FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What gets your "goat" ?
What gets your "goat" ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday.... "Oh and the "spelling police" especially at 1.30 am in the morning.    | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Oh and the "spelling police"
especially at 1.30 am in the morning. "You're nicked.  | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Oh and the "spelling police"
especially at 1.30 am in the morning.
You're nicked. "Why cant we have a "blowing raspberry smilie"  | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Oh and the "spelling police"
especially at 1.30 am in the morning.
You're nicked.
Why cant we have a "blowing raspberry smilie" "Perhaps we can make some suggestions to admin to add some smilies. Would love a facepalm one. | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Oh and the "spelling police"
especially at 1.30 am in the morning.
You're nicked.
Why cant we have a "blowing raspberry smilie" " | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Men that can't make up their bloody minds !! " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ignorance........hate it. People with delusions of grandeur.....thinking they are all that. Bad manners........ Rudeness tardyness But basically im getting my thurday moan in now. "The above and people who cancel with a stupid excuse (ie timewasters) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Men that can't make up their bloody minds !! "Women who can't make up there bloody minds  | |||
| |||
| |||
The idiot at work that keeps putting cans in the freezer
I aint saying no more as its my day off and I want to chill and breathe | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday.... " | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday.... "Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who". | |||
And I wasn't even drinking last night!! | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who". "Pendants.... | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who". "Err..do you mean pedants.. | |||
"Rude people,smelly people who insist on sitting next to you and talking. And my sons using every cup and glass in the cupboard instead of washing the first one they use!" | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who". "Quite acceptable grammatically: Today's topic is who versus that. Lesley called in with this question: My pet peeve is who versus that, as in “You know Bob, he's the guy that sold me my car.” It drives me nuts. Or am I mistaken and it's just become part of the new English verbiage in the evolution of the language? I kind of talked about this question in episode 7, but other people have also asked the same thing recently, including Corinne, so I thought it would be worth going into a little further. The quick and dirty answer is that you use whowhen you are talking about a person and that when you are talking about an object. Stick with that rule and you'll be safe. That as a Pronoun But, of course, it is also more complicated than that. The who-goes-with-people rule is the conventional wisdom (1,2), but, on the other hand, I did find a credible reference that says otherwise. I was shocked to see that my American Heritage Dictionary says, It is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you, or the man who wanted to talk to you (3). [emphasis added] Wow. So I dug around some more and found that there is a long history of writers using that as a relative pronoun when writing about people. Chaucer did it, for example (4). So, it's more of a gray area than some people think, and if you have strong feelings about it, you could make an argument for using that when you're talking about people. But my guess is that most people who use who and thatinterchangeably do it because they don't know the difference. I don't consider myself a grammar snob-–this is “quick and dirty” grammar, after all-–but in this case, I have to take the side of the people who prefer the strict rule. To me, using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human. I always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father. He was clearly trying to indicate his animosity and you wouldn't want to do that accidentally. Strange Exceptions Finally, even if you accept the conventional wisdom, there are some gray areas and strange exceptions. For example, what do you do when you are talking about something animate that isn't human? That's a gray area, and it can actually go either way. I would never refer to my dog as anything less than who, but my fish could probably be a that. One strange exception is that you can use whose, which is the possessive form of who, to refer to both people and things (5,6,7,8) because English doesn't have a possessive form of that. So it's fine to say, "The desk whose top is cluttered with grammar books," even though it is obviously ridiculous to say, "The desk who is made of cherry wood." So now you understand the details, but you can also remember the quick and dirty rule that who goes with people and that goes with things. | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who".
Quite acceptable grammatically:
Today's topic is who versus that.
Lesley called in with this question:
My pet peeve is who versus that, as in “You know Bob, he's the guy that sold me my car.” It drives me nuts. Or am I mistaken and it's just become part of the new English verbiage in the evolution of the language?
I kind of talked about this question in episode 7, but other people have also asked the same thing recently, including Corinne, so I thought it would be worth going into a little further.
The quick and dirty answer is that you use whowhen you are talking about a person and that when you are talking about an object. Stick with that rule and you'll be safe.
That as a Pronoun
But, of course, it is also more complicated than that. The who-goes-with-people rule is the conventional wisdom (1,2), but, on the other hand, I did find a credible reference that says otherwise. I was shocked to see that my American Heritage Dictionary says,
It is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you, or the man who wanted to talk to you (3). [emphasis added]
Wow. So I dug around some more and found that there is a long history of writers using that as a relative pronoun when writing about people. Chaucer did it, for example (4).
So, it's more of a gray area than some people think, and if you have strong feelings about it, you could make an argument for using that when you're talking about people. But my guess is that most people who use who and thatinterchangeably do it because they don't know the difference. I don't consider myself a grammar snob-–this is “quick and dirty” grammar, after all-–but in this case, I have to take the side of the people who prefer the strict rule. To me, using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human. I always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father. He was clearly trying to indicate his animosity and you wouldn't want to do that accidentally.
Strange Exceptions
Finally, even if you accept the conventional wisdom, there are some gray areas and strange exceptions. For example, what do you do when you are talking about something animate that isn't human? That's a gray area, and it can actually go either way. I would never refer to my dog as anything less than who, but my fish could probably be a that.
One strange exception is that you can use whose, which is the possessive form of who, to refer to both people and things (5,6,7,8) because English doesn't have a possessive form of that. So it's fine to say, "The desk whose top is cluttered with grammar books," even though it is obviously ridiculous to say, "The desk who is made of cherry wood."
So now you understand the details, but you can also remember the quick and dirty rule that who goes with people and that goes with things." | |||
| |||
"Ignorance........hate it. People with delusions of grandeur.....thinking they are all that. Bad manners........ Rudeness tardyness But basically im getting my thurday moan in now. "people who moan about rude behavious | |||
I have a plan though. I will send three goats over at various sizes and the biggest will come last and fuck that Troll's shit up for good! FUCK YEAH!!!
RANT OVER! | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday.... "I actually roared with laughter at one of your typos the other day. I thought it would be a twattish thing to pick you up on though, so I chose to ignore it. I realise twattish isn't a proper word. It is a very good descriptor though. | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who".
Quite acceptable grammatically:
Today's topic is who versus that.
Lesley called in with this question:
My pet peeve is who versus that, as in “You know Bob, he's the guy that sold me my car.” It drives me nuts. Or am I mistaken and it's just become part of the new English verbiage in the evolution of the language?
I kind of talked about this question in episode 7, but other people have also asked the same thing recently, including Corinne, so I thought it would be worth going into a little further.
The quick and dirty answer is that you use whowhen you are talking about a person and that when you are talking about an object. Stick with that rule and you'll be safe.
That as a Pronoun
But, of course, it is also more complicated than that. The who-goes-with-people rule is the conventional wisdom (1,2), but, on the other hand, I did find a credible reference that says otherwise. I was shocked to see that my American Heritage Dictionary says,
It is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you, or the man who wanted to talk to you (3). [emphasis added]
Wow. So I dug around some more and found that there is a long history of writers using that as a relative pronoun when writing about people. Chaucer did it, for example (4).
So, it's more of a gray area than some people think, and if you have strong feelings about it, you could make an argument for using that when you're talking about people. But my guess is that most people who use who and thatinterchangeably do it because they don't know the difference. I don't consider myself a grammar snob-–this is “quick and dirty” grammar, after all-–but in this case, I have to take the side of the people who prefer the strict rule. To me, using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human. I always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father. He was clearly trying to indicate his animosity and you wouldn't want to do that accidentally.
Strange Exceptions
Finally, even if you accept the conventional wisdom, there are some gray areas and strange exceptions. For example, what do you do when you are talking about something animate that isn't human? That's a gray area, and it can actually go either way. I would never refer to my dog as anything less than who, but my fish could probably be a that.
One strange exception is that you can use whose, which is the possessive form of who, to refer to both people and things (5,6,7,8) because English doesn't have a possessive form of that. So it's fine to say, "The desk whose top is cluttered with grammar books," even though it is obviously ridiculous to say, "The desk who is made of cherry wood."
So now you understand the details, but you can also remember the quick and dirty rule that who goes with people and that goes with things. "you do know stress can kill don't you........fuck me !!! | |||
"Oooh and when on our phones scrolling through forums and members copy or reply with entire long quotes. Sorry it's awkward and often hit home button or similar "oops | |||
"People who spit (and no, not cum, you dirty perverts!). - People that actually hock up their phlegm and spit all over the fucking pavement, it's disgusting. - Amy. x" With u there rank!
Ignorance, bad manners and upthemself-ness as well as people who cannot see 2 sides to an argument lol | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
I actually roared with laughter at one of your typos the other day. I thought it would be a twattish thing to pick you up on though, so I chose to ignore it.
I realise twattish isn't a proper word. It is a very good descriptor though. "Wish you had picked me up so that I could have had a good laugh at a typo rather than something that you mention at a later date that you can't back up.  | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
I actually roared with laughter at one of your typos the other day. I thought it would be a twattish thing to pick you up on though, so I chose to ignore it.
I realise twattish isn't a proper word. It is a very good descriptor though.
Wish you had picked me up so that I could have had a good laugh at a typo rather than something that you mention at a later date that you can't back up. "That was a mouthful. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Oooh and when on our phones scrolling through forums and members copy or reply with entire long quotes. Sorry it's awkward and often hit home button or similar "I was just about to say the same thing | |||
"People driving in the middle lane of the motorway with no other cars anywhere near them!"
Men who say 'the wife' | |||
"oops "Easy enough to delete what's not required look. Might just be the OCD on our part. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ignorance........hate it. People with delusions of grandeur.....thinking they are all that. Bad manners........ Rudeness tardyness But basically im getting my thurday moan in now. I'm with you on that. a few people like that " | |||
"Anyone that thinks its bad manners to not reply to a message!!! Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh!!! Lol xx " not only is it BAD manners its just plain RUDE.. especially when its a complementary message but if its a nasty one fair enough | |||
| |||
| |||
"Food shopping with an indecisive man really annoys me....."what do you want for dinner"...."I don't know" MissD x" Indecisive or perhaps just not so fussy about what is cooked ?
As someone said, being completely blank in his mind is a perfectly OK state for a man. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"White people" Eh?! | |||
"White people Eh?!" They do my head in at times | |||
"Anyone that thinks its bad manners to not reply to a message!!! Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh!!! Lol xx not only is it BAD manners its just plain RUDE.. especially when its a complementary message but if its a nasty one fair enough" To me that comes under the ops "people with grandier who think they are all that" part | |||
| |||
"I have a very long list! Shall compile it "We may need the condensed Reader's Digest version. | |||
"Anyone that thinks its bad manners to not reply to a message!!! Aaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh!!! Lol xx not only is it BAD manners its just plain RUDE.. especially when its a complementary message but if its a nasty one fair enough" It's neither. If I get a complimentary message saying 'nice tits' and reply saying thanks, that gets translated to 'let's start a lengthy conversation even though I'm nothing like what you are looking for and live 400 miles away' So I try to be polite and explain why I appreciate the compliment but won't be chatting any more then I get called rude. Check out the site FAQ section. It clearly states its not rude not to send a reply. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Adverts asking for money donations. Always seem to come on a lot at teatime " Well yeah, showing you images of starving children while you tuck into your dinner in an attempt to make you feel guilty so you'll donate. x | |||
"Adverts asking for money donations. Always seem to come on a lot at teatime Well yeah, showing you images of starving children while you tuck into your dinner in an attempt to make you feel guilty so you'll donate. x"They're swines for that. | |||
"White people Eh?! They do my head in at times " Anything in particular? Obviously not judging, just curious. I feel such a thing needs to be elaborated on, haha. You are of course free to decline. | |||
"White people Eh?! They do my head in at times Anything in particular? Obviously not judging, just curious. I feel such a thing needs to be elaborated on, haha. You are of course free to decline." Take your pick. Anything and everything | |||
| |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who".
Err..do you mean pedants.. "No, I meant pendants ... medallions too, as a matter of fact. Pedants, on the other hand, are an endless source of amusement - so I sort of tolerate them. | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who".
Quite acceptable grammatically:
Today's topic is who versus that.
Lesley called in with this question:
My pet peeve is who versus that, as in “You know Bob, he's the guy that sold me my car.” It drives me nuts. Or am I mistaken and it's just become part of the new English verbiage in the evolution of the language?
I kind of talked about this question in episode 7, but other people have also asked the same thing recently, including Corinne, so I thought it would be worth going into a little further.
The quick and dirty answer is that you use whowhen you are talking about a person and that when you are talking about an object. Stick with that rule and you'll be safe.
That as a Pronoun
But, of course, it is also more complicated than that. The who-goes-with-people rule is the conventional wisdom (1,2), but, on the other hand, I did find a credible reference that says otherwise. I was shocked to see that my American Heritage Dictionary says,
It is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you, or the man who wanted to talk to you (3). [emphasis added]
Wow. So I dug around some more and found that there is a long history of writers using that as a relative pronoun when writing about people. Chaucer did it, for example (4).
So, it's more of a gray area than some people think, and if you have strong feelings about it, you could make an argument for using that when you're talking about people. But my guess is that most people who use who and thatinterchangeably do it because they don't know the difference. I don't consider myself a grammar snob-–this is “quick and dirty” grammar, after all-–but in this case, I have to take the side of the people who prefer the strict rule. To me, using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human. I always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father. He was clearly trying to indicate his animosity and you wouldn't want to do that accidentally.
Strange Exceptions
Finally, even if you accept the conventional wisdom, there are some gray areas and strange exceptions. For example, what do you do when you are talking about something animate that isn't human? That's a gray area, and it can actually go either way. I would never refer to my dog as anything less than who, but my fish could probably be a that.
One strange exception is that you can use whose, which is the possessive form of who, to refer to both people and things (5,6,7,8) because English doesn't have a possessive form of that. So it's fine to say, "The desk whose top is cluttered with grammar books," even though it is obviously ridiculous to say, "The desk who is made of cherry wood."
So now you understand the details, but you can also remember the quick and dirty rule that who goes with people and that goes with things. "Personally, I'd never trust any dictionary that spells colour or humour without the "u" - that and anyone called Geoffrey. As for the other example, it's sort of given that an animal can't spell Thursday. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Apparently being too old for a social lol "Say what? Didn't know there was an age limit on socials? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Trolls ............ " | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who". "is that hanging pendants, or pedants? | |||
"People on the freeways that don't use turn signals and just weave in and out of traffic like they own the roads. There's also the flaming retards that have to speed up and not let you over in the lane infront of them. Then when you do get in that lane, they switch over to the lane you just left. That never fails to make my blood boil." people who use 'Americanisms'.. 'freeways' my buttocks.. | |||
" people who use 'Americanisms'.. 'freeways' my buttocks.. "Nothing particularly wrong with the use of freeway. It is the same as a highway or an expressway. Interchangeable. | |||
"People that can't spell Thursday....
Pendants ... and people who write "that" in place of "who".
is that hanging pendants, or pedants?"Is there an echo in here? 
Yes, the hanging type ... like medallions - and no, I like pedants ... they're fun to play with. | |||
" people who use 'Americanisms'.. 'freeways' my buttocks..
Nothing particularly wrong with the use of freeway. It is the same as a highway or an expressway. Interchangeable."and an Autobahn too.. but not in this country, over her its a motorway.. or if its the M25 a car park.. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Men that can't make up their bloody minds !! "Couldn't agree more | |||
"'What gets your "goat"?' Well I'm glad you asked Peaches my sweet. It's that fucking Troll that lives under the bridge! Every bastard day I send my goats over the bridge to eat the grass on the other side, they go trip, trap, trip, trap on their way and that mardy arse Troll is all up in their faces giving it "Who's that tripping over my bridge?" and shit. Then he eats them.
I have a plan though. I will send three goats over at various sizes and the biggest will come last and fuck that Troll's shit up for good! FUCK YEAH!!!
RANT OVER!"That made me laugh | |||
""Amaze-balls" or anything spewed from the hellish nightmare that is TOWIE" Yes!! I saw a tshirt in the children's section in tesco the other day with 'totes amaze' on the front. I was tempted to buy it just so I could either cut it into tiny pieces or set fire to it to make sure it was never worn!! X | |||
