoretical science category all of its own.
      A script that does not follow this process is ‘Ogham” which would seem to have evolved from hand signals, number of fingers associated with a vertical ‘arm’. What you might call another branch of the linguistic tree.

      Reply
    • jacquelyn Hyde -  February 3, 2016 - 5:44 pm

      Bunnies:

      “I wonder how that was ever in the alphabet…”

      Simple; it wasn’t.

      Read the article then the various comments.

      Jacquelyn.

      Reply
    • Soulvei -  February 5, 2016 - 5:37 pm

      Comments like this boggle me.

      Reply
    • John Kelly -  February 29, 2016 - 1:43 pm

      This forum looks interesting, and please accept my apologies for shouting my name earlier: Carelessness with the caps lock and unforgivable neglect on my part. Guilty as charged your Honour!
      Now then; re: BUNNIES – December 16, 2015 – 10:48 pm

      Doesn’t ‘&’ mean ‘and?’ I wonder how that was ever in the alphabet…

      ‘and?’ … Really? Are we quite certain of this? Does this not mean that ‘and’ is being asked as a question! I.e. “And-so”? or “And what if”? Etc.
      Perhaps this may work better!

      Doesn’t ‘&’ mean ‘and’? I wonder how that was ever in the alphabet? … My apologies also to BUNNIES … its getting close to Easter!

      Reply
  35. Anonyus -  December 11, 2015 - 6:51 pm

    Ph.D King
    If you are looking

    Reply
    • Kay -  December 16, 2015 - 4:34 pm

      Please define: “Anonyus” -

      Reply
    • Mike the Real -  December 17, 2015 - 8:17 pm

      Well I’m not.

      Reply
      • widgel -  January 26, 2016 - 10:12 pm

        Hahaha! Well, he’s not. There you have it, folks!

        Reply
    • Gaurav -  February 6, 2016 - 1:22 am

      “Ph.D King
      If you are looking”

      Donkey Kong when I am not?

      Reply
  36. Saint Jimmy -  December 8, 2015 - 10:29 am

    I’ve never, in my life, found someone with less of a life than Jacqelyn Hyde. How can I ensure they read this? Probably spell something wrong. I remember when I was twelve and went around correcting spelling and grammar. Now to summon them so they can read my internet angst.

    Your laughable, Jay-kwell-in.
    You’re no-lifing is tempered only by your superiority complex.
    Their is no way you are in a romantic relationship.
    If you are, there head must be on backwards.

    Brace yourself, guys. Jacqelyn Hyde should be here any minute.

    Reply
    • Beverly -  December 13, 2015 - 9:07 am

      Oops! Saint Jimmy
      It’s ‘You’re laughable’ not ‘your’.

      Reply
      • Deb -  December 16, 2015 - 8:38 pm

        This was obviously his point.

        Reply
      • Saint Jimmy -  December 22, 2015 - 12:54 pm

        The real sad thing is that you only found one of the several intentional errors I made. I got a chuckle out of it, though. So, you know, thank you!

        Reply
        • Vincent St Hubbins -  January 22, 2016 - 4:41 am

          Saint Jimmy – December 22, 2015

          ‘The real sad thing is that you only found one of the several intentional errors I made…’

          No Jimmy. The real sad thing is you.
          Thing is, we found all your errors, not just the intended ones.
          You sad man.

          Vincent.

          Reply
    • Jake Simons -  December 14, 2015 - 5:01 pm

      You’re a faggot Jimmy. If all you do is comment on how people have no lives, you’re the real one who doesn’t.

      Reply
      • JEEEZ!! -  December 15, 2015 - 11:08 am

        Rude Much?

        Reply
        • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 2, 2016 - 3:26 pm

          Elaine, 2.12.15.

          Sorry, I owe you an erratum.
          Here’s you:
          “Sorry for that last sentence.…But it proves what I meant, none of us have or use perfect grammar.”…
          It certainly does; here’s me:
          DELETE
          ““…none of us have or use perfect grammar.” Okay, catch this, kid: ‘None of us HAS or USES perfect grammar.’ (Sorry for the shouting caps; this site doesn’t do italics.)”
          INSERT
          None of us has NOR uses perfect grammar. (Only without the ‘shouting’.)

          It’s a small change, I know, but perhaps you’ll recall that old school rule, “Either, or – neither, nor.” This rule (A sentence that starts with a negative should follow with a negative.) is fairly well followed by most writers as far as “Either, or – neither, nor,” goes, but it tends to stop short of just about everything else.
          I realise there are cases where a double-negative reverses the meaning; i.e, ‘I haven’t got no money.’ but here of course, the two rules are mutually exclusive and so neither is applied.
          Jackie.

          Reply
          • #penguins_are_awesome!!! -  January 8, 2016 - 5:23 pm

            Um dude. You do know that this IS a comment section on how ‘&’ was the 27th letter right??!!! This really isn’t the place for you to say sorry or whatever to your friend or something ok?!?!?!

          • Don Knox the Informer -  January 21, 2016 - 11:35 am

            None of us have use for perfect grammar ‘cos not one of us has.

        • HopeJD -  February 7, 2016 - 8:26 am

          ok, let’s just take it outside. we are here to educate, be educated and just have fun with words. As a writer, I find it quite interesting.

          Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 17, 2015 - 3:11 pm

        Beverly 13.12.15 and Jake 14.12.15:

        How nice to read those first two responses which, whilst not actually supportive of me are at least against Saint Jim-jams. Thank you both.

        I’m always a tad disappointed when those such as Jim-jams take my work as an expression of superiority, (as if I needed it) and in the process quite missing its serious purpose, which is to help others and to engage in serious discussion. Still, I suppose it takes all sorts, and besides, superiority is such a relative term. Were is not for the likes of Mr Pyjamas here, there would be nobody to whom to be superior – and thus, no superiority.

        Let me remind you of your contributions if I may (in case this doesn’t go where I’ve placed it):

        Beverly- December 13, 2015 – 9:07 am
        Oops! Saint Jimmy
        It’s ‘You’re laughable’ not ‘your’.
        Quite right too, Beverly. But there’s a load more yet. See you again farther down the piece.

        Jake Simons- December 14, 2015 – 5:01 pm
        You’re a faggot Jimmy. If all you do is comment on how people have no lives, you’re the real one who doesn’t

        Hmm, I’m not too sure that commenting on other people’s lives necessarily makes poor Jimmy a homosexual, but you may be right. Perhaps you’re invoking some other meanings of ‘faggot’? What I wonder is how the fellow can so readily judge another’s life or the lack thereof. I think he probably judges others by himself; it’s a common enough trait among the untutored and ill-informed. Why not sit back with Beverly and imagine this silly person cringing. Perhaps he can learn a little something after all?
        Both of you, why not just sit back and relax, watching as I strip this boy’s simple and foolish challenge to pieces?
        Right, here we go:

        Saint Jimmy- December 8, 2015 – 10:29 am
        This essay gets off on the wrong foot; there’s a logical error in the opening sentence – if indeed it is a sentence(?).

        ERROR 1 “I’ve never, in my life, found someone with less of a life than Jacqelyn Hyde.”

        Quite apart from the unstylish and boring repetition of ”life”, Jacqelyn Hyde is a person, not a life.
        Your opening gambit would be less laughable, Mr PeeJays, had you not omitted the simple word ‘has’.
        Thus: ‘…with less of a life than Jacqelyn Hyde has.’ Or, with a rather pale shade of erudition, ‘…with less of a life than has Jacqelyn Hyde.’ Either of these would have got a point, in fact the second would have 1.5 points for its possessing superior (there’s that word, James, ‘superior’) poetics. However, (comma) no points for that one.

        ERROR 2 “How can I ensure they read this?”

        Well, it’s written in English; were it written in American the writer would wonder how he could ‘insure’ etc.
        But, who’s this? Young Pyjamas began with (the lovely Miss) Jacqelyn Hyde, then in the very next sentence she suddenly metamorphoses into two people! No wait! Oh, I get it, as I’m sure some of you have already; it’s this old Jeckyl and Hyde thing. Well well, some of us are so easily confused.(Shakes head and grins; clearly this has happened before.)

        ERROR 3 “Probably spell something wrong.”
        Oh no, you can do much better than that. Watch and learn.

        Absolutely no marks for this, not even one; it’s not even a sentence. Next time, Jacket and Trousers, use a semi-colon; they look like this (;) Research this item for homework. Have it to me by Monday.

        “I remember when I was twelve…” When was that, Sunshine, last month? “…and went around correcting spelling and grammar.”
        Now there’s a bold claim, young shaver, except that the computer looks after you’re(‽) spelling, though I don’t doubt that the grammar and punctuation are (or should it be, ‘is’? What do you think, Jimbo?) original – most original in fact. (Laughs up sleeve.)

        ERROR 4 “Now to summon them so they can read my internet angst.”

        Oh dear; we’ve fallen into that single/plural thing again, have we? Maybe work on the maths a bit, or at least simple arithmetic, before getting onto the hard stuff like English, hmm?

        ERROR 5 They’re really ramping up here aren’t they, Jimmy? “Your laughable, Jay-kwell-in.”

        May I refer you to Beverly, quoted above, and again here?
        “Oops! Saint Jimmy
        It’s ‘You’re laughable’ not ‘your’.”
        (Er – a comma after “laughable” isn’t essential, Beverly; it just carries that little extra bit of style. Sorry about that, but I hope it helps.)
        She’s right though, Jammy; you are laughable. I like that in a clown.

        ERROR 6 “You’re no-lifing is tempered only by your superiority complex.”

        “You’re”??? “You’re”??? Now Beverly and I have both had a go at you on this – and still you get it wrong! What’s the matter with you? Eh?

        ERROR 7 It ain’t a complex; oh no, this is the real thing, baby – as far as you’re concerned.

        ERRORS 8&9 “Their is no way you are in a romantic relationship.
        If you are, there head must be on backwards.”

        I’ll be generous here. As you can see, I think it always pays to be nicer than necessary. I reckon you’ve switched those two just to tease – because surely no-one, not even you, can be that stupid?

        ERROR 10 “Brace yourself, guys. Jacqelyn Hyde should be here any minute.”

        Brace yourselVES, guys.” It’s that old number thing again.You just can’t get it right, can you?

        Well, that “any minute” was more than a week. Sorry about that – been busy with other things. But I think that takes it up to eleven! And why not?

        So, young Trousers, you thought you’d muscle in on the big girls, did you? Not so easy, is it? Still, you’ve got perhaps your highest score ever. What’s that? In your life‽ (By the way, wait till you do score with a girl – I reckon you’ll love it.) Meanwhile you’ve written ten sentences – and all of them wrong! You’ve scored eleven out of ten. Well done. You clown.

        Jacquelyn Hyde.

        Reply
        • Saint Jimmy -  December 22, 2015 - 12:51 pm

          Please shorten and resubmit, Jacky. Then I’ll read it.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 1, 2016 - 6:36 pm

            Saint Jimmy- December 22, 2015 – 12:51 pm

            “Please shorten and resubmit, Jacky. Then I’ll read it.”

            No, certainly not. See below.

            Saint Jimmy- December 22, 2015 – 12:54 pm

            “The real sad thing is that you only found one of the several intentional errors I made. I got a chuckle out of it, though. So, you know, thank you!”

            Ah, so you HAVE read it then. See? Just another bridge too far.

            Er – “…several intentional errors…” Yes, we know; we knew all along; all we needed was the proof. Thank you for that.
            (The transposed ‘their’ and ‘there’ were the clinching giveaway.) Foolish boy – you overstretched yourself there, didn’t you? Eh?

            Btw, here’s you; “…you only found one of the several…” Still having problems with the numbers, then?

            Jackie

          • Don Knox the Informer -  January 21, 2016 - 11:39 am

            What is the short version of ‘pedantic’? Maybe a little less of a lot more? Hate to go on about it though.

        • Mike Seckerson -  December 24, 2015 - 7:29 am

          Jackie, girl. (I trust I may call you that?)

          I’m sorry to say that for all your cleverness, ‘our’ esteemed grammar queen, you’ve missed a foolish and glaring item of logic in Saint Pyjamas the Gormless’s juvenile essay – what,that or which, I think you’d be pleased to call egregious.

          After his, ’Their (lol) is no way you are in a romantic relationship.’ Of course, he gives no reason for his singular deduction. I can’t see that he has one (pardon me but I find you very attractive, at least I like to read your writing style – blonde too, eh?); I expect he’s just jealous.
          Then he emphatically renounces his firm stance on your love life ‘no way’ with his back-pedalling ‘If you are, there (lol again) head must be on backwards. The fool has contradicted himself and taken all the wind from his sails. What an idiot.

          He’s also, which you might have missed, switched from singular to plural yet again; I reckon it’d be better as “their HEADS must be on backwards.”
          I wonder what his problem is?

          Btw, thank you for doing me the honour of quoting me in yours to Bill Gates. Very gratifying.

          Keep going, girl and stay critical ‒ it does ’em good.

          Love,

          Mike.

          P.S. I liked the awful Santa joke, but whilst I’m on, how’s this for a mod?
          Question: What’s this? Oh, Oh, Oh.
          Answer: It’s Santa talking backwards for Christmas.
          AND A MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OUR READERS‼

          M.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 25, 2016 - 3:11 pm

            Don Knox the Informer 21.1.16 (2)

            “What is the short version of ‘pedantic’? Maybe a little less of a lot more?…”
            No, Don; that was – dead right, spot on, quite nice. [‘Nice’ – look it up. OED:18th Cent. ‘Quite’ - ditto.]

            Another offering from the above commentor: (See, Nancy?)

            “None of us have use for perfect grammar ‘cos not one of us has.”
            Nice, neat & clever try, Don, but this time no cigar: ‘None of us has…’

            [None – a compression of ‘no-one’. Thus ‘No one of us hazzz’. [No one of us > no-one of us > none of us.] Thus, ‘None of us has a use for perfect grammar ‘cause none of us has.’
            There’s little value in a circular argument, I think.

            Jacquelyn Hyde.

          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 2, 2016 - 6:49 am

            Hi, Mike.
            Yours of 24.12.15. (Last Boxing Day)
            And yes, you may call me Jackie girl, you flatterer.
            I’ve just looked through yours again, belatedly picking up what I think is a subtle piece of humour – if it’s deliberate. Was it? Writing about Saint Jimmy’s (aka Saint Pyjamas the Gormless) singularly rude item, you ‘quote’ him as saying, ‘Their (lol) is no way you are in a romantic relationship.’ Then you go on to write, “Of course, he gives no reason for his singular deduction.”

            I’ve only just twigged your careful selection of ‘singular’, meaning unusual, individual, sole, exceptional &c, and also a ‘thing in isolation’ i.e, unmarried or “in a romantic relationship.” to quote the saintly little one. Perhaps yet another error there. But very good, Mike, well done. With your sense of humour, maybe you should write something, I mean, as a writer?

            Regards,

            Jackie.

        • Jimmy -  December 28, 2015 - 10:45 pm

          Actually Jackie, if you search for ‘practice’ on this site it will tell you it’s both a noun and a verb. I actually have some guitar instructional books written by an Englishman and he always spells it with a ‘c’.

          What I’d like to know is, why do English people spell words like ‘data’ and ‘China’ but pronounce them ‘dater’ and ‘Chiner’? And at the same time they say “ca” when it’s spelled ‘car’. (Lots of misplaced R’s :)

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 4, 2016 - 4:01 pm

            Jimmy 28.12.15

            “…if you search for ‘practice’ on this site it will tell you it’s both a noun and a verb.”

            We’ve been here before, and so has ‘our’ Bill Gates, but let me remind you, this site is written in American, which is not a language but a Creole, an English dialect, a deliberately simplified version of an ‘original’ (I’m sure I can hear the multiple clicking of safeties (safetys?) coming off as the Coo Clucks Clan on both sides prepare their final say) and proper language. As such it uses a simple version of the original, where ‘practice’ is both noun and verb.
            However, in the original, the verb is spelled ‘practise’ and if I write that there is no such verb as ‘practice’ and no gerund neither, then I am writing in English, strictly English. It’s not that I never write in dialect nor Creole, nor any of many variants, but I choose when I do, as in, for example, “ain’t”. Okay?

            “…some guitar instructional books written by an Englishman and he always spells it with a ‘c’.”

            Yes, that is as may be, but he’s wrong; sadly, there are so many sloppy English, both speakers and writers; and note, just because he’s English and plays the guitar, doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s right – an authority on his own language; he’s probably made other errors too, like ‘a dice’ when the singular of ‘dice’ is ‘a die’. Many English fall for that one, especially maths writers when dealing with elementary stats and probability. The list is a bit long…

            Now we’re at the point which interests me most: accents and pronunciation: “…why do English people spell words like ‘data’ and ‘China’ but pronounce them ‘dater’ and ‘Chiner’?

            The simple answer, Jimmy, is, they don’t. But the fact is that, unlike most Americans, data’s first ‘a’ rhymes with ‘today’ (and I reckon the yanks have it closer to being correct, i.e. like its Latin root) the second ‘a’ sounds less like an ‘a’ than a short ‘u’.
            So, two versions then: short and flat, to rhyme with ‘cat’, and the longer, taller, rhyming with stray. (Stray cat, get it?) The second syllables are generally sounded by both countries’ speakers as ‘uh’, as in ‘datuh’. So, nobody says ‘data’ nor ‘China’ in English; we say ‘datuh’ and ‘Chinuh’.
            Note, in major America, your example ‘dater’ sounds more like ‘dadrr’. You’ll need care with your ‘r’ sounds, Jimmy, since they’re one main difference between English and American pronunciations.
            A dramatic example of that occurred when I was in America for Christmas. We had curry. I used the word in English and one chick said, “Whaddid yew say – crry, was that?” I repeated it. She copied, with something like, “Cuwwy?” It really sounded kinda cute and we played with it awhile, but she never spoke Spanish to me. (You need to know the song to get the joke – hands up all who do! (Freddy Fender)) Neither could she say ‘curry’. (I do 30+ hugely different accents; Americans hardly ever do anything but their own.) Now here’s the point: the American ‘r’ is so highly rolled that it almost obliterates any adjacent vowel. This never (I think) happens in England.(Unless you know better.)
            ‘Dahtuh’ whose first syllable rhymes with the English ‘car’, bears no serious examination because it is no more than poncery. (Poncery: Making a word sound more important, or ‘upper-class’ than it is.

            Finally, at last:
            “…at the same time they say “ca” when it’s spelled ‘car’”

            Now, N.B. (Note Well) ’car’ spelled thus should not be used to describe the word ‘car’, because this implies a rolled R at the word’s end. (carr.) The closer spelling is ‘cah’, since within the Home Counties (those immediately surrounding London), the ‘r’ at a word’s end is almost never pronounced, unlike the rest of England, and Ireland, and Scotland, where it is, though not in Wales.

            It’s just a tad over 140 words but I hope it helps.

            Jackie.

          • just some random kid -  January 5, 2016 - 10:59 am

            um Jimmy sorry to be critical but the answer to your question is that the British can say it how they like as long as its the way the word was said when it was invented and the correct pronunciation eg: the British say China as Chiner just because that is how the word is pronounced as in English we have silent letters and additional letters Yet the British can and have the right to pronounce it this way as the language is theirs as most country’s have languages named after them or a tribe or a certain history piece eg: French-France Spanish-Spain German-Germany Most country’s in Europe and Asia have languages named after there country Same with a few African Countrys and Oceanian Countrys but most Colonys use Languages that belong to the original country eg: America Uses a language that isnt its own it uses english as its main language so therefore english belongs to the english as there is an american english but that only contains a few words that are different eg armour and armor or colour and color therefore the english have the upmost right to say it like that as it is there language like for example my name is Damian most people say Day-me-an but its actually pronounced Da-me-an as it is my name and thats the way it was pronounced when given to me thats how it is no mater what anyone says my name is Damian pronounced Da-me-an or like how you get names that are english but pronounced completely different to how there spelled eg: sioban wich is pronounced Shuh-vaw-n and that name actually is english plus compare how you say these words thought though threw through they sound similar and different and they are all english words british words in the british language

          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 23, 2016 - 7:08 am

            Don Knox the Informer – 21.1.16

            You asked, “What is the short version of ‘pedantic’?”
            It’s ‘didactic’.

            Jackie

        • Norrie -  December 30, 2015 - 8:25 am

          Jacquelyn

          You are just the type of person I’ve been looking for!
          Once, in a pub argument, I claimed that The United States of America does not have a proper name. My argument being that the word ‘United’ is an adjective and the words ‘States’ and ‘America’ are both nouns.
          My argument is that, as The United Kingdom of Great Britain etc. is not a country, but is comprised of its parts, countries England, Scotland and Wales (Northern Ireland) then The United States of The American Continent cannot claim to be a country. Am I correct?
          Sorry about my grammar (and my grandad).

          Norrie

          E&OE

          Reply
          • Norrie -  December 30, 2015 - 8:30 am

            Sorry, I repeated myself
            with the words ‘My argument is’.

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 4, 2016 - 5:21 pm

            Norrie 30.12.15

            Jacquelyn

            “You are just the type of person I’ve been looking for!”

            Okay.

            “Once, in a pub argument,”…

            Oh, those crazy, wonderful, pub arguments! How well I recall. What a hoot they were! Still are, come to that.

            “…I claimed that The United States of America does not have a proper name. My argument being that the word ‘United’ is an adjective and the words ‘States’ and ‘America’ are both nouns.”

            Well so far, Norrie, you’ve proved that a hot tea-pot doesn’t exist; neither does a cold one. Your argument being that the words ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ are adjectives and the words ‘tea’ and ‘pot’ are nouns. I think there may be something not quite right in there.

            “My argument is that, as The United Kingdom of Great Britain etc. is not a country, but is comprised of its parts, countries England, Scotland and Wales (Northern Ireland) then The United States of The American Continent cannot claim to be a country. Am I correct?”

            I think not. There are two main grounds for this: The United Kingdom is (ostensibly) ruled by a king. North America, by a president; so the UK has a valid claim to being a country, ruled by a king. When its inhabitants go to war they do so, or so they are told, ‘for king and country’.
            Next, you must compare like with like: if it were true that The United Kingdom is not a country, but comprises its parts, then why should this also apply to North America? Surely North America also comprises its parts, though not all of these are countries.
            Let me put it slightly differently: you said, “The United States of The American Continent cannot claim to be a country.” Yet you appear to admit to its being a continent. I presume you’re sticking with that? Only if you are, then if The United States of America is a Continent, then so is Great Britain.

            Sorry about that, Norrie; your grandparents too. (Though as ever, I appreciated the joke.)

            Here’s another argument for you: You may be familiar with the swivel-eyed comedian, Marty Feldman. There is a few net interviews available. There may be one where he’s just returned from The States, to which he refers as the Untied States, (note the spelling) his reason being that they are anything but united, and this seems to be true in many important ways, many of them legal. Researching this for an imminently forthcoming book, I found that what is a crime (such as incest) in this state, is not so in the next; you cannot marry your adopted ‘sibling’ here, whereas you can just across the state line; siblings can marry if they weren’t raised together, with all the attendant dangers therein. United? Hardly.

            Regards,

            Jackie.

            E&OA (accepted).

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 5, 2016 - 10:55 am

            Norrie 30.12.15 – 8:30 am

            “Sorry, I repeated myself
            with the words ‘My argument is’.”

            That’s okay; no apology necessary.
            Well, I did think it a bit boring, but here’s a tip:
            1 Write yer stuff in the sand box of a new page in Word.
            2 Save and close it.
            3 Reopen it – after a break.
            4 Copy it. [This is best done in 'View' and 'View Side by Side'.]
            5 Compare the two.
            6 Make changes.
            7 Repeat 3 – 7 inc. until you’re happy with it.
            8 Block, copy and paste to the blogsite.
            9 Send it, then re-read it to find what’s still not good about it.
            10 Now comes the most important bit: Relax, stop criticising it, then enjoy it.
            11 It still may not be any good but if you’ll apply the “Relax, stop criticising it, then enjoy it.” rule you can be happy.

            12 Er – don’t be tempted to apply 11 on its own; the “Relax, stop criticising it, then enjoy it” rule is useless without plenty of practise — that’s ‘practise’, punters. If you want to learn a language, not just a dialect, then watch this space…

            Jackie.

        • Just Rich -  January 2, 2016 - 8:22 am

          This may be tad inappropriate, but are you single Ms. Hyde? After reading your articulate, humorous and elegant prose, I may be in love with you. In short, your style and wit are appreciated. You are very classy and intellectually stimulating. Thank you.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 4, 2016 - 10:47 pm

            Just Rich – 2.1.16

            Hello, Rich.

            Well, I don’t know quite what to say. Whilst I appreciate your approach and style, I have to tell you of certain contractual restrictions and obligations; there’s a limit to what I can divulge, including my martial status – sorry, marital status. However, I’ve checked with my publisher, Caveat Lector, and established that I can put out the item called About The Author, which is part of the regular publicity anyway. It’s a draught of a proposed interview for The Times. I hope it helps.

            “Jacquelyn Hyde is an ancient name and a nom-de-plume to boot. Erstwhile engineer and lecturer in various subjects, Jackie is pretty much a permanent student. An honours graduate of the Open University, she majored in English Literature, with Popular Culture on the side.
            ‘That wasn’t half a good course,’ she insists, litotically. ‘Everyone said so.’

            Her slightly enigmatic, slightly post-modernist style is best slightly described. It consists in words roughly cobbled together on a page, added, subtracted, then tweaked and tweaked until she gives up.
            Writers call it honing.

            She aims for a smooth, poetical style; stylish, without being stylised. Or is it the other way about? I asked her. She doesn’t know. (And I don’t think she cares.)

            Passionate about language and a humorist at heart, her pet hates are litotes, (see the second paragraph), split infinitives, (see the beginnings of old Startrek re-runs, boldly gone), bad scansion and mindless corporate slogans, especially those that expect you to answer them: “Why Not?”

            Of grammar she says, ‘When I was a kid at school they said, “Remember the Golden Rule,” whatever that was. And they also said, “Never start a sentence (which must contain at least a noun and a verb. Hey, that might have been the Golden Rule!) with ‘And’ or ‘But’”. But I outgrew them. And it works. Go for the poetic effect,’ she says. ‘Every time.’ (See Literary Notes.)

            My next question returned a puzzled frown. ‘Vocabulary?’ she teased.
            I explained anyway.

            ‘Oh,’ she said. ‘Well, what’s the point of using a simple word when a complex one does just as well, and usually much better? “Simplicity only makes things easier for simple people to think they understand.” It’s one of Faughty’s,’ she explains, though I sense she’s laughing at herself.

            Like her work, her humour is well honed. Perilously close to the surface, it conceals a grim intent. ‘There is,’ she says solemnly, ‘no joke without fire. It’s another Faughtian adage,’ she recalls with a discerning wink.
            I asked about her influences. ‘Well, the usual suspects of course: Atwood; Dickens; Heller and Hemingway, (not the solicitors); Spilligan, and Willy the Shake. And of course, Austen and Wolfe (not the shipbuilders). And, what’s the name of that other woman, the one who wrote Fifty Shades of Grey? Oh, and not forgetting Old Possum’s Book of Practical Clichés. But mostly I think, the Irish philosopher, the late W.D.Faughty(!).’

            There’ve been so many stories about the late W.D.Faughty(!), the colourful, second-hand car-dealer who’d changed gear in mid-career, going on to manage a ménage (a garage, actually,) of dim rock and roll stars of the mid to late sixties. He made a fortune at it then gave it all away; mostly – as a result of several court cases – back to its rightful owners, the dim rock and roll stars of the mid to late sixties, whom he used to manage (well, that’s the rumour anyway), to become an impoverished hermit, which is to say, a poor philosopher, in the ivory tower of a small, discreet, and unmentionable university. It was there I met Jacquelyn, while studying for our Masters’ under (the weight of) the great W.D.Faughty(!).

            Faughty has written many learned papers, the most controversial of which is surely his (failed) Ph.D. thesis. It is titled suggestively, On the Perfidy of Inanimate Objects and is a splendid, magnificent, if somewhat welterweight item. Written during a brief bout of slimming, and thus in his non-lunch breaks, it is a real triumph of style over sustenance, which is still giddily discussed in concentric circles, and elliptical guesses thereat, these many years later.

            I frowned for she had called him “the late W.D.Faughty(!)” complete with the (optional) exclamation mark, which turns out to be due to a christening altercation between his atheist parents and a slightly deaf and very vindictive vicar of Christ.

            I was surprised; I knew all about Faughty’s living will, I even went to his living funeral, but I didn’t know he’d actually died.

            ‘Not quite,’ she smiles, a tiny glint in her eye. ‘At least, he wasn’t first thing this morning – well, second thing actually. His seminars should start at nine – but he never comes before ten past.’

            That, at least, is true.

            Mickey T’Hereal.

          • #penguins_are_awesome!!! -  January 8, 2016 - 5:24 pm

            You sure your rich??

        • Madison Gomez -  January 3, 2016 - 10:20 am

          I’m going to have to say before I saw this I thought “She is going to correct at least 10, although none of these would be something the average person would find, so you would probably use a website like grammarly.com or something similar” yet now that I am thinking about it, the amount of mistakes you made in this is probably about 15x that of Saint Jimmy’s. I am not picking sides or arguing like a 2-year-old girl, but I do support Saint Jimmy’s point.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 4, 2016 - 9:38 pm

            Madison Gomez 3.1.16

            Hello, Madison.

            Welcome to the arena. ““She is going to correct at least 10…”

            I presume that you refer to me, as ‘she’, in which case let me deal with you peremptorily. You scored 4/10. It was rubbish; too much for me to bother with, to discuss in detail.

            Moving on then, “I am thinking about it, the amount of mistakes you made in this is probably about 15x that of Saint Jimmy’s.”

            You don’t really believe he’s a saint, do you? But yes, I think you do. Okay, sonny; you can talk the talk, (at least, you can babble the babble,) but can you walk the walk? Let’s see your ‘probable’ 150 mistakes! Hmm? Nah, I bet you can’t even find five! Go on, I dare you to try. Go on, do it.

            No? Okay, now here’s the classic, the one that lost you most marks, four to be exact: “I am not picking sides (n)or arguing like a 2-year-old girl…”
            A two year old‽ And a girl‽ Oh dear, “The lady protests too much, methinks.”
            ‘How strange it is that we betray all in our denial of that of which we were not accused.’ Arguing like a 2-year-old girl is exactly what you do, though I suspect an unfortuitous miscalculation; I think you meant twelve. Listen, can you come back in ten years? Will they let you? Hmm?

            I doubt that you understand much of that, but there are those who will; this is for them.

            Again: “I am not picking sides or arguing like a 2-year-old girl, but I do support Saint Jimmy’s point.”

            Okay, Madison, here’s your last chance: what is Saint Jimmy’s point?

            Just one more thing: you’re not in the same school class as Saint Jimmy, are you?

            Dr J M Hyde.

        • Jeanne -  January 3, 2016 - 1:07 pm

          I think I love you, Jacquelyn Hyde.

          Reply
          • Jeanne -  January 3, 2016 - 1:12 pm

            Or….Jacquelyn Hyde, I think I love you. Of course, which ever suits you.

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 6, 2016 - 7:32 pm

            Jeanne – January 3, 2016 – 1:07 pm & 1:12 pm

            I think I love you, Jacquelyn Hyde. Or….Jacquelyn Hyde, I think I love you. Of course, which ever suits you.

            Well Jeanne, this is very interesting and I wonder why you feel this way when you know so little about me: my favourite colour, music, boyband, perfume and so on. Do you think you could write and say more?

            I can tell you this: there was a TV writer whose work I loved; I thought, ‘I wish I could write like that, and I’d so much like to meet her. I haven’t but I heard her on the radio, Desert Island Discs, where guests talk about themselves and choose eight records they’d take to an island if they were stranded there.

            As a comedy writer she was, of course, asked about her influences, and did she like Shakespeare?
            “Mmm – he’s okay.”
            I thought, ‘That’s just what I’d say.’

            Well her first record choice just knocked me out; it was my all-time favourite Pink Floyd track. Her next had the same effect. I was more and more amazed as her musical tastes and mine were so coincidental. Five out of the eight were faves and I bought the other three right away. Isn’t that amazing? Does this ring a bell with you?

            Take care,

            Jackie.

        • Dano -  January 12, 2016 - 8:08 am

          Ms. Hyde wrote, “I’m always a tad disappointed when those such as Jim-jams take my work as an expression of superiority … and in the process quite missing its serious purpose…”

          From the perspective of parallel structure I understand it would be more correct to use “take my work” and “miss its purpose”, or restructure the first part to use “taking”.

          However, given Hyde’s acuity with grammar, I am wondering if it’s more a question of style than correctness.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 12, 2016 - 5:33 pm

            Dano. Nice one!

            First, let me take your point – absolutely.

            Thank you for that, and thank you too for the possible get-out, namely, ‘style’; a very plausible suggestion, incidentally.

            I don’t know whether you’ve seen my reply to Just Rich’s post of 2.1.16, which includes a piece titled ‘About the Author’ where a journalist explains, “She aims for a smooth, poetical style; stylish, without being stylised…” (What a ponce the fellow is, to be sure!)

            He then mentions the Golden Rule &c. “Never start a sentence with ‘And’ or ‘But’”. Her next two sentences commence with ‘And’ and ‘But’. [But I outgrew them. And it works.] “Go for the poetic effect,” she says. “Every time.” That’s three sentences which aren’t: “But I, And I,” and “Every time.”

            So here we have it – Poetics. Of the divers theories about writing style, two favourites are: ease of reading, and the text’s appearance on the page. Leaving aside the latter, it seems that reading ease comes from rhythm and rhyme, alliteration, assonance et al. So the good doctor Hyde spends much of her time honing these, as well as eliding foolish blunders of course…

            Now compare:
            “I’m always a tad disappointed when those such as Jim-jams take my work as an expression of superiority…and in the process quite miss its serious purpose…” with
            “I’m always a tad disappointed when those such as Jim-jams take my work as an expression of superiority…and in the process quite missing its serious purpose…”
            Yours is better by parallelity of structure of course, though I think mine to be just a tad more poetical.

            Incidentally, I’ve just seen a good example of poetics in motion, thus: “From the perspective of parallel structure…” Recognise it?

            Well I’ve enjoyed our little chat; perhaps we should do it more often.Yes?

            While I’m on, it was Claudio who wrote to tell of his writing method: “In emails I make short sentences and use an abundance of commas: ( see the semicolon) then I use Google translate. I also translate my text back to check it. It works well. It is a catastrophe without the commas.”

            [Catastrophe or catastrophic comes from the Greek: ‘down’ and ‘turning’.]

            ‘It is a catastrophe without the commas’ caused me to think that perhaps a catastrophe is a part of speech, so a catastrophic sentence is one without any commas!

            Claudio, please don’t think that I’m laughing at you, or at your expense; your writing’s terrific for a non-native speaker. In fact, if you can see this (fairly subtle) joke, I reckon you’ve got it pretty-well cracked.

            My regards to you both.

            Jacquelyn.

        • No one youd know -  January 12, 2016 - 1:35 pm

          Penguines etc.

          Mind your own business, you ignorant troll.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 29, 2016 - 6:51 pm

            Dano
            Yours of 12.1.16 has caused me to think about parallel structure, which phrase I confess was new to me. I realised that it is a device I’ve avoided either liminally or subliminally these many years.

            Repetition can get boring, of course, as well as making for an easy, even persuasive read. The trick, as in life, is to tread the best path twixt novelty and boredom. It is here that each sentence must be assessed on its own merits.

            Here’s something denser than the example used in our previous correspondence. First, perfectly parallel:
            The priest speaks; he draws back the curtain and Kelly hears a reassuring sound; it is the magic of a partly understood language as he makes the Latin blessing: “In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sanctus.”

            Four present continuous verbs in one sentence. I think it’s getting too much; it’s overloaded, especially where the three feature closely together. I modify it slightly, putting a gerund between two of the three.

            The priest speaks, drawing back the curtain and Kelly hears a reassuring sound; it is the magic of a partly understood language as he makes the Latin blessing: “In nomine patris et filii et cetera.”*

            Now, I think that’s easier on the mind. Pity the poor reader, who has to wade through hundreds of pages of this stuff to find out whodunnit.

            *The change is to show that I really do care about the ampersand – just not enough to use it in conversation.

            Jacquelyn.

        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 15, 2016 - 6:19 pm

          #penguins_are_awesome!!! – 8.1.16
          “Um dude. You do know that this IS a comment section on how ‘&’ was the 27th letter right??!!! This really isn’t the place for you to say sorry or whatever to your friend or something ok?!?!?!”

          “Dude”‽ “Dude”‽ Where do you get off, you creep‽ Dude is for blokes, not doctor ladies. Ms, Jackie and Jacqueline are all female; did you miss that simple point, er – Dude?
          I expect so, since anyone who thinks this site IS STILL a comment section on how ‘&’ was the 27th letter, or whatever, as it was back in 2011, is many miles behind most of the rest of us. You need to revise ‘the story so far’.
          Like most critics here, you start badly and then get worse; in this case culminating in your very ill-advised, “This really isn’t the place for you to say sorry or whatever to your friend or something ok?!?!?!.” (What’s up, can’t you do this ‘‽’). Wrong! It IS EXACTLY the place to apologise (apologise: that’s posh-speak for saying “sorry or whatever…”) In civilised, polite society, people make mistakes, just as they do in your red-neck area (only perhaps less often). When they do, they apologise (apologise: that’s posh-speak etc.).
          I’m intrigued by your odd notion of apologising “…or whatever(,) to your friend or something…” Or something ― what’s that, a chair, a pencil “or something”? Hmm; seems a touch unnecessary to me. What are you, nuts ‒ as well as a very rude little bantling‽ (Look it up.)
          Let me iterate the classic words of “No one youd know”, complete with his or her spelling and punctuation errors: “Penguines etc.
          Mind your own business, you ignorant troll.”
          Oh, btw: Your punctuation is crap.
          See to it.

          J.M.Hyde

          Reply
          • Ryan -  February 17, 2016 - 12:05 am

            you people are so funny.

        • jeff smart -  January 29, 2016 - 3:54 pm

          Get a life,Bro.

          Reply
          • jacquelyn Hyde -  February 2, 2016 - 7:56 pm

            Yeah, that’s right; I agree: get yerself a life.
            Jacquelyn.

        • jomi -  March 3, 2016 - 8:29 am

          Not to undermine your well-deserved and thorough lecture, I still find the need to comment on two of your statements- the first in humor and the second as a clarification.

          Rather than referring to the other man’s sexual orientation, perhaps he was calling the man a bundle of sticks. Lol.

          As I’m sure you noticed by my spelling of humor, I speak and write American. Although insure and ensure can be used interchangeably in the American language according to my dictionary, I use ‘ensure’ to mean ‘to make certain,’ just as you do. To me, ‘insure’ means ‘to underwrite,’ as insurance companies do. Just saying.

          Reply
          • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 14, 2016 - 1:05 pm

            Thank you, jomi. (3.3.16)

            “… I still find the need to comment on two of your statements- the first in humor and the second as a clarification.
            “Rather than referring to the other man’s sexual orientation, perhaps he was calling the man a bundle of sticks. Lol.
            Yes, quite possibly.
            “As I’m sure you noticed by my spelling of humor, I speak and write American… …I use ‘ensure’ to mean ‘to make certain,’ just as you do. To me, ‘insure’ means ‘to underwrite,’ as insurance companies do. Just saying.”
            Yes. Agreed, and thanks for that.
            So we were driving back out of Mexico when we were pulled up by the fuzz. This particular example was delighted by my accent (I always posh it up a bit over there; it’s so rewarding.) “Hey, y’r English, right‽”
            “Oh, yes, actually; we’re quite close to the castle, y’know.”
            Eventually we got to the bit where I predicted that American would shortly become its ‘own’ language, as this bloke claimed it was already. You may care to feel ashamed at speaking a second-hand language, (as if English were not!!) but in a world that’s losing its languages at a conservative estimate of one a month(!) you may also feel proud to speak the world’s fastest growing language (words, not population).

            Jackie. xx

      • Saint Jimmy -  December 22, 2015 - 12:57 pm

        Jakey, I don’t know what you’re trying to say, my man. Is calling me a homosexual supposed to offend me if I unapologetically like the same sex? Oh, you meant ‘faggot’ as in ‘annoying’. No, yeah, no arguments there.

        Reply
        • jacquelyn Hyde -  February 2, 2016 - 8:23 pm

          Saint Jimmy.
          No arguments??? And yet, “No, yeah,” Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? It’s the shortest argument I’ve ever read!

          While I’m on:
          Your rude little piece of 8.12.15 treated us to this gem: “I’ve never, in my life, found someone with less of a life than Jacqelyn Hyde. How can I ensure they read this? Probably spell something wrong.” Yes Jimmy and so you did. ‘Jacquelyn’ is spelled with a U. Or was that another of your ‘deliberate’ mistakes?
          J.

          Reply
    • Kay -  December 16, 2015 - 4:30 pm

      their head not there head, are you a stupid head?

      Reply
    • Kay -  December 16, 2015 - 4:50 pm

      Saint Jimmy, you require a proofreader/editor such as I am. Please check your misuse of the words “their” and “there”and “your” and you’re” . I won’t even mention your tortured sentence structure or your grammar and punctuation discrepancies. You’re more to be pitied than censured. I love language arts. Yours is killing me. KMN (Kill me now)

      Reply
      • Saint Jimmy -  December 22, 2015 - 12:52 pm

        ———The Point——–>
        Your head: O

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 15, 2016 - 6:47 pm

          Madison Gomez 4.1.16

          Recall my inviting you to redeem yourself somewhat by finding and announcing your favourite saint’s point?
          Well, you lucky person, it seems that Sonny Jim’s done the job for you. Fed up with making a fool of himself with his silly writing and dodgy arithmetic he’s tried his hand at another medium, and I think he’s finally found his forte ‒ cave painting! Look here:

          Saint Jimmy – December 22, 2015 – 12:52 pm
          ———The Point——–>
          Your head: O

          Doesn’t mean anything but it’s much better than his previous efforts.

          Jacquelyn Hyde.

          Reply
    • DenDen -  December 21, 2015 - 6:08 pm

      “Another Oops” …. Saint Jimmy
      It’s ‘their head’, not ‘there’.

      Reply
    • John Molloy -  December 29, 2015 - 8:32 pm

      Ahhh! so yu think yer pretty smart thar Saint Jimmy me lad. but whilst I wus
      readin yurs and Jacky’s fussin, I come to the conclusion that you and yer darlin Jacqelyn were one in the same!….busted! Hello Jekyll and Hyde!.

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 4, 2016 - 11:22 pm

        John Molloy 29.12.15.

        “Ahhh! so yu think yer pretty smart thar Saint Jimmy me lad. But…I come to the conclusion that you and…Jacqelyn were one in the same!….busted! Hello Jekyll and Hyde!.”

        Oh dear, not another genius who believes he’s cracked the convoluted Davincian Code of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Will I never be rid of these idiots?

        Saint Jimmy, would you like to reply first here?

        Yours temporarily,

        Dr Jackie.

        Reply
        • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 15, 2016 - 7:05 pm

          John Molloy – 29.12.15

          “…I come to the conclusion that you and yer darlin Jacqelyn were one in the same!…busted! Hello Jekyll and Hyde!”

          John, John; how could you possibly do me such a disservice? I think it likely that some punters write under different names, but isn’t it enough that I have to go round wiping that spalpeen’s bottom for him without your conflating me with him. You should be ashamed of yerself.

          Jackie.

          Reply
    • Andrew Heenan -  January 19, 2016 - 5:42 pm

      Well, Jimmy, you’re a spiteful little bully, aren’t you?
      Let’s all hope that Jacqelyn Hyde has big friends.
      Or finds other ways of sorting out your bullying.

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 21, 2016 - 3:56 pm

        Andrew:
        Thanks. Yes, Jimmy is all you say, and more, but I think I have the boy sorted; he won’t do it again – well, not if he has any sense. If… … …
        Jackie.

        Reply
  37. Suppo -  December 7, 2015 - 9:03 pm

    Now I am confused. What is the correct and proper name of the “at” character @ ?

    Reply
    • icequeenxoxo -  December 13, 2015 - 10:31 am

      lol idk but im confused too

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 19, 2015 - 12:49 pm

        Bill Gates 11.12.15
        Where are you, Bill? I can’t find you. Look, I’ll just drop this here, I’m sure you’ll pick it up.

        “Actually Jacqueline, it can be spelled practice or practise.”
        Bill (is that THE Bill Gates or another one?),
        Did I ever say it can’t? I think you’ll find not. I can’t be arsed to search now but… Iook, I shouldn’t do this but I think I can quote Mike Seckerson, who says somewhere: “You see, ‘practice’ is a noun, and if Mark wants to improve his ampersand-writing skills, then he will need to ‘practise’, which is a verb (that’s a ‘doing word’) instead of simply talking about practicing, since there is, in fact, no such thing.”
        So, practise is the verb, well it is in English; what you people do is your own affair. I know, it’s a fine line and it took me quite some time to suss it out. Oh, btw, Professor W.D.Faughty says that most Americans speak not English but American Creole. And he should know.

        “And also, if you’re so picky don’t say btw for by the way.” [“And also”? What can he mean? And why use that rather juvenile tautology? And why to me of all people?]
        Come off it, Bill; suppose I told you not to use USA, CIA, FBI, GMT andor many others. Eh? Listen, buddy; you don’t tell me what to do without I tell you too.You got that, you savvy? [Btw, I’m not calling you a savvy, you understand (that’s two vees, not a dubbya) – it’s American for ‘understand’.]

        One thing I do with language is attempt to master it (or at least mistress it), otherwise it’ll master me. That includes picking which words I choose to use, or not, and that includes several of the currently ubiquititous acronyms, okay? One I sometimes find useful is ‘btw’; another is ‘bioya’, which I think was coined by an American redneck friend. Bright, successful and rich, he remains a redneck for all that. So, bioya.

        “One more thing, my computer says “practise” isn’t a word but practice is so there.”
        Hmm. Let me quote Faughty again: “The fact is, Jackie, you write very good English, whereas this poor fool only reads in American.” You may recognise that from an earlier remonstrance.
        Your computer, Bill, is an idiot. Programmed by Americans, it misses out many perfectly useful words, others it mis-spells hopelessly. Btw, never trust an American programme (nor a dictionary, it seems) to guide you through the English language. They’re as clueless as they are arrogant.

        Addendum to that:
        “Actually Jacqueline, it can be spelled practice or practise.”
        Actually, Bill, it can be spelled Jacqueline or Jacquelyn.
        In fact, I’ve tried both, and Jacquelyne too, just for some extra quaintness, and all in all I think I prefer mine. What do you think?

        Jacquelyn.

        Jacquelyn.

        Reply
        • Thornicium -  December 22, 2015 - 12:06 am

          I don’t know who this Jacquelyn Hyde is, but I think I’m in love with her.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 6, 2016 - 8:30 pm

            Thornicium 22.12.15.
            I’m sorry not to have replied before; I guess I missed you in all the excitement! Would you very much mind sharing Jeanne’s for now; I’d have sent you much the same letter anyway.I’m sure you can understand that.

            Regards,

            Jackie

        • the kid who is not dumb -  April 4, 2016 - 8:19 am

          what was the point of that, practice is spelled P.R.A.C.T.I.C.E. not any other way.

          Reply
  38. madison -  December 7, 2015 - 1:07 pm

    thats soo cool i always though that that was just the and sine

    Reply
  39. RyuKing18 -  November 29, 2015 - 7:10 pm

    Nice blog, I didn’t know that “&” was apart of the alphabet.

    Reply
    • Jaguargirl8336 -  December 2, 2015 - 9:26 pm

      Yeah…

      Reply
    • madison -  December 7, 2015 - 1:09 pm

      ya same

      Reply
  40. Ffffffff -  November 29, 2015 - 5:46 pm

    That is really cool
    You learn something new everyday

    Reply
    • GrammarNazi -  December 13, 2015 - 4:04 pm

      *every day. Everyday is an adjective.

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  March 23, 2016 - 11:00 am

        GrammarNazi – 13.12.15

        You: “every day. Everyday is an adjective.”

        True enough, though I think it possible that in some people’s lives every day is an adjective.

        Jackie.

        Reply
  41. Andy -  November 11, 2015 - 5:46 am

    The New Testament (Greek original) has 27 books in honour of the 27 letters in the alphabet at that time. ‘Let he who hath the wisdom compute the number of the beast’ refers to those who could read and write and the numerical alphabet table. The one which was used to engineer our language. Pythagoras was the name of the brotherhood at the school of Athens in Alexandria, and not a single person. The name means ‘A number shall be laid out before you’ (Gora is a market area and ‘tha’ is something shall be) The Py comes from the Gods who gave us the relationship of 3.142 etc. Sadly this information does not appear in any history books for ecclesiastical reasons.

    Reply
    • karen -  November 11, 2015 - 9:08 am

      Wow, cool. Very deep, thanks.

      Reply
    • Theresa Hovick-Thomas -  November 11, 2015 - 11:03 pm

      I am a court reporting instructor and found that very interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge! I truly appreciate that and you can be assured that my students will know that come tomorrow!!! :)

      Reply
    • Jeannie -  November 12, 2015 - 10:33 am

      “Let him who hath the wisdom” is the correct wording of your quote. The sentence is [you understood] let him [objective case] who has the wisdom….etc.

      Incorrect to say You let he…..

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 3, 2015 - 3:02 am

        Jeannie 12.11.15

        I daresay you are correct in your quotation: ““Let him who hath the wisdom””…

        However, I suspect that Andy, who appears unable, unwilling, or just plain too busy to reply to punters’ questions, has (perhaps erroneously) placed it within his speechmarks, thus: “‘Let he who hath the wisdom compute the number of the beast’”.

        According to my limited knoweldge I think that in doing so he has ‘translated’ it into modern English, using a slight variation of the regular structure: Subject, Verb and Object. (In fact it is Subjects[3], Verbs[3] and Object[1].) (Thus the Subjects and Verbs are the joint winners in this weeks’ competitive quotations game. Hooray!)

        Thus: Let[v1] he[s1] who hath[v2] the wisdom[s2], compute[v3] the number of the beast[o1], where ‘the number of the beast’ is the object and not just ‘the beast’.
        In modern English the objective case ‘him’ is incorrect.

        Andy11.11.15

        You say that your chosen information doesn’t appear in any history books for ecclesiastical reasons. Are these those of secrecy?
        You seem to know enough about this stuff to answer my long-time question: I also presume that ‘the beast’ is the devil, satan, lucifer & co (all that crowd), but why a number, and W.O.E. (why on Earth) should it be 666?

        Or do you make it all up as you go along? I expect that looks ruder than I intended, but, especially when you write that Py was given to us by the gods; (what effing gods‽‽‽ These are all mythical, the same as God is! And 3.142 is Pi, not Py, nor pie)

        Your stuff begins to look as fantastical as that god-awful bible itself.

        Regards to both

        Jackie.

        Reply
        • Gary T -  December 9, 2015 - 2:45 pm

          Jackie – 12-3-15
          The number “666″ is quite commonly understood to be “…the number of the beast,” but the actual biblical verse reads (The precise wording depending upon which version of the Bible is consulted): “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast; for the number is that of a man, and his number is 666.” (Rev. 13-18)

          The important distinction in the verse is that 666 is the number of a MAN. The Book of Revelations continues-on with further description of the evils associated with this man. Each of the letters of the alphabet in Hebrew as well as in Greek has a numerical value. If you add together the numbers associated with a name, the sum is the number of that man. Many possible combinations of letters will add up to 666, and many candidates have been nominated for this infamous number. The most likely is the emperor Caesar Nero who reigned from 54 to 68 AD, the Greek form of whose name in Hebrew letters gives the required sum. (The Latin form of this name equals 616, which is the reading of a few manuscripts.) Nero personifies the emperors who viciously persecuted the church. It has also been observed that “6” represents imperfection, falling short of the perfect number “7,” and is represented here in a triple or superlative form.

          Roman coins typically bore the emperors image, so you were obliged to carry the “mark of the beast” in order to engage in commerce.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 17, 2015 - 4:17 pm

            Gary T.

            Thanks very much for that – most enlightening. I had no idea that the letters and numbers had a direct correlation, though I wonder what practical use it had – I mean giving a man a number.
            And a woman? (No, I don’t mean giving him a number and a woman; I mean what of women, or didn’t they count?)

            Now I take it from your quotation, “…the number of the beast; for the number is that of a man, and his number is 666.” that the writer perceived man and beast to be the same entity. Or have I got it wrong? (Though I daresay that in Nero’s case it wasn’t far out.)
            I also presume, perhaps unwisely, that the numbers run from alpha=1 to omega=25 or thereabouts, a total of about 75 rather than about ten times that amount, or is my opening presumption totally out?
            Finally, and I bet this will read as more facetious than is intended: If “6” represents imperfection, falling short of the perfect number “7,”, does 8 similarly represent imperfection, falling long of the perfect number?
            And more finally still, why 7?

            Regards,

            Jackie.

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 18, 2015 - 4:53 am

            Thanks for that, Gary.

            You say, “…you were obliged to carry the “mark of the beast” in order to engage in commerce.”

            Hmm. Pretty much like today’s bankers then. Boo-boom!

            Regards,

            Jackie.

          • Chauze -  January 1, 2016 - 12:07 pm

            Someone once said,”…the Book of Revelations…” Perhaps they meant the book of Revelation. I had a very helpful gentleman correct me on that point some time ago. He was discreet in his helpfulness so as not to make me cry in front of the girls,

        • Emmie -  December 11, 2015 - 8:43 am

          Jackie,

          How can you say the Bible is “god-awful” when you have just stated that God and gods are mythical. lol

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 18, 2015 - 5:30 am

            Emmie:

            “Jackie,
            How can you say the Bible is “god-awful” when you have just stated that God and gods are mythical. lol”

            Thanks for your question, Emmie. Now, I could point out that I used the ‘awful’ bit in an older form than we generally do today, as in ‘full of awe’, largely replaced by ‘awesome’ in North America.
            But that ain’t the way of it.
            I could also point out that I spell ‘god’ with a lower-case G, since its existence has yet to be proved. And I quite fail to see the point of giving a proper noun to a non-existent entity.
            And that is the way of it.
            Or I could say that the bible, religion and god are three of the worst things that god ever created. And I think that gets closest to replying to your queston. It’s a paradox, you see.
            However, here’s an erratum for you:
            Delete: ‘These are all mythical, the same as God is!’
            Insert: ‘These (gods) are all mythical, the same as the real one!’

            I don’t suppose that helps you, but I think it an improvement on the original and I welcome the chance to change it
            I still don’t suppose that helps you, since you don’t believe you don’t believe in myths. But you do.
            As someone wisely wrote on this site a few days ago (and I paraphrase) We don’t know anything, we can’t; we only think we do.
            Er – lol?

            Jackie.

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 28, 2015 - 8:32 pm

            Souldefenestrator 15.12.15

            “perhaps, our blonde-proud grammar queen, we could leave the clowns and amateurs out of the gender box?”

            Well, get you, defenestrator (long time since I used that word). “perhaps, OUR blonde-proud grammar queen…” But “Our”‽ In yer dreams, Matey. However, “blonde-proud” what a splendid concept!
            Be sure I’ll use it.
            LATER. I’ve used it! Tucked away on page 77, chapter 11, in the notorious sex scene; you’ll recognise it as yours, you can’t miss it. And that shall be your reward. Thank you.

            All right then, here it is:
            …Impressed, and quite on impulse, she touches his forearm, very gently, surprised at its muscular hardness. She doesn’t know why; she’s never touched a boy’s body before, not even Pat Dry’s, especially an older boy. Oh, other girls, of course, particularly blonde-proud Julie, a real blonde, with whom she changes in the school’s swimming cubicles and compares their changing bodies, both by looky-lookie and touchy-feelie, but that’s different, all the girls do that; that’s just being a girl…

            Now, as to leaving the clowns and amateurs out of the gender box, well I take your point, of course but I think you ‘ll agree that the facts speak for themselves in that most of these amateur clowns title themselves as males – and thus do they write. Moreover, many of them have the manners of red-neck farm animals. So vague apologies, though I don’t think I’ve written unduly pejoratively, nor out of order.
            Er — “more on this later?” I hope so; I look forward to it.

            ’Bye now,

            Jackie.

            Souldefenestrator – 16 December, 2015
            “Here is you:
            Terry and Neil:
            Just a couple of words, guys. (A couple‽)
            Here is me:
            Terry and Neil:
            Just a couple of word guys‽
            ~dō”

            Yes, very good, very droll, very subtle, if somewhat inapposite. And I do like the “~dō”.

            JMH

        • john mceiver -  December 15, 2015 - 8:22 am

          If god is “mythical”, are all spirit experiences likewise imaginary? I’m curious about your opinion. Have you ever had an out-of-body experience? Can something (spirit) immaterial by nature, be empirically investigated?

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 23, 2015 - 2:34 pm

            john mceiver 15.12.15
            If god is “mythical”, are all spirit experiences likewise imaginary? I’m curious about your opinion. Have you ever had an out-of-body experience? Can something (spirit) immaterial by nature, be empirically investigated?

            Dear John, as the saying goes.

            I shall take singly your most interesting and challenging e-mail in three parts and hope they generate the interest that the subject deserves.
            Of course the easy reply to yours is, ‘Yes, of course they are, same as god is; how could you think otherwise? However…

            Your opener, “If god is “mythical”, are all spirit experiences likewise imaginary?” seems to suppose that all spirit experiences are formed of the same stock. I am not sure that this is so. If I may refer very briefly to the concept, free will, then it could be supposed that each of us has a mind different from all others. This mind is formed in part from our genes and in part from our experiences. Clearly, if we accept this premise then it is obvious that each individual is highly individual.

            Next, I think we must consider both internal and external origins of spiritual phenomena. First the internal: The Catholic Church, for instance, is rightly wary of enthusiasm, this may lead to such phenomena as the stigmata; replicas of the nail marks in poor Christ’s hands, where his people nailed him to a cross-beam . These usually occur on the hands of enthusiasts, whom I would class as harmlessly mad. Beatlemania was another, milder example of a similar manifestation. Victorian women too, would faint at ‘the drop of a hat’ and though this was doubtless a result of social conditioning, it was perhaps also due to excessive corsetry.
            Alerts among you may notice that we are moving towards the external factors of spiritual experience, as indeed we are.

            It was another elective; this time in the care of a declared religious enthusiast, a Jew and a rabbi. Sounds like the start of a bad joke, but no, that comes later. This was all one man – and did he sock it to us‽ A WW2 soldier, he and others were sent somewhere – they knew not where – in a covered truck. At one point yer man felt ill. It was a terrible ague, which grew until he could no longer sit but lay retching and writhing on the floor. It lasted for a half-hour or so. When they eventually reached their destination their leader said, ‘I watched you, Goldstein, but I could do nothing to help, for such is the way of such things. By the way,do you know where we were at that time?’
            ‘No, sir,’ said our lecturer, ‘we common soldiers are told nothing that could be tortured out of us in the event of our capture, as you well know.’
            ‘Well, I will tell you – I can now. The time you were so afflicted was when we were passing through Auschwitz!”

            Picture this: the men are in a covered vehicle, with the back sheet covering their rear view. I don’t know whether Auschwitz has a special sound, nor whether our soldier/tutor had been there before, as he would have to in order to recognise the sound. There are no ways he could sense the place, yet he felt its presence (in his soul?).
            Now, as you may imagine, we were hugely moved by this man’s tale, but no-one I’ve spoken to can account for it, except for the possible existence of cultural memory. This is still at the theory stage.
            There is ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), though this is far from being deemed more than a party trick, along with many other, highly convincing, stage illusions.
            It is possible that there are things beyond the range of the human senses, such as sound beyond 20kHz and and 9Hz. Have you ever heard the Earth move? 9Hz is said to be its natural resonant frequency; sights beyond infra-red and ultra-violet.

            I could go on but mercy calls. You ask whether I’ve ever had an out of body experience.Well yes, I think so; the first time I was out of my mind and the second time I was not. A seriously life-chaging event had me so far down into depression that my mind partly closed down. I shan’t bore you with the details but later, in psychiatry, as I was improving, we played Trivial Pursuit, in teams. I was still pretty ill and didn’t understand much of it but I recall (apparently) sitting behind myself, watching me play. So that one was caused, I’m certain, by (temporary) insanity.

            The next time was during a lecture, one of my own, and it was so affective that I made it my goal; each time I went to work on the students I strove to achieve this.
            I have a relaxed, easy-going way of teaching. The group is in my absolute control, but its members are unaware of that, let alone how I do it. The trick is, of course, quiet, teacher enthusiasm.
            Anyway, one day I got the notion that everyone’s mind was in the same place. I was describing a process, using language that was easily accesible to all. The point here is that the students didn’t have to translate my words into those that made sense to them in their own terms. We were thinking as one. It was then that I left the room, stood behind me and watched myself teaching. It lasted for several minutes. I’ve tried it ever since; sometimes I get close but I’m not yet good enough.

            I could go on but may I leave your last point until later? I fear that I’ve long exceeded the 140 word limit!

            Regards,

            Jackie.

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 23, 2015 - 3:22 pm

            john mceiver 15.12.15
            If god is “mythical”, are all spirit experiences likewise imaginary? I’m curious about your opinion. Have you ever had an out-of-body experience? Can something (spirit) immaterial by nature, be empirically investigated?

            Dear John, as the saying goes.

            I shall take singly your most interesting and challenging e-mail in three parts and hope they generate the interest that the subject deserves.
            Of course the easy reply to yours is, ‘Yes, of course they are, same as god is; how could you think otherwise? However…

            Your opener, “If god is “mythical”, are all spirit experiences likewise imaginary?” seems to suppose that all spirit experiences are formed of the same stock. I am not sure that this is so. If I may refer very briefly to the concept, free will, then it could be supposed that each of us has a mind different from all others. This mind is formed in part from our genes and in part from our experiences. Clearly, if we accept this premise then it is obvious that each individual is highly individual.

            Next, I think we must consider both internal and external origins of spiritual phenomena. First the internal: The Catholic Church, for instance, is rightly wary of enthusiasm, this may lead to such phenomena as the stigmata; replicas of the nail marks in poor Christ’s hands, where his people nailed him to a cross-beam . These usually occur on the hands of enthusiasts, whom I would class as harmlessly mad. Beatlemania was another, milder example of a similar manifestation. Victorian women too, would faint at ‘the drop of a hat’ and though this was doubtless a result of social conditioning, it was perhaps also due to excessive corsetry.
            Alerts among you may notice that we are moving towards the external factors of spiritual experience, as indeed we are.

            It was another elective; this time in the care of a declared religious enthusiast, a Jew and a rabbi. Sounds like the start of a bad joke, but no, that comes later. This was all one man – and did he sock it to us‽ A WW2 soldier, he and others were sent somewhere – they knew not where – in a covered truck. At one point yer man felt ill. It was a terrible ague, which grew until he could no longer sit but lay retching and writhing on the floor. It lasted for a half-hour or so. When they eventually reached their destination their leader said, ‘I watched you, Goldstein, but I could do nothing to help, for such is the way of such things. By the way,do you know where we were at that time?’
            ‘No, sir,’ said our lecturer, ‘we common soldiers are told nothing that could be tortured out of us in the event of our capture, as you well know.’
            ‘Well, I will tell you – I can now. The time you were so afflicted was when we were passing through Auschwitz!”
            Picture this: the men are in a covered vehicle, with the back sheet covering their rear view. I don’t know whether Auschwitz has a special sound, nor whether our soldier/tutor had been there before, as he would have to in order to recognise the sound. There are no ways he could sense the place, yet he felt its presence (in his soul?)

            Now, as you may imagine, we were hugely moved by this man’s tale, but no-one I’ve spoken to can account for it, except for the possible existence of cultural memory. This, I think, is still at the theory stage.
            There is ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), though this is far from being deemed more than a party trick, along with many other, highly convincing, stage illusions.
            It is possible that there are things beyond the range of the human senses, such as sound beyond 20kHz and and 9Hz. Have you ever heard the Earth singing? 9Hz is said to be its natural resonant frequency; sights beyond infra-red and ultra-violet.

            I could go on but mercy calls. You ask whether I’ve ever had an out of body experience.Well yes, I think so; the first time I was out of my mind and the second time I was not. A seriously life-chaging event had me so far down into depression that my mind partly closed down. I shan’t bore you with the details but later, in psychiatry, as I was improving, we played Trivial Pursuit, in teams. I was still pretty ill and didn’t understand much of it but I recall (apparently) sitting behind myself, watching me play. So that one was caused, I’m certain, by (temporary) insanity.

            The next time was during a lecture, one of my own, and it was so affective that I made it my goal; each time I went to work on the students I strove to achieve this.
            I have a relaxed, easy-going way of teaching. The group is in my absolute control, but its members are unaware of that, let alone how I do it. The trick is, of course, quiet, teacher enthusiasm.
            Anyway, one day I got the notion that everyone’s mind was in the same place. I was describing a process, using language that was easily accesible to all. The point here is that the students didn’t have to translate my words into those that made sense to them in their own terms. We were thinking as one. It was then that I left the room, stood behind me and watched myself teaching. It lasted for several minutes. I’ve tried it ever since; sometimes I get close but I’m not yet good enough to do it every time.

            I could go on but may I leave your last point until later? I fear that I’ve long exceeded the 140 word limit!

            Remind me to mention the numinous and fairy tales.

            Oh, yes! The threatened joke.
            Question: What’s this? Oh, Oh, Oh.
            Answer: It’s Santa talking backwards.
            Boo-boom‼

            Regards, and a merry xmas to all our readers.

            Jackie.

          • PVaculla -  December 31, 2015 - 2:47 pm

            I actually came to this blog via the dictionary, blog being a verb, a noun and a sphere. And into a space dominated by individuals who insist on baiting one another over grammar, and spelling.
            The query about God being mythical, spirit experiences imaginary, and out of body experiences, are all subjective.
            Near Death experiences and out of body experiences were/are completely different. I personally have had two near death experiences.
            God is the physical name given to us to envoke the feeling of hope. Our angels are with us everyday, to those of us who have always had special,or imaginary friends. ( and not psychiatric patients) who are sensitive to vibrations, auras, feelings, if you wish a name ESP. We are all born sensitive and at the age of 8 my parents took me to a Child Psychologist, and after numerous tests et al he asked me if I had any questions. I asked him if as human beings are we born with the inherent knowledge of right and wrong or is it a learned behavior? He stood up and asked me who told me to ask that question? I said no one is there an answer, and his reply was we are born naïve but become products of our environment and we learn by example. We learn to tune out our intuition and become desensitized by violence.
            The near death experiences, were comfortable, I was in no pain, my deceased family members I cherished were with me, we did not speak aloud our thoughts were our words. There was great warmth and immense love, and the choice to stay or the choice to continue, to fight, to struggle, and you know its not going to be easy. For me it was a simple choice because of my children, the second time I did it for myself.
            Out of body experiences are easily achieved with intense meditation.
            ESP: ever phone someone and they say I was just picking up the phone to phone you. Hmm
            In the immortal words of JKRowling JUST BECAUSE IT’S HAPPENING IN YOUR HEAD DOESNT MEAN ITS NOT REAL.

    • john gunter -  November 13, 2015 - 6:34 am

      Pythagoras was a person, a mathametician.

      Reply
      • john gunter -  November 13, 2015 - 6:40 am

        make that a mathematician. (probably a better speller too)

        Reply
        • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 18, 2015 - 5:56 am

          John Gunter:
          “make that a mathematician. (probably a better speller too)”

          Nice one, John.

          Jackie.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 19, 2015 - 10:54 am

            Gary T (& anyone else who’s interested):
            The quotation, “…the number of the beast; for the number is that of a man, and his number is 666.” has, to my mind, two, perhaps three possibilities:

            The first is that the writer knows who that man is, for example, Nero, and I think this a reasonable assumption, especially if that is what his name numbers.

            Next, he** doesn’t know who that man is, and so it is just a man, any man; one whose number is 666 (and of course there may be many of them). That number is, as we have seen, made from the numeric values of the letters of his name.
            **Normally I’d write ‘he or she’, but see below.

            Finally, ‘a man’ could refer to man in general; Man, in fact, which is to say, mankind.

            Note well that there is no mention of woman in all this, and this is one reason why I so despise this god-awful book (er – that’s ‘awful’ in its modern sense, Emmie). The writers’ names are all men’s and I think it right to say that the Bible is filled with heroes but not one heroine – unless you consider Jesus’s mother – or the Magdalene to be one?

            The ridiculous fantasy of Adam and Eve‽ Nothing more than an introduction to the notion of the man as the One, and the woman as the Other. Preceding the invention of anaesthetics by several thousand years by god’s removal of Adam’s rib while he slept, it still pervades people’s unwitting thinking.

            I went to an elective on this kind of stuff; it was mostly attended by well-educated and feisty women, members of a Creative Writing class, who I expect were pretty clued up on feminism – not that I want to bang on about that here, you understand, except to give you this live example of unwitting thinking.
            The elective’s tutor told us of a corporate bash where he said that the after-dinner speaker opened as follows:
            “Ladies and gentlemen: I put it to you that if everyone in this room were to suddenly leave his wife…”
            He stopped there, not saying whether the speaker left the room with his life andor testicles intact.
            Now, I don’t know whether you’ve ever found yourself the only one laughing. It can be embarrassing. This was. But only until the audience realised there was a joke in the room – and I heard the laughter spread like ripples on a pond.
            If you saw the joke straight away then you’re probably okay; if not, perhaps you need to hone your gender awareness, as I think many of us do.

            The Holy Bible ― written by men. Because God is a Man!

            Yeah, right.

            Jackie.

          • Maureen -  December 25, 2015 - 12:10 pm

            Jacquelyn: Re the possible meaning of “666″ – You might be interested in Chuck Missler’s videos from KHouse regarding the AntiChrist. There is an alternative perspective that the Mark of the Beast being required to buy or sell is actually a chip implant, which, although prophesied in the bible, has never before been possible until modern times and has nothing to do with Nero. (This is a reply to your comment of Dec 19th 10:54am.)

          • Professor -  January 19, 2016 - 10:41 am

            Jackie in which lab were you concocted?

    • Rick Ash -  November 16, 2015 - 5:48 pm

      Andy
      This is extremely interesting (to me). If the information does not appear in any history books do I take it then that you can read the original Greek New Testament? And the answer is very plain or must be intuited? While hoping for a response I will research the webz for Pythagoras ( I am aware but,,) and the origin of the Py numbers. The “for ecclesiastical reasons” aspect has me stymied, I am a Theologian.
      Thank You,
      Rick

      Reply
      • Brian -  November 21, 2015 - 11:13 am

        Many experts now believe the Four Gospels of the New Testament were original written in Aramaic and the Ancient Greek versions we now have are translations.

        Reply
        • Ron Allen -  December 2, 2015 - 10:30 pm

          This quite possible.

          Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  January 5, 2016 - 6:20 pm

        Maureen 25.12.15

        Thanks for that.

        Maureen, I think I should open by declaring my stance. I am an antitheist. A fairly recently coined concept, it goes a step beyond atheism.

        That said, I watched and read a little of Mr Missler’s mountain of stuff and I was as unimpressed as I expected to be. Nothing personal, I just can’t be arsed with biblical interpretations. When Missler talks of the bible’s allegorical and metaphorical nature is when I start to close; allegories, metaphors and their like, are as open to interpretation as are astrological predictions. Very attractive, this sort of thing is ultimately a matter not of facts but of rhetorical skills, and I’m as susceptible to those as is the next woman.

        Your post shows an adequate example, I fear: “…the Mark of the Beast being required to buy or sell is actually a chip implant, which, although prophesied in the bible…” [I’d like to read that bit and I’d be most obliged if you could send it, if it’s not too much trouble.]

        What happens here is that some scholars, finding some new thing, set to and — lo and behold, there it is! Why, it was there, in this metaphor, and that allegory, waiting for us all the time; just like our god-given electricity! How silly we are to have overlooked it for so long! How blind we must have been.

        You see the trick? It’s one of the devices that keeps the bible so vibrant, young and factory-fresh. And they hadn’t even imagined the North America they now consider the incubus of evil – and where I have no doubt that the aforementioned chip was invented.

        So, I’m sorry if my response wasn’t all you could wish for, and whilst I appreciate your advice, may I recommend Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion? A well-written book based on scientific principles, it contains only one flaw, but that is the one that plagues even the greatest of thinkers: Can we really know anything? I don’t know.

        Fond regards,

        Jackie.

        Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  January 21, 2016 - 2:55 pm

        Professor:
        What is it you don’t understand?
        Jackie.

        Reply
    • Mit -  November 18, 2015 - 10:17 am

      Thanks Andy. Good trivia for a long day at work.

      However, did anyone notice this article and thus the comments is from Feb. 2011? Time to move on…nothing ELSE to see hear….

      (just for you Jackie G-Errrrrrr-l; Here!)

      Reply
      • Jacquelyn Hyde -  November 27, 2015 - 3:33 pm

        Mit 18.11.15

        Thanks for that; be sure I’ll treasure it.

        Jackie H

        Reply
    • shan -  November 18, 2015 - 5:57 pm

      Where it did come from? Since I was a student no teacher or school ever mention that idea? and if it is really true…. Why, until now they never change it or apply it?

      Reply
    • Ann -  November 19, 2015 - 4:09 am

      I do crossword puzzles. A frequent question is “Greek Marketplace”. In puzzles the answer is always agora. Could you kindly explain the difference?

      Great information, but a bit too long.

      Reply
      • Mike the Real -  November 25, 2015 - 5:09 pm

        Ann 19.11.15
        Between what?

        Reply
        • nn -  December 10, 2015 - 6:24 am

          Mike the Real, or MtR, for short.

          TYPO! agora is agemo – the opposite of omega. Omega is the sign of productive work and you, MIKE, is the opposite.

          Ann, or nn for short, is asking about the difference between gora and agora. You might think now that I, in fact, am Ann, but you would be wrong to think so. I am NN, and I come back to you now, at the turn of the ampersands, to raise hell on earth through me meme writings.

          Once, there was a dream, in the white sands.

          Nightwish, you could listen to it if you so choose.

          In this gathering, decifering the questions given are the only solutions ever presented. Therefore, at risk of distorting everything that is true and just in our world, I shall not answer the question of the Mike. Keeping it real, Mike, is your only true virtue online although you have none now in real life. How can you be so real,Mike, when real life is not of the internets. Sing along now everyone, as mockery continues.

          To Mike, there is no such thing as a straight mid-western answer, only more questions.

          To Mike, Crosswords become crusades of crossbearings.

          So you have chosen, Mike. (ect. allthough a chance was given, says Arthur but no reference enywhere else, could be an easter egg and a mary christmas
          To
          ALL
          )

          Reply
          LEAVE A COMMENT(CANCEL)

          Reply
          • Mike the Real -  December 18, 2015 - 3:30 am

            nn:(No name?)

            Clem? Is that you? Seems like it.
            Or Egg, or Irf4n, or MtU?
            It’s quite a puzzle.

            I mean, who else would know about that?
            Who else would write like that?
            Anyway…

            MtR.

          • Mike the Real -  December 23, 2015 - 6:24 am

            I like this; t fascinates me horribly.
            Madish or genious, who knows?
            Who will say?- willy shake?
            No not man’s, the penman.

            NN (No Name for long)!
            I tested so far unbroke ceramic knife.
            The Food Programme whose salient point the ability to cut old soft redskin tomtoms.
            Steel knives cannot making a splendid chee tomandon I on sandwedge not golf an elderly tomato and slicing still not golf with steel if you hone to edge of invisibly sharp blade unseen.
            Reaching point of nogo sit and so I switch to guns no knives and the ceramic one did it tricksily.
            It seems ceramic just has the edge. Not sorry pun is all and isn’t why I wrote; it really is a tiny improvement. My recommendation gets a honer.

            Interesting I agree but why bother?

            Mike the Real.

          • Mike the Real -  December 26, 2015 - 6:36 am

            NN (Long for No Name)!

            I tested so far unbroke ceramic knife.
            The Food Prog, whose salient point the ability to cut old soft redskin tomtoms.
            Steel knives cannot making a splendid chee tomandon I on sandwedge not golf an elderly tomato and slicing still not golf with steel if you hone to edge of invisibly sharp blade unseen.
            Reaching point of nogo sit and so I switch to guns no knives and the ceramic one did it tricksily.
            It seems ceramic just has the edge. Not sorry pun is all and isn’t why I wrote; it really is a tiny improvement. My recommendation gets a honer.

            Interesting I agree but why bother? And yet I like it because it fascinates me. So what about some more???

            Mike the Real.

          • Auggie a -  February 23, 2016 - 9:18 am

            OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOohhhhhhhhhhh that makes no sense at all stop wasting ur time.

    • Rebecca Eriksson -  November 21, 2015 - 4:12 am

      Very cool

      Reply
    • julie -  November 21, 2015 - 7:26 am

      very interesting!

      Reply
    • kitchen@webbweave.com -  November 22, 2015 - 9:54 am

      Andy.

      Pythagoras of Samos was an Ionian Greek philosopher, mathematician, and has been credited as the founder of the movement called Pythagoreanism.

      Reply
    • Finn -  November 22, 2015 - 11:15 pm

      I don’t believe you at all.

      Reply
      • David -  December 3, 2015 - 2:37 pm

        Idiot

        Lol

        Idiot

        Reply
        • Anne Onny Mouse -  December 19, 2015 - 8:45 am

          Who you talkin’ to, Idiot?

          Reply
        • Anne Onny Mouse -  December 19, 2015 - 12:18 pm

          David:
          Who you talkin’ to, idiot?
          Ann.

          Reply
    • Tahlia -  November 24, 2015 - 2:17 am

      :/ i have wasted many years staying in a safety bubble, fearful i couldn’t possibly be the advanced knowledgeable or intellectual being i wished to be… uneducated ghetto child thoughts of ‘when will this life finally end’ without room for growth.

      thank you for sharing this information so that i could see that i have the potential to learn, to grow, to be better then all i thought i could be

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 7, 2015 - 5:40 pm

        Tahlia – November 24, 2015 – 2:17 am
        Here’s you:
        “i have wasted many years staying in a safety bubble, fearful i couldn’t possibly be the advanced knowledgeable or intellectual being i wished to be… uneducated ghetto child thoughts of ‘when will this life finally end’ without room for growth.
        thank you for sharing this information so that i could see that i have the potential to learn, to grow, to be better then all i thought i could be ”

        How moving; it must have taken quite some courage to express it, and perhaps a few tears too. I was quite touched. But let me tell you this: many of us go through that phase of doubt and uncertainty; it’s part of growing up, ghetto or not.
        Perfection is a rare and precious thing. Though many approach it, it is a very hard thing to touch; harder still to obtain.
        The trick, I think, is to set out to achieve it. Then, having failed, go back and settle in the place where you were happiest.
        You can only be happy knowing this.

        My favourite philosophy teacher was so far ahead of me that one day I asked him, “How far is from where I am to where you are?”

        His reply had me thinking about it for months. He said, “Philosophy will take you to the top of the mountain. After that, you’re on your own.”

        Tahlia — keep on going. And stay in touch – yes?

        Jackie.

        Reply
    • Grae -  November 26, 2015 - 4:15 am

      (>Andy Nov 11)

      I always thought that the 666 was just ‘beware of the Romans’ written by a guy who didn’t quite dare name them but referred to the letters – numbers – that they painted on everything – DCLXVI – and then it got a bit garbled in translation / copying. Not in history books, as you say. Couldn’t say why not.

      Maybe total bullshit.

      Reply
      • Mike the Real -  December 5, 2015 - 2:24 am

        Grae 26.11.15

        Re: 666 as Roman grafitti. You say, “Maybe total bullshit.”

        May be, Grae; only may be.

        It sounds as valid as anything else on the subject, or most others, in The Holy Bible; that silly book of fairy stories.

        MtR.

        Reply
    • Monica Krasniak -  November 26, 2015 - 4:00 pm

      On TCM is a movie titled “The Phantom Tollbooth” 70′ & is about letters, only saying…

      Reply
    • Monica Krasniak -  November 26, 2015 - 4:15 pm

      Common SENSE is necessary for the good existence of human life.

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 23, 2015 - 6:52 am

        To: Monica Krasniak 26,11.15

        “Common SENSE is necessary for the good existence of human life.”

        Not necessarily, Monica: Common sense can kill.
        The main thrust of a new book is that court juries
        should use other than comon sense.
        It’s called ‘I’m a Juror – Get Me Out of Here!’

        Regards,

        Jackie.

        Reply
    • Monica Krasniak -  November 26, 2015 - 4:21 pm

      Every letter counts, right? Of course…

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 3, 2015 - 12:41 am

        Monica Krasniak- 26.12.15
        “Every letter counts, right? Of course…”

        Not quite, Monica:
        Every number counts, every letter spells, everything means.
        (Not to be taken seriously, even if true. J.)

        Reply
        • GC -  December 11, 2015 - 6:35 am

          Monica Krasniak- 26.12.15
          “Every letter counts, right? Of course…”

          Not quite, Jacqelyn:
          26 December hasn’t happened yet, the correct month was of course November ;)

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 17, 2015 - 6:53 pm

            GC:
            Gosh yes, you’re right. Sorry about that; Probably too busy concentrating – on something else….
            JMH

          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 19, 2015 - 12:29 pm

            GC:
            “26 December hasn’t happened yet, the correct month was of course November”
            Gosh, yes; so it was!. Sorry about that.
            Must’ve been thinking of something — else!
            JMH.

        • Marilyn -  December 11, 2015 - 12:28 pm

          Well, actually, every letter DOES count in both the ancient Greek, and in Hebrew. The Greeks didn’t have separate characters for their numbers, and much like Roman Numerals have a numerical value, every letter in the Greek alphabet also doubled as a numeral. This practice is actually known today as “gematria”. So in the Bible (and I know this really has nothing to do with this article, but more the comments), when John says in Revelation to “calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man”, he literally means to add up the letters of his name and they will equal 666.

          Another fun fact for you, Nero Caesar adds up to “666″ in the Greek alphabet. Granted, he wasn’t THE Antichrist, but he definitely was anti-Christ.

          Reply
          • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 18, 2015 - 6:04 am

            Marilyn:

            Thanks for that. As you can see, I’ve already responded to Gary and I think there’s a limit to my reasonable ravings, so would you mind counting yourself in with that?
            Proleptic thanks.

            Jackie.

          • Janee -  January 29, 2016 - 6:19 pm

            Marilyn: “…when John says in Revelation to “calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man”, he literally means to add up the letters of his name and they will equal 666.”

            If that’s the case, “the beast” “literally means” John’s name. John would’ve been referring to his own name as “the beast”!
            Sure,… why not? It’s a mite weird, but plausible. After all, men have had pet-names for their penises since there have been men!

          • Janee -  January 29, 2016 - 6:57 pm

            Marilyn: “…when John says in Revelation to “calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man”, he literally means to add up the letters of his name and they will equal 666.”

            Very interesting. If that’s the case, “the beast” “literally means” John’s name. John would’ve been referring to his own name as “the beast”!
            Sure,… why not? It’s a mite weird, but plausible. After all, men have had pet-names for their penises since there have been men!

    • AF -  November 28, 2015 - 11:58 pm

      The (traditional) Greek alphabet had 24 letters (and classical Latin 23). Amazing how they are already knew that English would temporarily end up with 27…

      Pythagoras had his famous school in Croton, southern Italy.

      The Greek letter pi wasn’t consistently used for the number 3.14… until around the 18th century, more than 2,000 years after Pythagoras died.

      etc…

      No wonder that most of Andy’s does not appear in history books…

      Reply
    • Roflberry -  November 29, 2015 - 5:23 pm

      Pythagoras was a philosopher and mathematician 2700 years ago and predated both the calculation of Pi to the 7th digit by Chinese mathematicians in the 5th century BC and the founding of Alexandria by Alexander The Great in the 4th century BC. Pythagoras was the first historical figure to wear the title of ‘philosopher’, and is credited with founding the first school of philosophical thought called Pythagoreanism which was an inspiration for Socrates and later, Plato. The trigonometric theorem which bears his name is the formula for solving the length of the hypotenuse side of a right triangle, which is of course the square root of the sum products of squaring the lengths of the a and b sides.

      Reply
      • Auggie a -  February 23, 2016 - 9:19 am

        and this has to do with anything because?

        Reply
    • onomastic -  December 14, 2015 - 5:12 am

      Andy,
      While I appreciate your effort to share your knowledge, you might better be served to research what you say before your say it. I hate to rain on your parade but, the New Testament was written in Greek; there are 24 letters in the Greek language, not 27. (I took classical Greek in college and you can find any number of places online that identify the letters) Greek was the language of the day, not Italian.
      There are 27 books in the New Testament because that’s how many were canonized. God didn’t put 27 books int he New Testament because the English language would have 27 then drop to 26. There are people who thanked you for your input and Theresa Hovick-Thomas thought this wonderful enough to present to her class – erroneously.
      see if you can fix that, ok?

      Reply
      • onomastic -  December 14, 2015 - 5:31 am

        Latin, not Italian. Somebody will get picky on that.

        Reply
        • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 17, 2015 - 5:37 pm

          Onomastic:

          Damn and blast! I was just gonna do that one.

          Jackie H. (Walks off, sulking and muttering.)

          Reply
    • Stuart -  December 18, 2015 - 2:24 pm

      Gerrymandering words is language revisionism.
      For one, the Greek letter pi used to represent the irrational number 3.1415… is a fairly recent convention. The symbol pi for the mathematical constant was first known to be applied by William Jones in 1706, but was not widely adopted until Euler had adopted it in his own works. It is a fact that the Greek letter pi is transliterated as the Latin letter P that begins the name of the mathematician-philosopher Pythagoras, and the pronunciation of “Py” is coincidentally similar to that of the modern pronunciation of the Greek letter, yet the first two characters of Pythagoras in Ancient Greek is properly transliterated “Pu”, which is not pronounced “Pi”. Only by some conventions is the upsilon letter transliterated as a Y.
      It should not be construed that the modern English spelling of the ancient Greek personage Pythagoras can be deconstructed, as Andy has done, to being the actual roots and stems of the word. Some scholars of the language believe the meaning of the name means Pythian-born — with Pythios being the name of the location of the oracle of Delphi and (Andy being partially correct with the root) agora being a central gathering place (market place/assembly area) of a Greek city-state.

      Reply
      • Jacqelyn Hyde -  December 30, 2015 - 5:57 pm

        Stuart 18.12.15

        Here’s a nit-pick if you like