Wordsmith.org
Posted By: tsuwm this just in from the UK! - 11/15/00 09:02 PM
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to
govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which
she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP
for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world
outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need
for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A
questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of
you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules
are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then
look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at
just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise
your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same
twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you
know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up
"interspersed".

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know
on your behalf.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It
really isn't that hard.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the
good guys.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen",
but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get
confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of
football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good
game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your
borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You
will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper
football.

Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a
difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to
play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve
stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour
like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens
side by 2005.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if
they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there
is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The
Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "sh*t".

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new
national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive
Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your
own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.



Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: this just in from the UK! - 11/15/00 09:12 PM
Thanks, tsuwm, that is the funniest of the several versions I have seen today. How would tsuwm cope with being forced to use "supererogatory" vowels?

As an historical curiosity, Rugby union was once an Olympic sport. The only nation ever to have won a gold medal in Rugby Union is the USA, in 1924.

Posted By: belMarduk Re: this just in from the UK! - 11/15/00 09:31 PM
Priceless tsuwm. My jaw hurts from smiling. Can I copy and pass on to folks in my office? (with appropriate accreditation of course)

Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: this just in from the UK! - 11/16/00 01:04 AM
Thanks, tsuwm! I'm still laughing!

Posted By: Father Steve To change or not to change? - 11/16/00 03:00 AM
Max calls this post one of "the several versions I have seen today." I've had the same experience. This is the fouth version I have seen in the past 48 hours. Some Internet forwards seem to pass from one user to another without much change at all. This one, in contrast, appears to prompt forwarders to edit, add, delete and otherwise toy with the text. What do you suppose distinguishes the apparently unalterable ones from the ones which invite dinking?

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: To change or not to change? - 11/16/00 03:26 AM
In reply to:

What do you suppose distinguishes the apparently unalterable ones from the ones which invite dinking?


Perhaps it has to with a perception of the intended recipients. The version tsuwm posted was several cuts above the others I read, its focus on language and the generally more intellectual bent making it much more appealing to me than the others. Perhaps the person who forwarded it to tsuwm perceived that modifying its content in such a manner would increase its impact. Or perhaps I'm a gibbering loon.


Posted By: Father Steve The Proto-Version - 11/16/00 03:40 AM
Here is the first (and the shortest, and the simplest) version of this forward which I received:

----------

London, 8th November 2000

To the citizens of the United States of America,

Following your failure to elect a President of the USA to
govern yourselves and, by extension, the free world, we
hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume a
monarch's duties over all states, commonwealths and other
territories.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency,
please comply with the following acts:

1. Look up "revoke" in a dictionary
2. Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God save the Queen"
3. Start referring to "soccer" as football
4. Declare war on Quebec

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with
you shortly to ensure the acquisiton of all revenues due
(backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation and...have a nice day!

----------

If I am correct that this version preceded the version whcih tsuwm posted, then Mad Max's suggestion of an edit toward literacy is well founded.

Posted By: Father Steve Re: To change or not to change? - 11/16/00 03:42 AM
Or perhaps Max is a gibbering loon.




Posted By: Marty Re: To change or not to change? - 11/16/00 04:03 AM
from the ones which invite dinking?

Father Steve (but anyone else can reply),

You use the word dinking in your post with a meaning that is unfamiliar to me. Until a few minutes ago, for me the word 'dink' had only one meaning - a slang verb meaning to carry a passenger on a bicycle (push-bike, not motorbike) or a noun describing the same activity ("Can you give me a dink?"). I discovered to my surprise a plethora of meanings in online dictionaries, (noun, verb and adjective, slang and non-slang) including dinghy, drop shot, rival gang member, trim/neat, to deck, dodgy, penis, Dual-Income-No-Kids acronym, and possibly more, but none which seem to fit your context.

So my questions are:

1. Are you familiar with the bicycle-ride dink? (I'm wondering how widespread that slang usage is).

2. Can you comment on your usage (presumably meaning to alter) and its origin?

Posted By: tsuwm Re: To change or not to change? - 11/16/00 04:18 AM
In reply to:

Perhaps it has to with a perception of the intended recipients. The version tsuwm posted was several cuts above the others I read, its focus on language and the generally more intellectual bent making it much more appealing to me than the others. Perhaps the person who forwarded it to tsuwm perceived that modifying its content in such a manner would increase its impact. Or perhaps I'm a gibbering loon.


max, you may be on to something; here is the preface to the email I received:

"Seldom do I receive forwarded emails with content of a highbrow enough nature to forward to you."

...or maybe you're just *on something.



Posted By: Father Steve Dinking - 11/16/00 04:27 AM
1. Never have I heard the term "dink" used refer to catching a ride on a bike. Where is this term used in this way?

2. I have no idea of the derivation of the slang verb "to dink." It is most often used with the preposition "with" as in "don't dink with that" or the preposition "around" as in "are you just dinking around?" My sense of its meaning is to fiddle, to adjust, to play with, to tune, to mess with, to manipulate. Dinking with a radio is a way of changing the station received. Dunking with a carburetor is a way of getting it in tune with its companion carburetor. Come to think of it, dinking around with someone may mean to be fooling them, conning them, putting them on, leading them astray, playing with them, as in the usage "Are you serious or are you just dinking around with me?"



Posted By: Marty Re: Dinking - 11/16/00 05:27 AM
In reply to:

Never have I heard the term "dink" used refer to catching a ride on a bike. Where is this term used in this way?


Certainly here in Australia. Or more correctly, certainly amongst my schoolmates in Melbourne 30 years ago!

Now that you've introduced the extra words 'around' and 'with', I realize that I am familiar with what is apparently a local equivalent to your 'dinking around with' things or people, namely 'dicking around with' them. But it always has the 'around' - you never just 'dick' something, if you'll pardon the expression. If I dick someone around I am wasting his time, but if I dink him around I'm definitely helping him by giving him a lift on my bike.

I wonder whether the dink expression is a cleaned-up version of the former dink, or dick is a sullied version of dink, or one is a misquotation of the other and it stuck?

I haven't done an exhaustive search, but rather curiously, the following NZ-based website purportedly for Australians wanting to learn American slang defines 'dick someone around' as to mislead irritatingly.

http://psy.otago.ac.nz:800/r_oshea/slang.html#D

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: The Proto-Version - 11/16/00 08:29 AM
I've had a slight variation on Father Steve's post and several slight variations on the one posted by tsuwm.

I rather liked the abbreviated version - short, to the point and leaves it all to your imagination - why would anyone declare war on Quebec?

What really made me laugh in the elongated(!) version was the crack about who shot JFK. I was in Dallas in April this year and visited the Sixth Floor Museum - the Book Depository from which (as legend and the Warren Commission have it) JFK was shot. Believe me, after viewing the exhaustive, detailed and distinctly grisly exhibits there, it has to have been the grassy knoll, the grassy knoll! No, not where he was shot from, but who/what actually shot him!

Isn't it amazing how quickly these things propagate on the Web?

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Dinking - 11/16/00 08:40 AM
Interesting ... I've only ever seen (well, heard, actually) this word ("Dink") being used as a derogatory racial slur. It must have made a huge impression - I can't actually remember which particular race it was being used to slag ... Vietnamese during the war, perhaps?

Posted By: FishonaBike Re: The Proto-Version - 11/16/00 09:47 AM
I've also received loads of variants; it is a good one! Features that IMHO should be included in addition to tsuwm's version are
(a) the ruling that Mel Gibson should be arrested for Treason and
(b) The sign-off:
Thank you for your cooperation and...have a jolly nice day!

why would anyone declare war on Quebec?
Because it's French of course, CK. Pay attention!
(not that the English are in any way bad losers, of course)

It'd be a very easy war to win if we started it on Moving Day, hein, bel?
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Board=miscellany&Number=8353

Posted By: FishonaBike Re: Dinking - 11/16/00 10:01 AM
Well folks, I have to say that if I cycled up to someone around here and offered them a dink they'd either ask which pub we were going to or punch my lights out.


Other than in the "double income no kids" context, I think it has no recognised meaning in England (can't speak for the rest of the UK). The tendency would therefore be to treat it as modern slang and possibly a euphemism, depending on the looks of the person talking.

(and probably full-on cycling gear is even more dodgy than XC chookman gear on that front!)

Posted By: shanks Bwahahahahaha! - 11/16/00 10:22 AM
Thanks tsuwm. Now if only the US would take it seriously!

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: The Proto-Version - 11/16/00 10:58 AM
FishonaBike - very English name, that!, said:

why would anyone declare war on Quebec?
Because it's French of course, CK. Pay attention!
(not that the English are in any way bad losers, of course)


Sorry, merde, badly worded subtle humour. Well, okay, not so subtle. But definitely badly worded. Should reread my posts before posting.

Interesting ... the English usually got to write history (spoils of the victor, so to speak). Given my personal mongrel ancestry, I'd be hard put to know who to root for (Americanism) - Montcalm or Wolfe. Was there another choice?



Posted By: jmh Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/16/00 03:54 PM
On the other hand Shanks

I think we should hold back on Quebec. They seem such nice people and they have such a hard time moving house. It would be a shame to spoil their fun!

Posted By: shanks Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/16/00 03:58 PM
Oh all right, then. What I want to know is, if they'r really French, then how come I don't hear about their wine or their whine (truckers blocking ports)? And where are the pronographic films masquerading as nouvelle vague? And the lousy pop music - oh wait a second - Celine Dion! I take it back - they must be French.

Posted By: jmh Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/16/00 04:04 PM
>Quebec

I was thinking that they are French but evolved to a higher life form. Then I remembered Celine Dion!

Never mind bel, anything is better than the Spice Girls!

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/16/00 04:36 PM
Boy, you go away for five minutes and your whole province is beseiged.

The states would never be able to win a war on moving day...all the streets are jammed up, they'd get stuck at the border .

>And the lousy pop music - oh wait a second - Celine Dion!
Ooo quel jab about Céline Dion. Actually, I regret to say that I find her English singing voice to be quite annoying. Her French voice is so much nicer – like a bell, clear and fresh. But that woman has got to eat more, now, she eats a cracker and looks like a thermometer.

>What I want to know is, if they'r really French, then how come I don't hear about their wine
We don`t make wine. We make love . If you had a choice which would you prefer?


Posted By: maverick Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/16/00 05:39 PM
a choice

An exclusive choice? For all time? oooh, now let me think, who's got the prettiest dimple in the bottom....

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/17/00 02:58 AM
Well, I don't have a dimple in the bottom, but I do have one on my visage when I smile, will that do?







You see Mav, now would you go to war with someone who flirts so outrageously. Americans love the ladies from Québec . We are French, WITHOUT the snootiness. The French Québecois are as close to the French from France as the Brits are to the U.S. We seem to get under their skin for some reason. Usually, they keep correcting our pronunciation and look down on us as the dirty unwashed. It can be quite tedious. Can we have the Americans, oops, new Brits start a war with them instead ?


Posted By: Geoff Re: Bwahahahahaha! - 11/17/00 02:24 PM
Being a dirty old man, I am wondering if there are any "dirty unwashed" women in Quebec who would permit me to give them a bath? Which brings up a word query: Why do we US of Americans - oops - New Brits change the meaning of "douche" from its French meaning to a cleansing of a more specific nature? The few French whom I know here just assume that we Anglos are a bunch of perverts. ;-)

Posted By: Bridget Re: To change or not to change? - 11/19/00 08:15 AM
Perhaps the person who forwarded it to tsuwm perceived that modifying its content in such a manner would increase its impact. Or perhaps I'm a gibbering loon.

Are these two options mutually exclusive?

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: To change or not to change? - 11/19/00 08:21 AM
In reply to:

Perhaps the person who forwarded it to tsuwm perceived that modifying its content in such a manner would increase its impact. Or perhaps I'm a gibbering loon.

Are these two options mutually exclusive?


Well spotted. You are first to credit this semi-evolved simian with the possibilty of getting something right despite being a gibbering loon.

Posted By: Jackie Re: To change or not to change? - 11/20/00 04:30 AM
Dear s-e simian,

Hey--you've been right before, and I've known for a long time that you're a gibbering loon!

P.S.--are you related to e.e. cummings?

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: To change or not to change? - 11/20/00 04:36 AM
In reply to:

P.S.--are you related to e.e. cummings?


I wish! or, rather, i wish. why would anyone attempt to sully a fine author's reputation by suggesting a kinship with yours truly?


Posted By: Bridget Re: To change or not to change? - 11/21/00 08:07 AM
why would anyone attempt to sully a fine author's reputation by suggesting a kinship with yours truly?

like the rest of us, fine authors can only choose their friends, not their families

Posted By: belMarduk Re: This just in from Serbia - 11/22/00 03:26 PM
The Onion is a tongue-in-cheek news webzine. If you are interested, here is some news they have on the U.S. elections...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3641/serbia_deploys_forces.html



Posted By: Geoff Re: this just in from the UK! - 11/22/00 08:53 PM
I just received a copy of this reply to the revocation from a Brit:

> Response to: NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE
>
> To the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
> Ireland,
>
> We welcome your concern about our electoral process.
> It must be
> exciting for
> you to see a real Republic in action, even if from a
> distance. As
> always we're
> amused by your quaint belief that you're actually a
> world power. The
> sun never
> sets on the British Empire! Right-o chum!
>
> However, we regretfully have to decline your offer
> for intervention. On
> the
> other hand, it would be amusing to see you try to
> enforce your new
> policy (for
> the 96.3% of you that seem to have forgotten that
> you have little to no
> real
> power). After much deliberation, we have decided to
> continue our
> tradition as
> the longest running democratic republic. It seems
> that switching to a
> monarchy
> is in fact considered a "backwards step" by the
> majority of the world.
>
> To help you rise from your current anachronistic
> status, we have
> compiled a
> series of helpful suggestions that we hope you
> adopt:
>
> 1. Realise that language is an organic structure,
> and that you aren't
> always
> correct in your pronunciation or spelling.
>
> Let's use your "aluminium" example. Sir Humphrey
> Davy (an Englishman)
> invented
> the name "aluminum" (note spelling) for the metal.
> However, in common
> usage
> the name evolved into "aluminium" to match the
> naming convention of
> other
> elements. In 1925 the United States decided to
> switch back to the
> _original_
> spelling and pronunciation of the word, at which
> point we dominated the
> aluminum industry. We'd also like to point out that
> the process of
> actually
> producing aluminum was developed by an American and
> a Frenchman (not an
> Englishman).
>
> However, we'd like to thank you for the Oxford
> English Dictionary. It's
> an
> interesting collection, considering that over 10,000
> of the words in the
>
> original edition were submitted by a crazy American
> civil-war veteran
> called
> Dr. William Charles Minor.
>
> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian
> accents, and then
> we'll talk
> about the English and Australian accent issue.
>
> 3. Review your basic arithmetic. (Hint 100 - 98.85
> = 1.15 and 100 -
> 97.85 =
> 2.15)
>
> 4. If you want English actors as good guys, then
> make your own movies.
> Don't
> rely on us for your modern popular culture. We
> liked "Lock, Stock, and
> Two
> Smoking Barrels", "Trainspotting", and "The Full
> Monty". We've also
> heard good
> things about this "Billy Elliot". But one good
> movie a year doesn't
> exactly
> make a cultural powerhouse. However, you're doing
> pretty well with
> music, so
> keep up the good work on that front.
>
> 5. It's inefficient to have a national anthem that
> changes its title
> whenever
> your monarch dies. Let's not forget that your
> national anthem has an
> extremely
> boring tune. We suggest switching to that Rule
> Brittania ditty, it's
> toetapping. Or maybe Elton John could adapt "Candle
> In The Wind" again
> for you
> guys.
>
> 6. Improve at your national sport. Football?
> Soccer? This just in:
> United
> States gets fourth place in men's soccer at the 2000
> Summer Olympics.
> United
> Kingdom? Not even close.
>
> By the way, impressive showing at Euro 2000. You
> almost managed to get
> through
> the tournament without having your fans start an
> international incident.
>
> 7. Learn how to cook. England has some top notch
> candy. Salt 'n'
> Vinegar
> chips are quite yummy. However, there's a reason
> why the best food in
> your
> country is Indian or Chinese. Your contributions to
> the culinary arts
> are
> soggy beans, warm beer, and spotted dick. Perhaps
> when you finally
> realize the
> French aren't the spawn of satan they'll teach you
> how to cook.
>
> 8. You're doing a terrible job at understanding
> cars. The obvious error
> is
> that you drive on the wrong side of the road. A
> second problem is
> pricing,
> it's cheaper to buy a car in Belgium and ship it to
> England than to buy
> a car
> in England. On the other hand, we like Jaguars and
> Aston Martins.
> That's why
> we bought the companies.
>
> 9. We'll tell you who killed JFK when you apologize
> for "Teletubbies".
>
> Thank you for your time. You can now return to
> watching bad Australian
> soap
> operas.
>
> P.S. Regarding WW2: You're Welcome.
>


Posted By: Capital Kiwi The Final Word? - 11/22/00 11:54 PM
JAPAN SENDS HELP TO U.S.
In today's news, Japan sent the USA 50,000,000 cases of Viagra, having heard that the entire country can't get an election.


Posted By: belMarduk Re: The Final Word? - 11/24/00 03:05 AM
Sorry, sorry, sorry, embarrassement all around. I must admit I laughed out loud at that one CapK.

Posted By: TEd Remington Re: The Final Word? - 11/27/00 07:30 PM
>having heard that the entire country can't get an election.

Something which, unfortunately, did not affect the current occupant of the Bully Pulpit. Bush would have finished his political career as a second-rate governor of a second-rate state if Clinton hadn't been so priapic.

Assuming that the courts do nothing to change the outcome of our recent election, it is interesting that Dubya will only be the second-most-powerful person in the free world. Dick Cheney will control the Senate, which is currently looking to be deadlocked at 50 Republicans and 50 Senators. The VP will cast the deciding vote for all committee chair appointments, committee assignments, etc., etc. Assuming of course that Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are able to keep their hearts beating (though there are those who believe their brains stopped working many years ago.)

We live in interesting times.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: this just in from the UK! - 11/27/00 07:53 PM
Re point 8 of your list: Maybe we could combine it with Nov. 5, which also commemorates a notable political action failure.

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: The Final Word? - 11/27/00 10:04 PM
Dick Cheney will control the Senate

First, off this exact topic: if G.W. is a second rate governor, then why did he get re-elected in '98 with about 70% of the vote, with much of that coming from minorities?

Now, on control of the Senate. Yes, he will preside, but he most likely won't hold much clout in decision making, even if there are ties. According to Time magazine there are centrist coalitions on both sides that will have the biggest voice in what goes on. From both parties, the centrists make up about 60% of the Senate. Frankly, I think it'd be nice if they formed a new party, but chances of that are probably slim. And according to iWon.com, John McCain has become the most well known Senator and will have much to do in swaying the centrist voters in the Senate. So maybe, as much of us would have preferred, McCain will be the real ruler in Washington.

Posted By: wow Re: The Final Word? - 11/27/00 10:17 PM
Now, now! There we were having a bit of fun about the election and and somehow politics oozed in. If we can't see the absurd side of the situation we are sliding down the slippery slope to being serious about politics! Gawd zooks. Seriousness is for governance, not politics. Lighten up! WOW

Posted By: tsuwm Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 12:14 AM
>if G.W. is a second rate governor, then why did he get re-elected in '98 with about 70% of the vote...

well, it was Texas, you know.

[as a Minnesotan, I am an expert on popularity contests!]
Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 12:20 AM
Gawd zooks.

Zounds! Egad! One learns something daily - I have always spelled that as one word, without the "w" - gadzooks. Once again, my ignorance rears its ugly head. Cheers, wow. By the way, what does AHIP mean?

Posted By: wow Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 12:43 AM
I use Gawd instead of the name of the Diety. (Insert face with eyes raised to heaven in gaze pleading forgivness.) You are correct about gadzooks. Gawd zooks is my made up phrase allowing me to flirt with the profane (as opposite to profanity.) I am tired, did that make sense. Regarding AHIP it is acronym for "Age Hath Its Privilege" I wondered who'd be first to ask. I used AHIP because I ran over 250 characters. WOW
PS Now, have you all figured out my signature -- you are all such clever folk, I mean it, not being snide. If not let us rub our hands and gurgle in glee awaiting the brave soul who'll ask.

Posted By: Jackie Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 01:35 AM
figured out my signature
Must be woman of the world.

Posted By: tsuwm Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 01:48 AM
I was going to guess woman of wonder (as opposed to wonder woman ;)

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 03:47 AM
WOW

Woman of Words?


Posted By: TEd Remington Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 06:36 PM
Jazz:

Note what I said about a second-rate state :)

As to control of the Senate: If you can see Democrats and Republicans meeting at the center of the aisle to vote without party affiliation for the chairs of the standing Senate committees, I'd like to have some of whatever it is you're smoking. This election has polarized the country to the extent that bipartisanship isn't even going to be spoken about, let alone practiced.

And McCain, whom I would have voted for because of his outstanding moral qualities, is so far right of center he makes Attila the Hun seem moderate.

Party will out, Jazz. I don't say I like it, but the VP will rule in DC for a while.

Interestingly enough, the new Senate takes over January 4. Al Gore will be President of the Senate until noon on January 20. For 15 days the majority (fifty plus the Veep's tie-breaker) will be Democratic, but thereafter, as things stand now, Dick Cheney will be casting the deciding vote. My prediction anyway.

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: The Final Word? - 11/28/00 11:06 PM
[as a Minnesotan, I am an expert on popularity contests!]

Do we like Mr. Ventura?

Posted By: FishonaBike Re: The Final Word? - 11/29/00 05:00 PM
Woman of Words?

Like the opposite of "a man of few words" ?



Oops.


Words of Wisdom ?





Posted By: FishonaBike Re: this just in from the UK! - 11/29/00 05:03 PM
could combine it with Nov. 5, which also commemorates a notable political action failure

Good idea, Bob - although as far as the King was concerned it was a very successful political action, I believe..

Posted By: tsuwm Re: The Final Word? - 11/29/00 06:35 PM
>wow (words of wisdom)

wine o'er wisdom
wildly outa wack
whangdoodles or whigmaleeries



Posted By: Bingley Re: The Final Word? - 11/30/00 04:50 AM
In reply to:

I used AHIP because I ran over 250 characters


Is there some reason we shouldn't use more than 250 characters? I'm sure this particular barrier has been breached here on more than one occasion.

Bingley

Posted By: Marty Re: The Final Word? - 11/30/00 05:20 AM
>Is there some reason we shouldn't use more than 250 characters? I'm sure this particular barrier has been breached here on more than one occasion.

Bingley,
Wow was referring to the bio on her profile, which does appear to be limited to 250 characters.

In "normal" postings, shanks has gone way over 250 words. And that was just the opening sentence!

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen Re: The Final Word? - 11/30/00 05:35 AM
In reply to:

In "normal" postings, shanks has gone way over 250 words. And that was just the opening sentence!


Now, now, don't sell our shanks short! His opening sentences tend to exceed 250 clauses! (Salaam, Ravi Sahib)

Posted By: shanks Malaikum Salaam - 11/30/00 10:00 AM
And may the blessings of Allah be upon you, your four wives, your two sons and one daughter by your first former wide, your three daughters, one son and three grandchildren by your second former wife, your two daughters, three granddaughters and two grandsons by your first cureent wife, your camels, your oil wells and...

Ah- 250 clauses is too easy. Give me a challenge now!

Posted By: FishonaBike Re: The Final Word? - 11/30/00 02:21 PM
whangdoodles or whigmaleeries

Hey! Get thee to Meaningless Words with these, tsuwm, and flaunt them with pride!






Posted By: TEd Remington Re: The Final Word? - 11/30/00 07:58 PM
>I used AHIP because I ran over 250 characters.

I wondered why I was feeling a bit run down. Must have been among those 250 AWADers (er characters.)

Posted By: Bingley Re: Malaikum Salaam - 12/01/00 07:41 AM
In reply to:

And may the blessings of Allah be upon you, your four wives, your two sons and one daughter by your first former wide, your three daughters, one son and three grandchildren by your second former wife, your two daughters, three granddaughters and two grandsons by your first cureent wife, your camels, your oil wells and...


Sorry shanks, that's still only one clause (maybe heading for 250 phrases but that's another matter).

Bingley

Posted By: Marty Re: Malaikum Salaam - 12/04/00 04:03 AM
I think shanks is working himself up to post, in a few short weeks' time, the granddaddy of all clauses...

...the Santa Claus.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: The Final Word? - 12/04/00 07:15 AM
While I'm not sure of this (in this instance), the 250-character limit (usually 255) is because that is the size of a standard text field for most programming languages. Since most of this website will be built using VBScript or Javascript, it's likely that whoever put it together cut a few corners ... or chose to save space.

© Wordsmith.org