For Chung and Asher

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.

Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).

That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
I thought it was the other way around.

It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
be out there road-raging on Brad right now.

Fredmaster Ben

[Simply Fred]

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.

Don't worry, according to Sarah Palin the earth is 6000 years old ergo
the Universe could not have been expanding for 14 billion years so they
must be wrong.

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 08:10, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>


Don't sweat it, you just have to come up with modified GR that allows neutrinos
to travel in excess of c and you'll be a shoo-in for next year's physics prize.
How hard can it be? :)
--

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

atriage a écrit profondement:

| On 05/10/2011 08:10, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
| > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
| >
>
>
| Don't sweat it, you just have to come up with modified GR that allows
| neutrinos to travel in excess of c and you'll be a shoo-in for next
| year's physics prize. How hard can it be? :)

I read an article very recently about someone already having done that

Only a tad faster than C and not yet verified.

http://news.discovery.com/space/faster-speed-of-light-110922.html

But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
very shaky - I have a video (or had) of a mathematical geezer explaining
it. (I'll try and dig it out later if/as/when I remember the name)

Now if someone could prove that an AU isn't around 150*10^6 (roughly)
what a topsy turvey universe would live in.

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[Brad Anders]

On Oct 5, 12:10*am, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.
>
> Fredmaster Ben

Don't bitch, at least you've got a scientific career at that level.
Me, just a lowly engineer. I've got two friends who are likely Nobel
winners (medicine and physics), they took a different path than guys
like me.

I'll be looking for your new truck.

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 5, 3:10*am, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.

It's never too early to start lying about your age. Or income. Or
what your bike cost. Or that you are a Rockefeller.

I met a guy 25 years ago who was banging a stripper that was a
roommate of the stripper I was banging, and that guy lied that he had
cancer to get pussy. It worked - go figure.

R

[Simply Fred]

Davey Crockett wrote:
> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
> very shaky

Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental verification.

[Simply Fred]

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>>
>> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
>> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
>> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>>
>> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
>> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>> I thought it was the other way around.
>>
>> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
>> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.

Brad Anders wrote:
> I'll be looking for your new truck.

If he's got a new truck it means poor old SOTS had to pony up another
grant. Oh well at least its not a (Chinese) Hummer.

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

Simply Fred a écrit profondement:

| Davey Crockett wrote:
| > But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
| > very shaky
>
| Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental verification.

http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html

Save the file and play it

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 19:20, Davey Crockett wrote:
> Simply Fred a écrit profondement:
>
> | Davey Crockett wrote:
> |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
> |> very shaky
>>
> | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental verification.
>
> http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
>
> Save the file and play it
>
I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was corrupt.

--

[Frederick the Great]

In article
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.

I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.

> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.

--
Old Fritz

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 19:54, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Fredmaster of > wrote:
>
>> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>>
>> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
>> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
>> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>>
>> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
>> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>
> I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.
>
Why? Some of the people what I knows who are brilliant at maths are ****ing
hopeless at English.

--

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 5, 2:54*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.

I find that hard to believe. :)~

> > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).

I know they give out peace prizes, and chemistry prizes and the like,
but this ****ing prize intrigues me. Tell me more.

> > That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> > to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>
> I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.

Wait a minute - I thought the Nobel prizes were elected awards. You
mean I can nominate myself? Hmmm....winning a Nobel ****ing Prize
would probably help with the ladies. I'll have to investigate this
some more.

R

[Simply Fred]

Davey Crockett wrote:
>> |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
>> |> very shaky

Simply Fred wrote:
>> | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental
>> verification.

Davey Crockett wrote:
>> http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
>> Save the file and play it

atriage wrote:
> I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was
> corrupt.

Worked fine with mplayer (MPEG-4 video mp3 audio). Just a rehash of the
Susskind-Hawking battle. Most things are shaky in a singularity.

[Simply Fred]

RicodJour wrote:
> I know they give out peace prizes, and chemistry prizes and the like,
> but this ****ing prize intrigues me. Tell me more.

<http://www.salon.com/topic/good_sex_awards//>

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

atriage a écrit profondement:

| On 05/10/2011 19:20, Davey Crockett wrote:
| > Simply Fred a écrit profondement:
| >
| > | Davey Crockett wrote:
| > |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
| > |> very shaky
| >>
| > | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental verification.
| >
| > http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
| >
| > Save the file and play it
| >
| I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was corrupt.

Davey tested the download and ran it on VLC, Xine, Gmplayer and Dragon
before posting

It worked perfectly on all four players.

Sorry it didn't work for you as it was an interesting clip.

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

Simply Fred a écrit profondement:

| RicodJour wrote:
| > I know they give out peace prizes, and chemistry prizes and the like,
| > but this ****ing prize intrigues me. Tell me more.
>
| <http://www.salon.com/topic/good_sex_awards//>

http://usera.ImageCave.com/daveycrockett/lanegaabj.jpg

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 20:39, Simply Fred wrote:
> Davey Crockett wrote:
>>> |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
>>> |> very shaky
>
> Simply Fred wrote:
>>> | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental
>>> verification.
>
> Davey Crockett wrote:
>>> http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
>>> Save the file and play it
>
> atriage wrote:
>> I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was
>> corrupt.
>
> Worked fine with mplayer (MPEG-4 video mp3 audio).

Downloading it now.

> Just a rehash of the
> Susskind-Hawking battle.

Uh black hole wars, can't say a big fan of Susskind, clever guy no doubt but I
always get the feeling that his mind is a bit closed to the more radical
theories.[Of how life the universe and everything came to be]


Most things are shaky in a singularity.

Unless torsion actually prevents such a thing from existing.

--

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 21:32, atriage wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 20:39, Simply Fred wrote:
>> Davey Crockett wrote:
>>>> |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
>>>> |> very shaky
>>
>> Simply Fred wrote:
>>>> | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental
>>>> verification.
>>
>> Davey Crockett wrote:
>>>> http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
>>>> Save the file and play it
>>
>> atriage wrote:
>>> I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was
>>> corrupt.
>>
>> Worked fine with mplayer (MPEG-4 video mp3 audio).
>
> Downloading it now.
>

Yes it works fine in that, it didn't in offerings from M$, Creative, Real and Apple.


--

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

Simply Fred a écrit profondement:

| Davey Crockett wrote:
| >> |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
| >> |> very shaky
>
| Simply Fred wrote:
| >> | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental
| >> verification.
>
| Davey Crockett wrote:
| >> http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
| >> Save the file and play it
>
| atriage wrote:
| > I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was
| > corrupt.
>
| Worked fine with mplayer (MPEG-4 video mp3 audio). Just a rehash of
| the Susskind-Hawking battle. Most things are shaky in a singularity.

Davey prefers Penrose to Hawking though

Some good stuff on/by Penrose here
http://www.cosmolearning.com/astronomy/courses/

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 21:53, Davey Crockett wrote:
> Simply Fred a écrit profondement:
>
> | Davey Crockett wrote:
> |>> |> But of course you knew already that einstein's theory was, let's say
> |>> |> very shaky
>>
> | Simply Fred wrote:
> |>> | Apart from having withstood almost a 100 years of experimental
> |>> verification.
>>
> | Davey Crockett wrote:
> |>> http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/blackholes.html
> |>> Save the file and play it
>>
> | atriage wrote:
> |> I tried to play that with 4 different players and they all said it was
> |> corrupt.
>>
> | Worked fine with mplayer (MPEG-4 video mp3 audio). Just a rehash of
> | the Susskind-Hawking battle. Most things are shaky in a singularity.
>
> Davey prefers Penrose to Hawking though
>

Yeah I do to although I find his books pretty heavy going.
--

[Robert Chung[_4_]]

On Oct 5, 12:10*am, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.
>
> Fredmaster Ben

My condolences. Been there, done that. I'm so envious of Perlmutter's
parking space -- when Czeslaw Milosz won, the chancellor asked him
what they could do for him and Milosz pulled a parking ticket out of
his pocket, asked if he could fix it, and since then the best part of
a Nobel is that you get your own parking space on campus.

I notice that you didn't win a MacArthur this year, either.

[atriage[_6_]]

On 05/10/2011 22:35, Robert Chung wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:10 am, Fredmaster of > wrote:
>> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>>
>> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
>> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
>> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>>
>> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
>> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>> I thought it was the other way around.
>>
>> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
>> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.
>>
>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> My condolences. Been there, done that. I'm so envious of Perlmutter's
> parking space -- when Czeslaw Milosz won, the chancellor asked him
> what they could do for him and Milosz pulled a parking ticket out of
> his pocket, asked if he could fix it, and since then the best part of
> a Nobel is that you get your own parking space on campus.
>
> I notice that you didn't win a MacArthur this year, either.

Poor guy, he's a multiple luser.

--

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Brad Anders" > wrote in message
...
On Oct 5, 12:10 am, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
=========
Don't bitch, at least you've got a scientific career at that level.
Me, just a lowly engineer. I've got two friends who are likely Nobel
winners (medicine and physics), they took a different path than guys
like me.

I'll be looking for your new truck.
=========

My ex-GF's (goes way way way back... like more than the 32 years I've
been married anyway) brother won the Nobel Prize two years ago. Pretty
amazing.

Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[William Fred]

Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote in news:7a55c625-0471-
:

> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> I thought it was the other way around.
>
> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.

If you can find someone else to blame for your failure to achieve
greatness, it will make you feel better.

--
Bill "great advice for the cynical" Asher

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Oct 5, 2:35*pm, Robert Chung > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:10*am, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> > That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> > to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> > I thought it was the other way around.
>
> > It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
> > be out there road-raging on Brad right now.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> My condolences. Been there, done that. I'm so envious of Perlmutter's
> parking space -- when Czeslaw Milosz won, the chancellor asked him
> what they could do for him and Milosz pulled a parking ticket out of
> his pocket, asked if he could fix it, and since then the best part of
> a Nobel is that you get your own parking space on campus.
>
> I notice that you didn't win a MacArthur this year, either.

Perlmutter works at LBL, he doesn't need a parking spot.
I wonder if he gets one anyway. Maybe they'll give him one
to keep Harvard or Stanford from hiring him away?
Anyway, Perlmutter is the competition.

I knew the story about Nobelists and parking spaces but
not that it was due to Milosz.

They kicked the entire astronomy department out of their
building this year (Campbell, known for years to be seismically
unsound) and they're all in some temporary building near
the practice fields. Berkeley should be grateful that when
Perlmutter gets interviewed it will be in a swank LBL office
and not in some cubicle in this temporary warehouse, that
would embarrass the university, if a university could be
embarrassed.

Fredmaster Ben

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Oct 5, 12:17*pm, RicodJour > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:54*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
>
> > Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> I find that hard to believe. *:)~
>
> > > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> I know they give out peace prizes, and chemistry prizes and the like,
> but this ****ing prize intrigues me. *Tell me more.

Just about everyone I know has emailed around this
Fox article, it was even shown at a conference I was
attending:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/04/trio-americans-share-2011-nobel-peace-prize-in-physics/

The headline originally said "Three Americans Share
2011 Nobel Peace Prize in Physics." Fox corrected
the headline after a day or so, but you can see from the
URL that it did say "Nobel Peace Prize in Physics."
Which is especially ironic when you know that the two
competing teams sharing this award are bitter rivals.

Fredmaster Ben

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Oct 5, 11:54*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> > That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> > to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>
> I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.

http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/waitwhat.jpg

Are you suggesting that I should have said
"I'm two years older than he [is]" ?

Because I think you're only right if I say "than he is."
Saying "I'm two years older than he." is either wrong
or at best tin-eared. Unfortunately I'm traveling and
don't have my copy of Fowler's around for moral support.

If you want to copy-edit my professional writing,
and that of prominent Nobelists,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
type lastname, first initial into the authors box.

Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben

[Frederick the Great]

In article >,
atriage > wrote:

> On 05/10/2011 19:54, Frederick the Great wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Fredmaster of > wrote:
> >
> >> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
> >>
> >> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> >> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> >> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
> >>
> >> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
> >> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> >
> > I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.
> >
> Why? Some of the people what I knows who are brilliant at maths are ****ing
> hopeless at English.

A Finnish poster at sci.math can out-write you or me in English prose.
Now you name somebody brilliant at maths that is ****ing
hopeless at English.

--
Old Fritz

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> On Oct 5, 12:17Â*pm, RicodJour > wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2:54Â*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> >
> > > Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > > > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
> >
> > I find that hard to believe. Â*:)~
> >
> > > > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > > > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > > > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
> >
> > I know they give out peace prizes, and chemistry prizes and the like,
> > but this ****ing prize intrigues me. Â*Tell me more.
>
> Just about everyone I know has emailed around this
> Fox article, it was even shown at a conference I was
> attending:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/04/trio-americans-share-2011-nobel-peace-prize-in-physics/

Gratuitous Robert Frost reference.

--
Michael Press

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 10:29, Frederick the Great wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 05/10/2011 19:54, Frederick the Great wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Fredmaster of > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>>>>
>>>> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
>>>> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
>>>> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>>>>
>>>> That's not the bad part. The bad part is that according
>>>> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>>>
>>> I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.
>>>
>> Why? Some of the people what I knows who are brilliant at maths are ****ing
>> hopeless at English.
>
> A Finnish poster at sci.math can out-write you or me in English prose.

I dare say, my point was that just because someone is good at math doesn't
necessarily mean they will be particularly literate. Of course you knew that
didn't you?

> Now you name somebody brilliant at maths that is ****ing
> hopeless at English.

I work in the petro-chem design industry, I've met or had communication with any
number of guys that do advanced math all day but can barely put a coherent email
or letter together. Since you don't know any of them what's the point in me
naming them? As an item of interest the new GB government is actually taking
steps to address this. Applicants for science degree courses will in future face
more stringent English tests.


--

[Frederick the Great]

In article
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> On Oct 5, 11:54Â*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Â*Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >[i]
> > > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
> >
> > > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
> >
> > > That's not the bad part. Â*The bad part is that according
> > > to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> >
> > I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.
>
> http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/waitwhat.jpg
>
> Are you suggesting that I should have said
> "I'm two years older than he " ?
>
> Because I think you're only right if I say "than he is."

And I think otherwise.

But consider---what is the "him" the object of?

You treat her worse than I.
You treat her worse than me.

> Saying "I'm two years older than he." is either wrong
> or at best tin-eared.

It may be tin-eared to some. It is not so to others.
If it is tin eared to you, then recast the sentence
or write "... than he is." But then you think what
you wrote is impeccable.

> Unfortunately I'm traveling and
> don't have my copy of Fowler's around for moral support.

You may find the article on "than" useful.
I am looking at the second edition.

> If you want to copy-edit my professional writing,
> and that of prominent Nobelists,
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
> type lastname, first initial into the authors box.

Since you think I am incorrect, why would you foist
me on others?

--
Old Fritz

[Fred on a stick]

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

> Perlmutter works at LBL, he doesn't need a parking spot.
> I wonder if he gets one anyway. Maybe they'll give him one
> to keep Harvard or Stanford from hiring him away?

From the campus news: "Inevitably, a reporter wondered when Perlmutter would
get his Nobelist's parking permit, one of the international prize's notable
campus perks. "I was assuming today," Perlmutter replied, adding that "the
only reason to win a Nobel Prize is so that you can park on campus."
In answer to the reporter's question, the Chancellor leaped up and presented
Perlmutter with an NL (Nobel Laureate) parking permit."

The Nobelists used to get their own named individual parking spots. Now they
get a special NL permit and can park in one of two special places. Most of
the spots are right in front of Campbell Hall. On Wednesdays I teach in
Evans, right across from Campbell, so yesterday I made a special detour in
honor of you to check out the NL cars. One old dinged-up Toyota, one
nice-looking Toyota, one spiffy Mercedes.

> I knew the story about Nobelists and parking spaces but
> not that it was due to Milosz.
>
> They kicked the entire astronomy department out of their
> building this year (Campbell, known for years to be seismically
> unsound) and they're all in some temporary building near
> the practice fields. Berkeley should be grateful that when
> Perlmutter gets interviewed it will be in a swank LBL office
> and not in some cubicle in this temporary warehouse, that
> would embarrass the university, if a university could be
> embarrassed.

I'm trying my best, but it's hard to top what the Regents have been doing.
They had a head start.

[William R. Mattil]

On 10/5/2011 11:47 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>
> Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
> next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
> national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?
>


Now if this was a Tuesday LAFF would be all over this ........



Bill


--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 05:47, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
> next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
> national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?
>

Are you gonna wear your 'Lance never doped' T-Shirt? :)

--

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 11:35*am, atriage > wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 05:47, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
> > next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
> > national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?
>
> Are you gonna wear your 'Lance never doped' T-Shirt? *:)

He said window dressing, not commentary. He'll be wearing the
official Chain Reaction RBR Masters Fattie pro kit, replete with
matching socks, gloves and arm and leg warmers. Mike, don't forget to
sip out of the logo water bottle whenever there's a camera on you.

R

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 16:47, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:35 am, > wrote:
>> On 06/10/2011 05:47, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>> Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
>>> next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
>>> national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?
>>
>> Are you gonna wear your 'Lance never doped' T-Shirt? :)
>
> He said window dressing, not commentary. He'll be wearing the
> official Chain Reaction RBR Masters Fattie pro kit, replete with
> matching socks, gloves and arm and leg warmers.

And very splendid he'll look too I'm sure.

--

[Jim Feeley]

Robert Chung > wrote:

> On Oct 5, 12:10*am, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>> Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>>
>> Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
>> a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
>> ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>>
>> That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
>> to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>> I thought it was the other way around.
>>
>> It's a good thing I don't own a pickup truck or I'd
>> be out there road-raging on Brad right now.
>>
>> Fredmaster Ben
>
> My condolences. Been there, done that. I'm so envious of Perlmutter's
> parking space -- when Czeslaw Milosz won, the chancellor asked him
> what they could do for him and Milosz pulled a parking ticket out of
> his pocket, asked if he could fix it, and since then the best part of
> a Nobel is that you get your own parking space on campus.
>
> I notice that you didn't win a MacArthur this year, either.

Always a good idea to make sure the Nobel and MacArthur people have your correct
phone number:




Jim
--
Jim
Jim Feeley
POV Media

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 12:30*pm, atriage > wrote:
> On 06/10/2011 16:47, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:35 am, > *wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2011 05:47, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >>> Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
> >>> next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
> >>> national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?
>
> >> Are you gonna wear your 'Lance never doped' T-Shirt? *:)
>
> > He said window dressing, not commentary. *He'll be wearing the
> > official Chain Reaction RBR Masters Fattie pro kit, replete with
> > matching socks, gloves and arm and leg warmers.
>
> And very splendid he'll look too I'm sure.

I wonder if he'll throw handfuls of gel packets in the air and watch
the meeting break up as people go scrambling for them.

R

[A. Dumas[_2_]]

On 05/10/2011 23:00, atriage wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 21:53, Davey Crockett wrote:
>> Davey prefers Penrose to Hawking though
>
> Yeah I do to although I find his books pretty heavy going.

What with all the ceramic tiling.

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Oct 6, 3:00*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> *Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 11:54*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:[i]
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > > > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
>
> > > > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > > > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > > > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
>
> > > > That's not the bad part. *The bad part is that according
> > > > to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
>
> > > I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.
>
> >http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/waitwhat.jpg
>
> > Are you suggesting that I should have said
> > "I'm two years older than he " ?
>
> > Because I think you're only right if I say "than he is."
>
> And I think otherwise.
>
> But consider---what is the "him" the object of?
>
> You treat her worse than I.
> You treat her worse than me.
>
> > Saying "I'm two years older than he." is either wrong
> > or at best tin-eared. *
>
> It may be tin-eared to some. It is not so to others.
> If it is tin eared to you, then recast the sentence
> or write "... than he is." But then you think what
> you wrote is impeccable.

Impeccable no, but correct usage. We are talking about
a pronoun that is the object of a sentence (or an
independent clause).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_pronoun

In English, both "he" and "him" may be used in this place,
and I think that "him" sounds better - it's less fussy.

In the wikipedia article the relevant example is:

Standard: They like you more than she. (They like you more than she
[likes you].)
Standard: They like you more than her. (They like you more than [they
like] her.)

> > Unfortunately I'm traveling and
> > don't have my copy of Fowler's around for moral support.
>
> You may find the article on "than" useful.
> I am looking at the second edition.

I'll look at it when I get home (I have the third edition).
I also wonder if this is one of those things where
preference differs between British and American usage.

> > If you want to copy-edit my professional writing,
> > and that of prominent Nobelists,
> > *http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
> > type lastname, first initial into the authors box.
>
> Since you think I am incorrect, why would you foist
> me on others?

I was offering you the opportunity to foist yourself.
I write reasonably well, but am not perfect, make mistakes,
and have undoubtedly published mistakes, which I
could learn from.

However, this is not one of them.

Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 3:48*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> I also wonder if this is one of those things where
> preference differs between British and American usage.

It doesn't matter. English is a stupid language. Cobbled together by
slope-browed troglodytes and the British. The best thing I can say
about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.

Now, Italian - there's a nice language. Phonetic, dulcet and
everything rhymes.

Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. Read up on
dyslexia in different languages. Italian is such a rational language
that any seven year old can spell any word you can pronounce
correctly, and the dyslexia rate is less than half that of English or
French.

R

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 19:24, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:30 pm, > wrote:
>> On 06/10/2011 16:47, RicodJour wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 11:35 am, > wrote:
>>>> On 06/10/2011 05:47, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>>> Me? I'm probably window dressing in front of a Congressional committee
>>>>> next Wednesday. Slightest of slight chances that I'll testify. For the
>>>>> national sales tax initiative. Pretty exciting, huh?
>>
>>>> Are you gonna wear your 'Lance never doped' T-Shirt? :)
>>
>>> He said window dressing, not commentary. He'll be wearing the
>>> official Chain Reaction RBR Masters Fattie pro kit, replete with
>>> matching socks, gloves and arm and leg warmers.
>>
>> And very splendid he'll look too I'm sure.
>
> I wonder if he'll throw handfuls of gel packets in the air and watch
> the meeting break up as people go scrambling for them.
>

Given the target audience he'd probably have more luck with Kit Kats. :0)


--

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 21:27, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 6, 3:48 pm, Fredmaster of > wrote:
>>
>> I also wonder if this is one of those things where
>> preference differs between British and American usage.
>
> It doesn't matter. English is a stupid language. Cobbled together by
> slope-browed troglodytes and the British. The best thing I can say
> about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.
>
> Now, Italian - there's a nice language. Phonetic, dulcet and
> everything rhymes.
>
> Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. Read up on
> dyslexia in different languages. Italian is such a rational language
> that any seven year old can spell any word you can pronounce
> correctly, and the dyslexia rate is less than half that of English or
> French.
>

I like French too although English's redeeming feature is *the* for everything.
At the other extreme is German with der, die, das, den, dem etc and extremely
weird grammar.

--

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

RicodJour a écrit profondement:

| It doesn't matter. English is a stupid language. Cobbled together by
| slope-browed troglodytes and the British. The best thing I can say
| about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.
>
| Now, Italian - there's a nice language. Phonetic, dulcet and
| everything rhymes.
>
| Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. Read up on
| dyslexia in different languages. Italian is such a rational language
| that any seven year old can spell any word you can pronounce
| correctly, and the dyslexia rate is less than half that of English or
| French.
>

Hey, did you hear about those new Italian MTB tyres?

DAGO through water
DAGO through sand
DAGO through mud
and when DAGO flat, DAGO WOP, WOP, WOP

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 22:35, Davey Crockett wrote:
> RicodJour a écrit profondement:
>
> | It doesn't matter. English is a stupid language. Cobbled together by
> | slope-browed troglodytes and the British. The best thing I can say
> | about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.
>>
> | Now, Italian - there's a nice language. Phonetic, dulcet and
> | everything rhymes.
>>
> | Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. Read up on
> | dyslexia in different languages. Italian is such a rational language
> | that any seven year old can spell any word you can pronounce
> | correctly, and the dyslexia rate is less than half that of English or
> | French.
>>
>
> Hey, did you hear about those new Italian MTB tyres?
>
> DAGO through water
> DAGO through sand
> DAGO through mud
> and when DAGO flat, DAGO WOP, WOP, WOP
>
Like the one about the typical English Tarts on holiday in Rimini...they never
let a Dago by.

--

[Davey Crockett[_5_]]

atriage a écrit profondement:

| > Hey, did you hear about those new Italian MTB tyres?
| >
| > DAGO through water
| > DAGO through sand
| > DAGO through mud
| > and when DAGO flat, DAGO WOP, WOP, WOP
| >
| Like the one about the typical English Tarts on holiday in
| Rimini...they never let a Dago by.

:)

--
Davey Crockett
Flying the Flag of the English
The Flag of Hengest and Horsa
http://usera.imagecave.com/daveycrockett/englishdragon.jpg

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 5:38*pm, atriage > wrote:
>
> Like the one about the typical English Tarts on holiday in Rimini...they never
> let a Dago by.

Interesting thing about the derivation of that word. It's a
corruption of the name Diego - a Spanish name.

It's like insulting a Chinese person by calling them Ivan. You
know...stupid. ;)

Rimini is a nice town, though.

R

[atriage[_6_]]

On 06/10/2011 23:05, RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 6, 5:38 pm, > wrote:
>>
>> Like the one about the typical English Tarts on holiday in Rimini...they never
>> let a Dago by.
>
> Interesting thing about the derivation of that word. It's a
> corruption of the name Diego - a Spanish name.
>
> It's like insulting a Chinese person by calling them Ivan. You
> know...stupid. ;)
>
> Rimini is a nice town, though.
>

Been there a few times, mainly for the car ferry to/from Greece. Towns varying
from nice to jaw-droppingly beautiful are a dime a dozen in Italy.
--

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> On Oct 6, 3:00Â*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > Â*Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 5, 11:54Â*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > Â*Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Today is the lowest point of my scientific career.
> >
> > > > > Someone I collaborate with - more accurately, I am
> > > > > a minor collaborator of his, and data-flunky - got the
> > > > > ****ing Nobel Prize (not for anything I did, trust me).
> >
> > > > > That's not the bad part. Â*The bad part is that according
> > > > > to the Times article, I'm two years older than him.
> >
> > > > I'll bet he knows when to use the nominative case.
> >
> > >http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/waitwhat.jpg
> >
> > > Are you suggesting that I should have said
> > > "I'm two years older than he [is]" ?
> >
> > > Because I think you're only right if I say "than he is."
> >
> > And I think otherwise.
> >
> > But consider---what is the "him" the object of?

You did not answer this. Somehow you think the subject
of the sentence is acting on the Nobel Laureate.

> > You treat her worse than I.
> > You treat her worse than me.
> >
> > > Saying "I'm two years older than he." is either wrong
> > > or at best tin-eared. Â*
> >
> > It may be tin-eared to some. It is not so to others.
> > If it is tin eared to you, then recast the sentence
> > or write "... than he is." But then you think what
> > you wrote is impeccable.
>
> Impeccable no, but correct usage. We are talking about
> a pronoun that is the object of a sentence (or an
> independent clause).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_pronoun
>
> In English, both "he" and "him" may be used in this place,
> and I think that "him" sounds better - it's less fussy.

No. In your sentence `than' is a subordinating conjunction,
not a preposition, and only the subjective pronoun is correct.

> In the wikipedia article the relevant example is:
>
> Standard: They like you more than she. (They like you more than she
> [likes you].)
> Standard: They like you more than her. (They like you more than [they
> like] her.)

Yes, I put that kind of sentence pairing up there a bit.

> > > Unfortunately I'm traveling and
> > > don't have my copy of Fowler's around for moral support.
> >
> > You may find the article on "than" useful.
> > I am looking at the second edition.
>
> I'll look at it when I get home (I have the third edition).
> I also wonder if this is one of those things where
> preference differs between British and American usage.

We all recognize a clear distinction between
subjective and objective pronouns, and that
in any place exactly one is correct. By we
I mean most British and Americans.
You say both `him' and `he' is correct,
contradicting all experts.

> > > If you want to copy-edit my professional writing,
> > > and that of prominent Nobelists,
> > > Â*http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
> > > type lastname, first initial into the authors box.
> >
> > Since you think I am incorrect, why would you foist
> > me on others?
>
> I was offering you the opportunity to foist yourself.
> I write reasonably well, but am not perfect, make mistakes,
> and have undoubtedly published mistakes, which I
> could learn from.
>
> However, this is not one of them.

It is but you have plenty of company.

«But the prepositional use of `than' is now so common
colloquially (He is older than me; they travelled much
faster than us) that the bare subjective pronoun in
such a position strikes the reader as pedantic, and it
is better either to give it a more natural appearance
by supplying it with a verb or to dodge the difficulty
by not using an inflective pronoun at all.»

--
Michael Press

[Frederick the Great]

In article
>,
RicodJour > wrote:

> On Oct 6, 3:48Â*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > I also wonder if this is one of those things where
> > preference differs between British and American usage.
>
> It doesn't matter. English is a stupid language. Cobbled together by
> slope-browed troglodytes and the British. The best thing I can say
> about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.
>
> Now, Italian - there's a nice language. Phonetic, dulcet and
> everything rhymes.
>
> Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. Read up on
> dyslexia in different languages. Italian is such a rational language

Rationality is overrated.
How often does a rational argument prevail?

> that any seven year old can spell any word you can pronounce
> correctly, and the dyslexia rate is less than half that of English or
> French.

--
Old Fritz

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 6, 7:11*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> *RicodJour > wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 3:48*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > > I also wonder if this is one of those things where
> > > preference differs between British and American usage.
>
> > It doesn't matter. *English is a stupid language. *Cobbled together by
> > slope-browed troglodytes and the British. *The best thing I can say
> > about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.
>
> > Now, Italian - there's a nice language. *Phonetic, dulcet and
> > everything rhymes.
>
> > Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. *Read up on
> > dyslexia in different languages. *Italian is such a rational language
>
> Rationality is overrated.
> How often does a rational argument prevail?

Ever argue with an Italian? Did you win?

R

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On Oct 6, 3:58*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > In English, both "he" and "him" may be used in this place,
> > and I think that "him" sounds better - it's less fussy.
>
> No. In your sentence `than' is a subordinating conjunction,
> not a preposition, and only the subjective pronoun is correct.
>
> > In the wikipedia article the relevant example is:
>
> > Standard: They like you more than she. (They like you more than she
> > [likes you].)
> > Standard: They like you more than her. (They like you more than [they
> > like] her.)
>
> Yes, I put that kind of sentence pairing up there a bit.

I didn't read this example carefully enough. It does
undermine my argument.

It's rather odd though since "They like you more than
she." [full stop] is a poor sentence, likely to be misinterpreted
as having the "They like you more than [they like] her"
meaning. Many people would write it "They like you more
than she does", which is relatively unambiguous.

On the other hand "I am older than he" and "I am older
than him" don't have the same duality of meaning
because of the intransitive verb.

So perhaps I and others are used to using the objective
pronoun because using the nominative by itself, as in
"than she," has a tendency to lead to ambiguity and
is avoided?

We really need a Dutch person's opinion on this.

Fredmaster Ben

> > > > Unfortunately I'm traveling and
> > > > don't have my copy of Fowler's around for moral support.
>
> > > You may find the article on "than" useful.
> > > I am looking at the second edition.
>
> > I'll look at it when I get home (I have the third edition).
> > I also wonder if this is one of those things where
> > preference differs between British and American usage.
>
> We all recognize a clear distinction between
> subjective and objective pronouns, and that
> in any place exactly one is correct. By we
> I mean most British and Americans.
> You say both `him' and `he' is correct,
> contradicting all experts.
>
> > > > If you want to copy-edit my professional writing,
> > > > and that of prominent Nobelists,
> > > > *http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
> > > > type lastname, first initial into the authors box.
>
> > > Since you think I am incorrect, why would you foist
> > > me on others?
>
> > I was offering you the opportunity to foist yourself.
> > I write reasonably well, but am not perfect, make mistakes,
> > and have undoubtedly published mistakes, which I
> > could learn from.
>
> > However, this is not one of them.
>
> It is but you have plenty of company.
>
> «But the prepositional use of `than' is now so common
> colloquially (He is older than me; they travelled much
> faster than us) that the bare subjective pronoun in
> such a position strikes the reader as pedantic, and it
> is better either to give it a more natural appearance
> by supplying it with a verb or to dodge the difficulty
> by not using an inflective pronoun at all.»
>
> --
> Michael Press

[William Fred]

Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote in news:5693d2b2-2a66-
:

>
> We really need a Dutch person's opinion on this.
>

I would have guessed you all need to get lives, but hanging out with a
Hollander is almost the same thing. Almost.

--
Bill Fred

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 7, 10:32*am, William Fred > wrote:
> Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> > We really need a Dutch person's opinion on this.
>
> I would have guessed you all need to get lives, but hanging out with a
> Hollander is almost the same thing. *Almost. *

Yabbut if you're hanging with a gekke nedelander there's going to be
alcohol to make things bearable.

R

[Simply Fred]

atriage wrote:
> Like the one about the typical English Tarts on holiday in Rimini...they
> never let a Dago by.

Do English tarts still get to go on holiday after all the cuts ? Unless
of course they supply quantitative easing to bankers to help them spend
their bonuses.

[atriage[_6_]]

On 07/10/2011 20:47, Simply Fred wrote:
> atriage wrote:
>> Like the one about the typical English Tarts on holiday in Rimini...they
>> never let a Dago by.
>
> Do English tarts still get to go on holiday after all the cuts ? Unless of
> course they supply quantitative easing to bankers to help them spend their bonuses.
>
Yeah, quantitative easing means the parasitic vermin banking scum ...sorry I
mean investment bankers... have even more money and therefore require even more
quantitative easing from the tarts. It's a virtuous circle.

--

[Frederick the Great]

In article
>,
RicodJour > wrote:

> On Oct 6, 7:11Â*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > Â*RicodJour > wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 3:48Â*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > > > I also wonder if this is one of those things where
> > > > preference differs between British and American usage.
> >
> > > It doesn't matter. Â*English is a stupid language. Â*Cobbled together by
> > > slope-browed troglodytes and the British. Â*The best thing I can say
> > > about it is...okay, I'm at a loss.
> >
> > > Now, Italian - there's a nice language. Â*Phonetic, dulcet and
> > > everything rhymes.
> >
> > > Language limits your thoughts and makes people crazy. Â*Read up on
> > > dyslexia in different languages. Â*Italian is such a rational language
> >
> > Rationality is overrated.
> > How often does a rational argument prevail?
>
> Ever argue with an Italian? Did you win?

Once again irrationality prevails.

--
Old Fritz

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:

> On Oct 6, 3:58Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Â*Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > > In English, both "he" and "him" may be used in this place,
> > > and I think that "him" sounds better - it's less fussy.
> >
> > No. In your sentence `than' is a subordinating conjunction,
> > not a preposition, and only the subjective pronoun is correct.
> >
> > > In the wikipedia article the relevant example is:
> >
> > > Standard: They like you more than she. (They like you more than she
> > > [likes you].)
> > > Standard: They like you more than her. (They like you more than [they
> > > like] her.)
> >
> > Yes, I put that kind of sentence pairing up there a bit.
>
> I didn't read this example carefully enough. It does
> undermine my argument.
>
> It's rather odd though since "They like you more than
> she." [full stop] is a poor sentence, likely to be misinterpreted
> as having the "They like you more than [they like] her"
> meaning. Many people would write it "They like you more
> than she does", which is relatively unambiguous.

Only because the incorrect usage is endemic among
casual speakers and writers.

> On the other hand "I am older than he" and "I am older
> than him" don't have the same duality of meaning
> because of the intransitive verb.
>
> So perhaps I and others are used to using the objective
> pronoun because using the nominative by itself, as in
> "than she," has a tendency to lead to ambiguity and
> is avoided?

I do not know. "He" and "him", "I" and "me" are a
sensitive subject for many who react in different ways
such as disdain for learning, puzzlement, or feeling
inferior; but rarely do they remedy their ignorance.

Many grammatical mistakes are made because the sentence
has an ellipsis. Adding in the missing words makes
the correct usage obvious.

Trust me, my original wise crack was meant to be taken
for a joke; and I was surprised to end up arguing English
usage. I am not interested enough in defending the
language to initiate discussions about correct usage.

[...]

> > «But the prepositional use of `than' is now so common
> > colloquially (He is older than me; they travelled much
> > faster than us) that the bare subjective pronoun in
> > such a position strikes the reader as pedantic, and it
> > is better either to give it a more natural appearance
> > by supplying it with a verb or to dodge the difficulty
> > by not using an inflective pronoun at all.»

--
Michael Press

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 7, 6:29*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> *Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
> Only because the incorrect usage is endemic among
> casual speakers and writers.
>
> > On the other hand "I am older than he" and "I am older
> > than him" don't have the same duality of meaning
> > because of the intransitive verb.
>
> > So perhaps I and others are used to using the objective
> > pronoun because using the nominative by itself, as in
> > "than she," has a tendency to lead to ambiguity and
> > is avoided?
>
> I do not know. "He" and "him", "I" and "me" are a
> sensitive subject for many who react in different ways
> such as disdain for learning, puzzlement, or feeling
> inferior; but rarely do they remedy their ignorance.
>
> Many grammatical mistakes are made because the sentence
> has an ellipsis. Adding in the missing words makes
> the correct usage obvious.
>
> Trust me, my original wise crack was meant to be taken
> for a joke; and I was surprised to end up arguing English
> usage. I am not interested enough in defending the
> language to initiate discussions about correct usage.

That's where you and I differ. I have enough interest to point out
how stupid a language is that has grown people arguing minutiae about
correct usage, and I make a point of not using outdated and stupid
constructions to help hasten their demise.

Language wants to evolve - let it. Unless you're one of those
Creationists you won't have a problem with that.

And I have your ellipsis right here... :)~

R

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
RicodJour > wrote:

> On Oct 7, 6:29Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > Â*Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> >
> > Only because the incorrect usage is endemic among
> > casual speakers and writers.
> >
> > > On the other hand "I am older than he" and "I am older
> > > than him" don't have the same duality of meaning
> > > because of the intransitive verb.
> >
> > > So perhaps I and others are used to using the objective
> > > pronoun because using the nominative by itself, as in
> > > "than she," has a tendency to lead to ambiguity and
> > > is avoided?
> >
> > I do not know. "He" and "him", "I" and "me" are a
> > sensitive subject for many who react in different ways
> > such as disdain for learning, puzzlement, or feeling
> > inferior; but rarely do they remedy their ignorance.
> >
> > Many grammatical mistakes are made because the sentence
> > has an ellipsis. Adding in the missing words makes
> > the correct usage obvious.
> >
> > Trust me, my original wise crack was meant to be taken
> > for a joke; and I was surprised to end up arguing English
> > usage. I am not interested enough in defending the
> > language to initiate discussions about correct usage.
>
> That's where you and I differ. I have enough interest to point out
> how stupid a language is that has grown people arguing minutiae about
> correct usage, and I make a point of not using outdated and stupid
> constructions to help hasten their demise.
>
> Language wants to evolve - let it. Unless you're one of those
> Creationists you won't have a problem with that.
>
> And I have your ellipsis right here... :)~

You show too much energy in your reply to be
as disinterested as you would have us believe.

--
Michael Press

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 8, 3:29*am, Michael Press > wrote:
> *RicodJour > wrote:
>
> > That's where you and I differ. *I have enough interest to point out
> > how stupid a language is that has grown people arguing minutiae about
{snip}
> You show too much energy in your reply to be
> as disinterested as you would have us believe.

I don't mean to DIS you but I said I have enough interest.

Correct usage is usually important, but reading comprehension and
understanding are always so. :)~

R

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
RicodJour > wrote:

> On Oct 8, 3:29Â*am, Michael Press > wrote:
> > Â*RicodJour > wrote:
> >
> > > That's where you and I differ. Â*I have enough interest to point out
> > > how stupid a language is that has grown people arguing minutiae about
> {snip}
> > You show too much energy in your reply to be
> > as disinterested as you would have us believe.
>
> I don't mean to DIS you but I said I have enough interest.
>
> Correct usage is usually important, but reading comprehension and
> understanding are always so.

[...]

How is it those interested in letting the language
evolve do not apply the same laissez faire attitude
to those who are interested in the minutia?

--
Michael Press

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 8, 1:19*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> *RicodJour > wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 3:29*am, Michael Press > wrote:
> > > *RicodJour > wrote:
>
> > > > That's where you and I differ. *I have enough interest to point out
> > > > how stupid a language is that has grown people arguing minutiae about
> > {snip}
> > > You show too much energy in your reply to be
> > > as disinterested as you would have us believe.
>
> > I don't mean to DIS you but I said I have enough interest.
>
> > Correct usage is usually important, but reading comprehension and
> > understanding are always so.
>
> [...]
>
> How is it those interested in letting the language
> evolve do not apply the same laissez faire attitude
> to those who are interested in the minutia?

Because we've evolved.

R

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
RicodJour > wrote:

> On Oct 8, 1:19Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > Â*RicodJour > wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 3:29Â*am, Michael Press > wrote:
> > > > Â*RicodJour > wrote:
> >
> > > > > That's where you and I differ. Â*I have enough interest to point out
> > > > > how stupid a language is that has grown people arguing minutiae about
> > > {snip}
> > > > You show too much energy in your reply to be
> > > > as disinterested as you would have us believe.
> >
> > > I don't mean to DIS you but I said I have enough interest.
> >
> > > Correct usage is usually important, but reading comprehension and
> > > understanding are always so.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > How is it those interested in letting the language
> > evolve do not apply the same laissez faire attitude
> > to those who are interested in the minutia?
>
> Because we've evolved.

If disparaging your inferiors is evolved.

--
Michael Press

[RicodJour[_2_]]

On Oct 8, 4:53*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> *RicodJour > wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 1:19*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> > > How is it those interested in letting the language
> > > evolve do not apply the same laissez faire attitude
> > > to those who are interested in the minutia?
>
> > Because we've evolved.
>
> If disparaging your inferiors is evolved.

The Morlocks ate the Eloi.

It's a tough world. ;)

R

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
RicodJour > wrote:

> On Oct 8, 4:53Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> > Â*RicodJour > wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 1:19Â*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >
> > > > How is it those interested in letting the language
> > > > evolve do not apply the same laissez faire attitude
> > > > to those who are interested in the minutia?
> >
> > > Because we've evolved.
> >
> > If disparaging your inferiors is evolved.
>
> The Morlocks ate the Eloi.
>
> It's a tough world. ;)

Speak for yourself.

--
Michael Press