PopcornFetus said:

chocolate1 said:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brian.../care.html

grammar edit

[Edited 7/5/10 3:40am]

Your links don't affect common usage. They are both colloquial and thus subject to whatever meaning is generally attributed to them. If you take the intended meaning from the phrase when you see it, rather than reading your thoughts on grammar into it, it works.

Also, who decided that the two phrases were even related? It's been in debate for years. Perhaps, we should just come to understand that they are not meant to mean the exact same thing as they originated in two different countries at least twenty years apart.

"I couldn't care less" - Means what it says. Possibly originates in England in the 1940s.

"I could care less" - Means what it says, i.e. you care somewhat, but its possible for you to care even less. Conveys an aloof attitude. Apparently originates in America in the 1960s. May go back to Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, which would predate the former phrase.

So, I guess my point is that they are not meant to be the same phrase or carry the same meaning, therefore: different words for each.

Okay.

You feel you corrected me.

My original intention was toward a ridiculous OP.

I ended up with a grammar lesson of my own.

fast typing edit

[Edited 7/6/10 6:16am]

chocolate1 said:

PopcornFetus said:

Your links don't affect common usage. They are both colloquial and thus subject to whatever meaning is generally attributed to them. If you take the intended meaning from the phrase when you see it, rather than reading your thoughts on grammar into it, it works.

Also, who decided that the two phrases were even related? It's been in debate for years. Perhaps, we should just come to understand that they are not meant to mean the exact same thing as they originated in two different countries at least twenty years apart.

"I couldn't care less" - Means what it says. Possibly originates in England in the 1940s.

"I could care less" - Means what it says, i.e. you care somewhat, but its possible for you to care even less. Conveys an aloof attitude. Apparently originates in America in the 1960s. May go back to Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, which would predate the former phrase.

So, I guess my point is that they are not meant to be the same phrase or carry the same meaning, therefore: different words for each.

Okay.

You feel you correct me.

My original intention was toward a ridiculous OP.

I ended up with a grammar lesson of my own.

I read that reply and all I heard in my head was

WaterInYourBath said:

I never viewed him as having a big head, but rather a very small body that makes him APPEAR like he has a big head.

yup

chocolate1 said:

My question: Why are we supposed to care about your pet peeve list?

MY pet peeve: FAMS who act like Prince is a god and no one can say anything about him unless it's total worship.

(Oh, and, Prince hasn't always worn simple suits... are you blocking out all the frilly blouses and feminine-cut pants? His suits have EVOLVED into more masculine styles. And most men don't wear high heels.)

I hope you didn't lose sleep compiling this list.

Not to mention the Versace photo shoot wearing tons of makeup and ultra feminine clothing and Barbara Bush pearl necklace.

Could someone please post pic? I couldn't find it.

chocolate1 said:

PopcornFetus said:

Your links don't affect common usage. They are both colloquial and thus subject to whatever meaning is generally attributed to them. If you take the intended meaning from the phrase when you see it, rather than reading your thoughts on grammar into it, it works.

Also, who decided that the two phrases were even related? It's been in debate for years. Perhaps, we should just come to understand that they are not meant to mean the exact same thing as they originated in two different countries at least twenty years apart.

"I couldn't care less" - Means what it says. Possibly originates in England in the 1940s.

"I could care less" - Means what it says, i.e. you care somewhat, but its possible for you to care even less. Conveys an aloof attitude. Apparently originates in America in the 1960s. May go back to Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, which would predate the former phrase.

So, I guess my point is that they are not meant to be the same phrase or carry the same meaning, therefore: different words for each.

Okay.

You feel you corrected me.

My original intention was toward a ridiculous OP.

I ended up with a grammar lesson of my own.

fast typing edit

[Edited 7/6/10 6:16am]

Yeah, sorry. Wasn't trying to be a d*ck there but I really was.

Genesia: Grab a dictionary and give it another shot.

J/K Edit

[Edited 7/6/10 7:48am]

PopcornFetus said:

chocolate1 said:

Okay.

You feel you corrected me.

My original intention was toward a ridiculous OP.

I ended up with a grammar lesson of my own.

fast typing edit

[Edited 7/6/10 6:16am]

Yeah, sorry. Wasn't trying to be a d*ck there but I really was.

Genesia: Grab a dictionary and give it another shot.

Honey, I don't need a dictionary. You need to learn to write like you didn't use a thesaurus for every other word.

PopcornFetus said:

chocolate1 said:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brian.../care.html

grammar edit

[Edited 7/5/10 3:40am]

Your links don't affect common usage. They are both colloquial and thus subject to whatever meaning is generally attributed to them. If you take the intended meaning from the phrase when you see it, rather than reading your thoughts on grammar into it, it works.

Also, who decided that the two phrases were even related? It's been in debate for years. Perhaps, we should just come to understand that they are not meant to mean the exact same thing as they originated in two different countries at least twenty years apart.

"I couldn't care less" - Means what it says. Possibly originates in England in the 1940s.

"I could care less" - Means what it says, i.e. you care somewhat, but its possible for you to care even less. Conveys an aloof attitude. Apparently originates in America in the 1960s. May go back to Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, which would predate the former phrase.

So, I guess my point is that they are not meant to be the same phrase or carry the same meaning, therefore: different words for each.

Actually, they are meant to convey the same message - that one could not care less.

What you need to remember is the phrase (at least in the case of the second one) is originated as a spoken phrase and it's the speaker's tone and inflection that imbue the words with their intended meaning.

Unless you are familiar with the phrase and how it's used in speech it will look nonsensical, or wrong when you see it in writing.

As an analogy, when did the word 'bad' take on the meaning of something good? When did the word 'sick' take on the meaning of something to be praised?

These backward meanings work when spoken with the right tone and inflection but they only work in writing for those who are first familiar with them as colloquialisms.

I also disagree with the link that there is any error in the usage of the language.

Just because a purist wants to judge it from a formal perspective does nothing to its functional usage by millions of regular Jeans and Joes who don't give a rip what "experts" think.

In fact they could care less.

Genesia said:

PopcornFetus said:

Yeah, sorry. Wasn't trying to be a d*ck there but I really was.

Genesia: Grab a dictionary and give it another shot.

Honey, I don't need a dictionary. You need to learn to write like you didn't use a thesaurus for every other word.

Darling, I was just making a joke about your response.

Why do I need to learn to dumb down my vocabulary? Seems kind of counterintuitive...

PopcornFetus said:

Genesia said:

Honey, I don't need a dictionary. You need to learn to write like you didn't use a thesaurus for every other word.

Darling, I was just making a joke about your response.

Why do I need to learn to dumb down my vocabulary? Seems kind of counterintuitive...

Geezuz. How does one even respond to such conceit?

DakutiusMaximus said:

Just because a purist wants to judge it from a formal perspective does nothing to its functional usage by millions of regular Jeans and Joes who don't give a rip what "experts" think.

In fact they could care less.

Love it.

Genesia said:

PopcornFetus said:

Darling, I was just making a joke about your response.

Why do I need to learn to dumb down my vocabulary? Seems kind of counterintuitive...

Geezuz. How does one even respond to such conceit?

I was hoping not at all...

PopcornFetus said:

Genesia said:

Geezuz. How does one even respond to such conceit?

I was hoping not at all...

Keep hoping.

DakutiusMaximus said:

PopcornFetus said:

Your links don't affect common usage. They are both colloquial and thus subject to whatever meaning is generally attributed to them. If you take the intended meaning from the phrase when you see it, rather than reading your thoughts on grammar into it, it works.

Also, who decided that the two phrases were even related? It's been in debate for years. Perhaps, we should just come to understand that they are not meant to mean the exact same thing as they originated in two different countries at least twenty years apart.

"I couldn't care less" - Means what it says. Possibly originates in England in the 1940s.

"I could care less" - Means what it says, i.e. you care somewhat, but its possible for you to care even less. Conveys an aloof attitude. Apparently originates in America in the 1960s. May go back to Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, which would predate the former phrase.

So, I guess my point is that they are not meant to be the same phrase or carry the same meaning, therefore: different words for each.

Actually, they are meant to convey the same message - that one could not care less.

What you need to remember is the phrase (at least in the case of the second one) is originated as a spoken phrase and it's the speaker's tone and inflection that imbue the words with their intended meaning.

Unless you are familiar with the phrase and how it's used in speech it will look nonsensical, or wrong when you see it in writing.

As an analogy, when did the word 'bad' take on the meaning of something good? When did the word 'sick' take on the meaning of something to be praised?

These backward meanings work when spoken with the right tone and inflection but they only work in writing for those who are first familiar with them as colloquialisms.

I also disagree with the link that there is any error in the usage of the language.

Just because a purist wants to judge it from a formal perspective does nothing to its functional usage by millions of regular Jeans and Joes who don't give a rip what "experts" think.

In fact they could care less.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say...

Like I just replied: It was originally just meant to bust the balls of the OP.

I really don't care HOW it was written; I was being mean.

I am by no means a "purist", but I do teach English, so I don't need "Schooling", thanks.

(and just because every Jean and Joe says it, doesn't make it right... just common)

PopcornFetus said:

chocolate1 said:

Okay.

You feel you corrected me.

My original intention was toward a ridiculous OP.

I ended up with a grammar lesson of my own.

fast typing edit

[Edited 7/6/10 6:16am]

Yeah, sorry. Wasn't trying to be a d*ck there but I really was.

Thanks.

PopcornFetus said:

chocolate1 said:

I'm amused

• When you say you COULD care less, you're leaving room for more caring. It's COULDN'T care less.

Actually it's either. One's sarcastic, one's English.

oh lawd, I hate your post.

But that's not the point of my response here. I MOTHERFUCKING LOVE YOUR AVATAR.

GIVE. IT. TO. ME!!!!!

TheVoid said:

PopcornFetus said:

Actually it's either. One's sarcastic, one's English.

oh lawd, I hate your post.

But that's not the point of my response here. I MOTHERFUCKING LOVE YOUR AVATAR.

GIVE. IT. TO. ME!!!!!

Why not just "appropriate" it? It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Genesia said:

TheVoid said:

oh lawd, I hate your post.

But that's not the point of my response here. I MOTHERFUCKING LOVE YOUR AVATAR.

GIVE. IT. TO. ME!!!!!

Why not just "appropriate" it? It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

TheVoid: I hate my post, too.

www.dopefish.com/

many images and history of the character there.

chocolate1 said:

DakutiusMaximus said:

Actually, they are meant to convey the same message - that one could not care less.

What you need to remember is the phrase (at least in the case of the second one) is originated as a spoken phrase and it's the speaker's tone and inflection that imbue the words with their intended meaning.

Unless you are familiar with the phrase and how it's used in speech it will look nonsensical, or wrong when you see it in writing.

As an analogy, when did the word 'bad' take on the meaning of something good? When did the word 'sick' take on the meaning of something to be praised?

These backward meanings work when spoken with the right tone and inflection but they only work in writing for those who are first familiar with them as colloquialisms.

I also disagree with the link that there is any error in the usage of the language.

Just because a purist wants to judge it from a formal perspective does nothing to its functional usage by millions of regular Jeans and Joes who don't give a rip what "experts" think.

In fact they could care less.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say...

Like I just replied: It was originally just meant to bust the balls of the OP.

I really don't care HOW it was written; I was being mean.

I am by no means a "purist", but I do teach English, so I don't need "Schooling", thanks.

(and just because every Jean and Joe says it, doesn't make it right... just common)

What I'm trying to say is that when one wishes to be facetious about something they often intentionally use words that have the opposite meaning of what they are communicating.

It's the vocal tone and context that impart the intended meaning. If you hear someone say, "I could care less" with that eyerolling tone you know exactly what they mean.

If you see it in print it's more difficult to discern.

That's all I'm saying... it's not imporper use of language or wrong if you take it in context.

CocoRock said:

IIRC, in Alex Hahn's book, he said that Prince suffered from a mild case of Pfeiffer's (sp?) syndrome, the same condition that his son passed away from in '96. http://en.wikipedia.org/w...er_syndrom Anybody else recall this? And is anybody sure if this factual info in regards to Prince?

I do recall reading/hearing this. I didn't know you could have a "mild case" of Pfeiffer syndrome. Not sure if that is possible... maybe

If that is true... maybe that is why there are no little Princey's running around. Not sure you can ever verify this to being a fact in regards to Prince.

It is ridiculous that people say Prince has a big head. He is a little guy with a head that may be larger than what is proportionate to his body. He wears a regular bandanna tied around his head and in pictures and when I've seen him in concert you can see there is extra slack where it was tied. If his head was big he would need one of these big head hats at http://www.lamoodbighats.com

prodigalfan said:

CocoRock said:

IIRC, in Alex Hahn's book, he said that Prince suffered from a mild case of Pfeiffer's (sp?) syndrome, the same condition that his son passed away from in '96. http://en.wikipedia.org/w...er_syndrom Anybody else recall this? And is anybody sure if this factual info in regards to Prince?

I do recall reading/hearing this. I didn't know you could have a "mild case" of Pfeiffer syndrome. Not sure if that is possible... maybe

If that is true... maybe that is why there are no little Princey's running around. Not sure you can ever verify this to being a fact in regards to Prince.

I think it means he carries the gene and therefore could pass it on.

Did prince have a rib removed so he could suck his own penis ?

Did prince once have sex with a donkey?