Meaningless, meaningless - everything is meaningless

Joseph E. Smith · Post by **Joseph E. Smith** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:34 am

dwinterfield wrote:
Joseph E. Smith] ...right on!!!... but... umm... 'irregardless' isn't a real word... :P :P :P[/quote] [quote= wrote:And that's why I used it. I wrote the gibberish sentence in MS Word and the dictionary did not try to correct it. Out of curiousity I checked in Wordperfect. It also failed to see it as a mis-spelling. Is it a mistake if word processors think it's correct?
I hope you are not offended, I appologize if you are. Word processors can only correct what they have been programmed to correct... if the word isn't in the program as incorrect, then it most likely will be ignored. Best bet is to look it up in a dictionary.

When I was in Junior High School, I was berated by an English Teacher for using 'irregardless' instead of 'regardless'... that lesson has stuck with me through the years.... and of course, there is always the possibility that she was incorrect herself.

Jay-eye · Post by **Jay-eye** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:41 am

Paul wrote: Agreement is only the current level of understanding between 2 or more people about something. For ages the human conversation included the understanding that the earth was flat, for example.

Best,
Paul

Oh, so you're one of these 'round earth' johnnies, are you? Kindly keep your unfounded and reactionary ideas to yourself, young man. There's no place for such cranky and crackpot theories on this forum, I thank thee.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:53 am

Oh, so you're one of these 'round earth' johnnies, are you?

No, no, no. Heavens no. This idea that the Earth is round is only the current agreement within the human conversation. It has come about with the advent of technology that proves it for the moment. I have no idea what shape the earth actually is.

Best,
Paul

dwinterfield · Post by **dwinterfield** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:00 am

Joseph E. Smith wrote:
dwinterfield wrote:
...right on!!!... but... umm... 'irregardless' isn't a real word...

And that's why I used it. I wrote the gibberish sentence in MS Word and the dictionary did not try to correct it. Out of curiousity I checked in Wordperfect. It also failed to see it as a mis-spelling. Is it a mistake if word processors think it's correct?[/quote]

I hope you are not offended, I appologize if you are. Word processors can only correct what they have been programmed to correct... if the word isn't in the program as incorrect, then it most likely will be ignored. Best bet is to look it up in a dictionary.

When I was in Junior High School, I was berated by an English Teacher for using 'irregardless' instead of 'regardless'... that lesson has stuck with me through the years.... and of course, there is always the possibility that she was incorrect herself.

[/quote]

We agree that it isn't a word. The entire sentence is a string of meaningless phrase people use all the time. The one I find most annoying is anyone in a discussion starting with "you'd have to agree with me..." or any of it's variations. I don't have to agree to anything.

As for word processor dictionaries, I thought they were set up so that they would flag any word not in them. I just checked on MS Word. If you add a "u" it flags it as a mistake and offers irregardless as the correct spelling. It seems the folks at Micosoft had a different English teacher.

djm · Post by **djm** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:24 am

dwinterfield wrote:It seems the folks at Micosoft had a different English teacher.

That would require agreement up front that the people at Microsoft are literate in the first place.

djm

Post by **Nanohedron** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:22 am

Don't have a lot of time to go through this now-burgeoned thread, but has anyone wondered at the meaninglessness of "You have been preselected as a winner"?

Preselected? What is that?

Really.

perrins57 · Post by **perrins57** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:33 pm

Nanohedron wrote:Don't have a lot of time to go through this now-burgeoned thread, but has anyone wondered at the meaninglessness of "You have been preselected as a winner"?

Preselected? What is that?

Really.

In this context preselected means:- eveyones a winner, providing they buy into a time-share property.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:25 pm

perrins57 wrote:
Nanohedron wrote:Don't have a lot of time to go through this now-burgeoned thread, but has anyone wondered at the meaninglessness of "You have been preselected as a winner"?

Preselected? What is that?

Really.
In this context preselected means:- eveyones a winner, providing they buy into a time-share property.

So... umm... it's not a matter of Calvinist theology?

MarkB · Post by **MarkB** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:37 pm

Selected verses Preselected:

Selected means that you were just randomly selected from a database and will get mail with only "Dear Occupant"

Preselected: That your name and address have appeared on many lists and we are hot to use it, then addressed to you specifically. A more personal touch. Or that they have credit watch lists of big spenders and you're it!

MarkB

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:06 pm

Paul wrote:HA! Good one Lambchop! You can take it further because "meaning" is a figment of human conversation. Meaning has no meaning without agreement, and agreement is neither right or wrong. Agreement is only the current level of understanding between 2 or more people about something. For ages the human conversation included the understanding that the earth was flat, for example.

Best,
Paul

Oh my goodness! Is that what you thought I meant?

Jay-eye · Post by **Jay-eye** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:42 pm

Walden wrote: So... umm... it's not a matter of Calvinist theology?

Once a winner, always a winner, surely?

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:24 pm

Jay-eye wrote:
Walden wrote: So... umm... it's not a matter of Calvinist theology?
Once a winner, always a winner, surely?

Who gives a F**k...?
Slan,
D.

perrins57 · Post by **perrins57** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:40 pm

dubhlinn wrote:
Jay-eye wrote:
Walden wrote: So... umm... it's not a matter of Calvinist theology?
Once a winner, always a winner, surely?
Who gives a F**k...?
Slan,
D.

Now whose been drinking?

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:06 pm

perrins57 wrote:Now whose been drinking?

Not I.

perrins57 · Post by **perrins57** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:30 pm

Walden wrote:
perrins57 wrote:Now whose been drinking?
Not I.

No, but maybe an Irishman has had a wee dram?