Anybody who has even been accused of Nitpicking

jim_mc · Post by **jim_mc** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 10:46 pm

I'm normally a conservative driver, which means (in these parts) that I drive about 10 mph over the speed limit when road conditions are good. I don't like the inherent danger of tapping the brakes to discourage tailgaters - they might actually run into you. What I usually do is flick on the hazard lights. It gives the same effect as the brake lights from the rear. Nine times out of ten, the person backs off. The tenth time, I wait for a good place to pull over and let them pass. I enjoy life too much to make a contest out of driving.

As far as nit-picking, I'm not so bad. I'm more of a pet-peeve guy than a nit-picker.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 10:53 pm

jim_mc wrote:I'm normally a conservative driver, which means (in these parts) that I drive about 10 mph over the speed limit when road conditions are good. I don't like the inherent danger of tapping the brakes to discourage tailgaters - they might actually run into you. What I usually do is flick on the hazard lights. It gives the same effect as the brake lights from the rear. Nine times out of ten, the person backs off. The tenth time, I wait for a good place to pull over and let them pass. I enjoy life too much to make a contest out of driving.

That's a nice idea Jim but I still think it's dangerous because a hard-breaking vehicle still might skid into oncoming traffic or another lane. It certainly takes a lot less skill and timing than the accelerate-break-accelerate manoeuvre so is clearly perferable to that.

I think the reason tailgating is so infuriating is that wahtever you do in response is unsafe.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Sun Sep 14, 2003 1:32 pm

If it's feasible (after weighing such factors as traffic density, number of lanes, etc.), I set the cruise control. Gotta have it. Even at 5-10mph (what's that in kmh?) above posted speeds, there's always a tailgater at some point. They tend to back off or finally pass me (which is an option that is usually long available to them anyway). All I have to do is keep my eyes open. It's a more serene drive for me that way.

Otherwise, I'm all about getting away from those jockeying clusters of motorists who seem to have a herding mentality and forget that they're zooming along at high speeds in a ton of jagged glass and steel.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:43 am

Nanohedron wrote:
Otherwise, I'm all about getting away from those jockeying clusters of motorists who seem to have a herding mentality and forget that they're zooming along at high speeds in a ton of jagged glass and steel.

Good point. I find I'm rarely tailgated these days. I don't drive very fast. I've no idea how I manage to keep out of trouble except that I'm on the lookout for aggressive drivers and try to stay out of their way. Trouble is, if somebody asks my how I manage this, I can't explain. I simply don't know.

cj · Post by cj » Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:32 am

Unrelated to the driving discussion, but pertinent to the nit-picky one:

Why does everyone think "you and I" always sounds better than "you and me"? They'll say something like, "She is going with you and I," thinking it sounds more sophisticated (I guess that's what they think, I don't know), but it's incorrect. It should be "She is going with you and me." AIEEEEE!!

Also, why do people want to use an apostrophe for a plural, as in "kitten's free to good home." It's just "kittens" because it's not a possessive.

I know, it's sick--I have a Victorian English teacher living in my head. It's not a big deal in conversation or in informal situations, but it bothers me when I see these things in print, where they supposedly have editors that catch this stuff.

SteveK · Post by **SteveK** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:48 am

cj wrote:Unrelated to the driving discussion, but pertinent to the nit-picky one:

Why does everyone think "you and I" always sounds better than "you and me"? They'll say something like, "She is going with you and I," thinking it sounds more sophisticated (I guess that's what they think, I don't know), but it's incorrect. It should be "She is going with you and me." AIEEEEE!!

Also, why do people want to use an apostrophe for a plural, as in "kitten's free to good home." It's just "kittens" because it's not a possessive.

Well, I'm with you cj. Particularly the apostrophes (apostrophe's). I'm on a banjo list and people are always talking about different kinds of banjo's. Once a person even wrote in "thank's". My hypothesis is that people tend to use it with nouns which end in a vowel. I have seeen bouzouki's written as a plural but never mandolin's. But it happens with banjo's all the ^%$*(&^ time.

Another, which I have seen on C&F several times is that someone says their interest was peaked.

Not to nitpick or anything but a lot of this thread seems like it's on pet peeves rather than nitpicking. Particularly since Mark referred us to a web page with a rather odd definition of nitpicks.

Steve

cj · Post by cj » Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:05 am

That apostrophe error is bad on mailboxes too. The sign on one will say, "The Smith's" when it should just say, "The Smiths," or "The Jones' " when it should say, "The Joneses." I even saw this on a sign in the yard of a couple I knew who once were both retired teachers!

Don't get me started on its/it's errors . . .

You're right--this has ended up being about pet peeves, but I guess we're nitpicking about grammar, so we qualify, right?!

I must have been a schoolmarm in my past life . . .

Martin Milner · Post by **Martin Milner** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:21 am

cj wrote:That apostrophe error is bad on mailboxes too. The sign on one will say, "The Smith's" when it should just say, "The Smiths," or "The Jones' " when it should say, "The Joneses." I even saw this on a sign in the yard of a couple I knew who once were both retired teachers!

Don't get me started on its/it's errors . . .

You're right--this has ended up being about pet peeves, but I guess we're nitpicking about grammar, so we qualify, right?!

I must have been a schoolmarm in my past life . . .

Shouldn't that be schoolma'am? Short for madam? Maybe not, if you're in America.

cj · Post by cj » Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:29 am

"Schoolmarm" is an American expression, not sure where it came from.

MarkB · Post by **MarkB** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:44 am

Random House Dikshunary gives this defining steakment:
Schoolmarm: Older Use. a female schoolteacher, esp. of the old-tyme country type, popularly held to be strict and priggish.

MarkB

Post by **Nanohedron** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:49 am

It is particularly satisfying to watch someone redden when the term "shoolmarm" is leveled at him/her. Especially a "him".

jluckett · Post by **jluckett** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:25 pm

MarkB wrote:
Who are you and what is your favourite subject/person/thing to nitpick about?

Does it bother anyone else here when people say that something is "a whole 'nother story"? I've even heard highly educated people use this phrase!

Living in Indiana, I hear a lot of incorrect grammar. (Case in point: "wichadidja", as in "You didn't bring your git-tar wichadidja?") But for some reason, this "whole 'nother story" thing really bugs me.

- Jan

Post by **Nanohedron** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:30 pm

Hopefully, we will flaunt these mischievious mistakes irregardless. But that's a whole 'nother story.

jluckett · Post by **jluckett** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:48 pm

Nanohedron wrote:Hopefully, we will flaunt these mischievious mistakes irregardless. But that's a whole 'nother story.

_________________

- Jan

ihc_ssii · Post by **ihc_ssii** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:57 pm

Irregardless. Although you'll now find it in the dictionary, the word isn't really a word. There's regardless and regarding, but no irregardless.

Credit and thanks Larry "Botox" Wilcock for enlightening to this point.

Chiff and Fipple Forums

Anybody who has even been accused of Nitpicking

Re: Anybody who has even been accused of Nitpicking