>And I am still mildly bullshit about the many words wasted in AWADtalk about topics discussed by Quinion a couple years before they appeared in AWADtalk,

I am puzzled. This sounds like you are saying that because a topic has been discussed elsewhere, discussing here it is a waste of time. What a bizarre notion. I am quite sure that Mr Quinion would have no qualms about discussing a topic that had been covered here.

>I am still mildly bullshit...

oh! whatever gave you the notion that is was *mild, bill?

And I am still mildly bullshit

And I am puzzled about the meaning of bullshit as used in this context. Does this mean peeved? The only slang meaning of bullshit I know, as confirmed by my slang dictionary, is nonsense.

Interesting - whilst looking up bullshit, I discovered a synonym for bullshitter and bullshit artist which I'd not yet heard: bullshartest, which is, apparently, Australian.

tsuwm: You are not adept at telepathy.

Dear Sparteye : bullshit in that context means genuinely annoyed, unless degree specified.

Dear VC: we had discussions, very amateurish, at great length, in total ignorance of something that had a couple years previously been explained expertly and thoroughly by Mr. Quinion. Talk about beating a dead horse!

wow wrote : it had the "plug" for AWAD in it

Jazzo replied : Um . . . actually it doesn't. Many sites refer to a word of the day (M-W, OED), and if you look at dictionary.com you'll notice in the upper right that it's not AWAD that he's talking about.

Another "senior moment" strikes. You are ab-so-tive-ly right JazzO.
Ah, well, it was an honest mistake.

Nothing wrong with it. British science and technology was by and large amateur for nearly 200 years and look where that got us. Now, where was that, precisely?

>we had discussions, very amateurish, at great length, in total ignorance of something that had a couple years previously been explained expertly and thoroughly by Mr. Quinion.

To which I am still moved to reply, so what? I respect your right to view things differently, but I just cannot see what the big deal is that a discussion on this Board covered a topic already discussed elsewhere. What harm was done by this? You set the bar dangerously high by suggesting that we may never discuss things that others already have. I understood that the purpose of this Board was to provide a place for entertaining, informative discussions about words. If that understanding is correct, I couldn't care less if somebody somewhere has already discussed a topic that comes up here. I have read posts from you in which you have strongly condemned the use of the phrase "YART", which has something to do with "rehashed threads", I think. If you don't like people complaining about rehashed threads on this board why complain about a topic here being rehashed from another board?

Well argued, Vernon. After all, we certainly don' need no steenkin' YARB calls, now, do we?

And Dr Bill, one thing we surely *do manage on this board is a pretty good networking of any resources discovered interesting by individual members? If occasionaly we may take for granted that everyone already knows about something, your admonition is a useful reminder that newcomers may find such information useful too.

Dear mav: I believe I have a legitimate grievance about rehashing topics covered fully a couple years ago by quinion et al., when there were members who knew about his site. And there were a few members unwilling to share their knowledge about such sites.

>And there were a few members unwilling to share their knowledge about such sites.

as one who originally posted a *long list of other sites, and maintains one on my site, I can only say *bullshit* (to coin a farce).

as for Quinion, he was first mentioned here by some oldtimer (ycliu) back in April of 2000 (there ain't much more back than that), any many times thereafter.

there are a great many things wrong in this world, and on this board; but this (in my opinion) isn't one of them.

Dear tsuwm: if you knew about Quinion in April 2000. why did you not use that knowledge to cut short some of the ridiculously protracted threads?

why?
1. michael's site is humungous. I wish I had the time to take it all in.
2. I am presumptuous at times, but so far not that.

of the 19 posts in this thread, 12 are by our pooh-bahs and carpals. Your revered sirs and ladies might not fully appreciate the level of ignorance of we poor peons, and our lack of what may be (for you) routine information.

>Your revered sirs and ladies might not fully appreciate the level of ignorance of we poor peons, and our lack of what may be (for you) routine information.

that's why the FAQ(s) were created; if something is lacking therein, it's now up to you poor peons to let Max or Jo know.

Dear Keiva: I remember all too painfully how little help there was for beginners when I joined. And I have had very little luck with FAQs in general, because my questions just ain't in them. One exception, I had to update my atom time computer clock program (www.atomtime.com its free and lovely) My computer clock is far from accurate, and I reset it at least once a week. I downloaded the update, but it just would not install the shortcut icon needed to use it. TADAHH! A FAQ told me how to do it.

All you have to do to find the biggest and best sites is to type "word sites" into Google and let 'er rip. Nearly all the biggies come up. Including "A Word A Day" And probably tsuwm's wwftd site, too, although I didn't look that far. Sorry, Joe ...

and for a slightly different cross-section, google 'word-of-the-day'

Dear Max: what I was saying was that if I had known about Quinion's site in 2000, using its search index, I could have found answer to "Full Monty" and over a dozen like it, and obviated a lot of poor guesses. including some of mine which I now regret.

bill, you seem to be under the misaprehension that I, since I was familiar with quinion, could have saved you some embarassment... and since I didn't, I was therefore setting you up for same. is this the correct reading of your disquiet?

let me try to explain how I react to word speculations (and this is different than when I first started posting to this board). I am fortunate to have a very fine history of the English language at my (online) disposal, and the temptation is *great to jump right in at the first opportunity to "set the record straight". but that will often stifle *any further discussion, so I don't do that too often these days. (I'm not always able to stifle myself in that regard.)

but when I don't have an answer immediately to hand on some wordy issue, I usually look in some other fine references that I have at hand in hard copy. my final resort is to 'google' -- and I say final because of all the garbage out here on the 'net. as it happens, all of the several* references I have made to quinion came about as the result of googles. when quinion happens to show up via google, I'll reference that readily because I have (through my own experience) learned to value Michael's research. but I don't make a practice of going to his site to see if I can find specific words or phrases. it's just not the way I do research. (and his lists aren't extensive enough to make that very rewarding.)

my final comment on the subject is that I never... never... ever have made a practice of hiding my resources. many have asked me where I find words for my subscription list and I have a list that I maintain and provide in answer. I may have even posted that list here at one time -- I can't remember because of all the times I've answered that question.

I don't mean to belabor the point, but I hope this exegesis helps you feel better about my methods.

-tsuwm

*ycliu

Thanks tsuwm, I think that your answer is very reasonable. I think that you are a very helpful board member, able to help us out when we need it without "taking over". I'm sure that you have to exercise self restraint at times when an answer is so obvious to you, yet people are clearly enjoying the journey to the answer. Respect

In the early days we did discusss the idea that people shouldn't jump on a question and come up with the answer straight away because it was taking the fun out of it. Some of us enjoy a challenge and the strange and incorrect answers we come up with along the way are part of the fun, rather than a cause of embarrassment. Given that the time zone range is so great it didn't seem fair to have a question answered before some people even got to see it. I think we have a pretty good balance on that now, correct me, if am wrong

Now that there are so many on-line resources (I particularly like onelook.com for the choice of dictionaries it has at its disposal), we could all look things up for ourselves and never need to ask a question. What is interesting, to me, here is the range of perspectives on offer. If someone researches something and posts a link it adds value to the link because the person who posts it is saying that they believe it to be correct. I often half remember things and find that it is easy to uncover an answer because I have a vague idea what I am looking for. I find this particularly helpful when we are dealing with cross cultural issues as it is hard to read between the lines of websites without the helpful eye of a native or exprect pointing us in the right direction.

I must agree with the last few posts above mine...if we all just answered each others' questions dryly, with no local colour, wit, tangents, or speculation, I wouldn't have gotten hooked on the Board. It's the social interaction with people who share a common interest of mine that I crave. You know, the process is as important as the end result, and all that. The common interest in words alone wouldn't be enough to keep me coming back! I can get that from much more boring sources than you guys...

Hmmm. I am surprised and disappointed to learn that there are more boring sources out there than I. I thought that I had at least that attribute mastered.

>more boring sources out there than I

I did say some time ago that when I see "normal" people's eyes glaze over, I have to come back to my "addict" friends.

I must agree with the last few posts above mine...if we all just answered each others' questions dryly, with no local colour, wit, tangents, or speculation, I wouldn't have gotten hooked on the Board.

Ab-so-pos-i-tiv-ly right on Bean!

A good read, of whatever kind of book, is like a good walk, pleasant, relaxing, sometimes informative, a brain-clearer!

But here you can FLY !

Hmmm. I am surprised and disappointed to learn that there are more boring sources out there than I. I thought that I had at least that attribute mastered.

Sparteye, if'n y'all weren't so far away, I'd clobber you! Boring? You haven't even turned into the street. We need to be hearing more from you, too ...

Agreed, CK--esp. that part about hearing more from her. But I knew she was kiddin' about that boring part.

I too wish to see more Sparteye posts.

You all are too kind. I am shamefully behind in the AWAD posts, as well as all other aspects of my life. At the moment, I am taking a few minutes' break from working today, a Saturday, and I expect to be spending much of the rest of the weekend on a priority case. I am without support staff now, and don't expect any replacement; in fact, it looks like layoffs are on the horizon.

I must keep DA's advice close:
[deep breath]
Don't panic!
[/deep breath]

>I am still mildly bullshit...

Bullish?

stales

There's very little justice in the world, m'dear, and it sounds like there might be just that much less of it in Michigan soon ...