Stanley is buying Black and Decker for $4.5 billion in stock

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Froz...
>>>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans
>>>>> that their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a
>>>>> loser and that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them
>>>>> out out of petty cash.
>>>>
>>>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
>>>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
>>>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever
>>>> publicly.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Merriam-webster disagrees with you
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
>
> I disagree that it is an accepted word, and so does Merriam Webster. It
> says:
> Use regardless instead
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid


ir·re·gard·less (ir'i-gärd?lis)

adv.
Nonstandard
Regardless.




[Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.]

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be
correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in
nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the
early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an
improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity
of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term.
Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with
redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder
for decades and will probably continue to be so.




The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Copyright © 2006, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton
Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
> If it looks like a word, sounds like a word, and is spelt like a word,
> why ain't it a word?
>

It's application was turned down by committee. It can try again next year,
though.

Puckdropper
--
Imagine that... Just imagine that.

<[email protected]> wrote:

> just thought i'd pass along the news...

Now starts the RIF, Lack of work, or whatever excuse necessary to
reduce the work force except for the golden parachutes given a few.

Lew

"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> "bloody Germans"
> "loser"
> "cheap purveyor of consumer crap"
> "petty cash"
>
> It seems that Festool is making a profit and satisfying their customers
> needs.
>
> What's your problem with that? Can' afford it?

It's a question of utilitarian value.

Max (What's it worth to *ME*)

On Nov 7, 3:10=A0pm, "David F. Eisan" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hello Leon,
>
> > I think we could take lessons from the Germans in this category. =A0The=
y
> > tend to have excellent quality control, =A0they insure that no one gets=
a
> > better deal because of some political association with a friend. =A0The=
y
> > support you supporting your local supplier rather than buying from some
> > one across the country.
>
> After trying for four years to become a Festool dealer, I just got my fir=
st
> shipment of just over 100 different SKU's.
>
> I didn't like there way of doing business when they wouldn't sell me tool=
s,
> but now that I am onboard, I understand it and agree. One thousand times
> smarter than B&D.
>
> David.

That looked like a pretty comprehensive display you got there, David.
Right across the aisle from MiniMax no less. <G>

HeyBub said:

>Greg G. wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>>
>>> "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
>>> ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> That about sums up how I feel about Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, and
>> bombing the shit out of the infrastructure and civilians of Iraq -
>> useless profiteering bastards.
>>
>
>I don't understand. Who would you rather they bomb? They've got to bomb
>SOMEBODY - that's what they do.

K-Street and Wall Street might be a good start...
I wouldn't need much compellin' to be on board with those targets...


Greg G.

On Nov 2, 5:12=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > just thought i'd pass along the news...
>
> :http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Stanley-Works-and-Black-bw-59641955...
>
> Yikes
> --
> Froz...

I did NOT know that B & D owned Price Pfister. The Pfabulous Pfaucet
Pfor Pfussy Pfuckers.

On Nov 4, 7:22=A0am, "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
> >>>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Froz...
> >>>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>
> >>>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans
> >>>>> that their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a
> >>>>> loser and that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them
> >>>>> out out of petty cash.
>
> >>>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
> >>>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. =A0AFAICT, they're total=
ly
> >>>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever
> >>>> publicly.
>
> >>>> --
>
> >>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
> >> =A0Merriam-webster disagrees with you
>
> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
>
> > I disagree that it is an accepted word, and so does Merriam Webster. =
=A0It
> > says:
> > Use regardless instead
>
> > --
> > Best regards
> > Han
>
> diggerop switches to pedantic mode ........
>
> It certainly does advise using "regardless" instead, however it also says
> that irregardless is indeed a word, even though it is a long way from
> general acceptance.
>
> From Merriam Webster's entry.......
>
> "The most frequently repeated remark about it is that =93there is no such
> word.=94 There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in spe=
ech,
> although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputatio=
n
> has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general
> acceptance. Use regardless instead."
>
> I imagine some will continue to use it, irregardless. =A0; )
>
> diggerop

"Irregardless" hurts my head just like "fact of the matter" hurts my
head.

On Nov 5, 10:13=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "Irregardless" hurts my head just like "fact of the matter" hurts my
> > head.
>
> Irregardless of how much it might hurt your head, the fact of the matter
> is, who cares?


You already had us convinced that you don't care about language.

[email protected] said:

>just thought i'd pass along the news...

Creating an even bigger, tax dodging producer of mediocrity.



Greg G.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> just thought i'd pass along the news...

Hey I just bought 4 shares of each so now "I" own Stanley and B&D.

Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:54:57 -0500, the infamous Greg
>G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>>
>>>"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
>>>ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>>That about sums up how I feel about Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, and
>>bombing the shit out of the infrastructure and civilians of Iraq -
>>useless profiteering bastards.
>
>And I feel that way with the numerous pay increases the
>CONgresscritters gave to themselves while the economy folded around
>them and us. Well, give them one more inch (or mile, i.e. Obamacare)
>and they'll produce the critical mass necessary for the second
>American Revolution. Got ammo? Got a bunker? Duck!

Hey, it's not only CONgresscritters. Four years ago I was assaulted by
members of the Federalist Society concerning the absolute need for pay
raises for US attorneys. Apparently $500+ an hour plus taxpayer paid
health care benefits wasn't enough. Their argument was that since they
could make more money in the "free market", they deserved more to
represent taxpayers - like that ever happens. And then there are the
judges who vet out "justice" based upon monetary contributions - they
want pay raises too.

As for the health care debate - something has to be done. But the day
that government demands that I pay a bloated avaricious private
industry for health insurance, (ala Mitt Romney's, Mass Health Care),
is the day I take the lot of them out with RPGs.

<RANT>
Know who Monsanto is - the US farmer's nemesis? Clarence Thomas, an
ex-Monsanto lawyer and Bush appointee to the Supreme Court, wrote the
ruling that effectively killed off many hard working US farmers who
could not afford to fight Monsanto in Court over GMO soybean and corn
seeds. Crop contamination by wind blown pollen caused many farmers to
be sued by Monsanto - and put out of business or left in bankruptcy
with huge legal bills. The Canadian Courts originally told Monsanto
to go fuck themselves, but the ever compliant, bought and paid for,
sorry ass excuses for justice in this country enforced Monsanto's
claims against farmers who had never bought or planted any Monsanto
seed. The end result is that you can barely find a corn or soybean
crop in this country that has not been contaminated by Monsanto's
"wonder genes" - thereby rendering every farmer on the American
continent subject to adverse rulings by a corrupt court and an
avaricious company that wants to own and control the food we eat.
And they are working hard to bribe the officials of foreign countries
into the same scenario.

My point is that, from all appearances, you are trying to make this a
partisan issue, when in fact it is endemic in both parties - although
the right seems more intent on protecting huge corporations (and huge
contributors) at the expense of the average working man. Is that
really your intent? The right is no more interested in your well being
than they are that of a fly on a pile of dung. It's all lip service
and BS.

Got ammo? Got a bunker?
You bet, and I've been ready for the past 20 years while a nation of
sheep bleated and twisted in the wind. You are so Owned!

You want change you can believe in?
Kill K-street, enforce campaign contribution limits, and vote for
people who give a shit, not the fucktards they dole out at each
election. Ignore the BS the media spits out; they are complicit - and
that especially includes FOX News, fake grassroots Tea Parties, and
just about everything you can't directly observe, touch and feel.

And BTW, who the hell spends 140 million dollars of personal funds to
win the mayorship of a city without expecting some pretty serious
payback? There is something very wrong with this picture...
</RANT>

Just my casual observations...


Greg G.

On Nov 2, 5:12=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > just thought i'd pass along the news...
>
> :http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Stanley-Works-and-Black-bw-59641955...
>
> Yikes
> --
> Froz...

Lessee now: B&D includes DeWalt, Delta, Porter-Cable and Price
Pfister, plus, I think, Kwikset, amongst others.

It should be interesting, unless you're one of the employees who gets
laid off in the consolidation.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:51:23 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> just thought i'd pass along the news...
>
>Now starts the RIF, Lack of work, or whatever excuse necessary to
>reduce the work force except for the golden parachutes given a few.
>
>Lew
>
>
That's only after Obama seizes the company and demands those few have
their pay slashed...

Gordon Shumway

What color do Smurfs become when they hold their breath?

"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>> I did NOT know that B & D owned Price Pfister. The Pfabulous Pfaucet
>> Pfor Pfussy Pfuckers.
>
> LOL.... and I actually did.
>
>
> --
>
> -MIKE-
>


I ought to know what a company started (and at one time based) about 5 miles
from my home owns.

It is truly awetastic to follow the dotted lines of who owns, has owned, and
may soon own various lines in this country (and in fact, globally.)

Y'all know that Festool is the crap Harbor Freight refused to carry, right?

Ed (L'ing OL)

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>> ;-)
>>>> --
>>>> Froz...
>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>
>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that
>> their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and that
>> some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty cash.
>
> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever publicly.
>
> --

Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>>Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>
>>Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing something
>>'without irregard'?
>
>It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries.

Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they categorize things that are actually
encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a dictionary does _not_ give
any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any given construct.

Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they categorize how things *should*
be used.

The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' compendiums
is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary educational process.

> As
>we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
>accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer age.
>They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
>they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
>that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.

'Irregardless' is a 'double negative', having a negating prefix _and_ a
negating suffix. A decomposition gets you 'without irregard', or '*not*
regardless'.

Hello Leon,

> I think we could take lessons from the Germans in this category. They
> tend to have excellent quality control, they insure that no one gets a
> better deal because of some political association with a friend. They
> support you supporting your local supplier rather than buying from some
> one across the country.

After trying for four years to become a Festool dealer, I just got my first
shipment of just over 100 different SKU's.

I didn't like there way of doing business when they wouldn't sell me tools,
but now that I am onboard, I understand it and agree. One thousand times
smarter than B&D.

David.

And B & D already is a part of:
http://www.blackanddecker.com/CustomerCenter/Company-Information.aspx
.....
1993 – The Company’s new product and service commitment to the consumer
channel of distribution earned it the Vendor of the Year awards from
Wal-Mart, Builders Square, L.G. Cook, BMA, Channel Home Centers, and
several other U.S.A. key accounts. Also launched the selected Elu line
of professional power tools for Europe.
.....
1995 – The new line of DeWalt Professional Power Tools & Accessories
launches in Europe
......
2003 - Black & Decker ® purchase Baldwin Hardware Corporation and Weiser
Lock Corporation from Masco, for a cash purchase price for the
transaction in the region of $275 million
.....
2004 - Black & Decker ® announce the purchase of the Tools Group from
Pentair, Inc. (NYSE: PNR) for approximately $775 million in cash. The
Tools Group, which includes the Porter-Cable, Delta, DeVilbiss Air
Power, Oldham Saw, and FLEX businesses, had sales of $1.08 billion and
operating profit of $82 million in 2003.


[email protected] wrote:
> just thought i'd pass along the news...

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RonB wrote:
>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>> ;-)
>>> --
>>> Froz...
>>
>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>
> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that
> their
> strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and that some
> cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty cash.
>

Teach them a lesson?????

I think we could take lessons from the Germans in this category. They tend
to have excellent quality control, they insure that no one gets a better
deal because of some political association with a friend. They support you
supporting your local supplier rather than buying from some one across the
country.

Seems to be a winning strategy that has been working for decades. IIRC what
we are doing is not working so well.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:12 pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> just thought i'd pass along the news...
>> :http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Stanley-Works-and-Black-bw-59641955...
>>
>> Yikes
>> --
>> Froz...
>
> I did NOT know that B & D owned Price Pfister. The Pfabulous Pfaucet
> Pfor Pfussy Pfuckers.

In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
;-)
--
Froz...

Greg G. wrote:
> Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>
>> "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
>> ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> That about sums up how I feel about Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, and
> bombing the shit out of the infrastructure and civilians of Iraq -
> useless profiteering bastards.
>
>

I don't understand. Who would you rather they bomb? They've got to bomb
SOMEBODY - that's what they do.

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke wrote:

>
> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
>
>


What word isn't a word?

"diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Froz...
>>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>>>
>>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans
>>>> that their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a
>>>> loser and that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them
>>>> out out of petty cash.
>>>
>>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
>>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
>>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever
>>> publicly.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Merriam-webster disagrees with you
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

I disagree that it is an accepted word, and so does Merriam Webster. It
says:
Use regardless instead


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] wrote:
> just thought i'd pass along the news...
:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Stanley-Works-and-Black-bw-596419550.html?x=0&.v=1&.pf=personal-finance&mod=pf-personal-finance

Yikes
--
Froz...

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>RonB wrote:
>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>> ;-)
>>> --
>>> Froz...
>>
>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>
>I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that their
>strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and that some
>cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty cash.
>

"bloody Germans"
"loser"
"cheap purveyor of consumer crap"
"petty cash"

It seems that Festool is making a profit and satisfying their customers needs.

What's your problem with that? Can' afford it?

On Nov 2, 5:23=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.

I heard Harbor Freight bought Festool.

R

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> --
>>>>> Froz...
>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>>
>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that
>>> their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and
>>> that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty
>>> cash.
>>
>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever publicly.
>>
>> --
>
> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
>
>


Merriam-webster disagrees with you

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

>
> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
> ;-)
> --
> Froz...

Now THAT ain't funny!

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>>Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
>Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing something
>'without irregard'?

It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries. As
we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer age.
They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.

Consider the explanation in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to
the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.”
There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech,
although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its
reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way
from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:54:57 -0500, the infamous Greg
G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>
>>"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
>>ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
>That about sums up how I feel about Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, and
>bombing the shit out of the infrastructure and civilians of Iraq -
>useless profiteering bastards.

And I feel that way with the numerous pay increases the
CONgresscritters gave to themselves while the economy folded around
them and us. Well, give them one more inch (or mile, i.e. Obamacare)
and they'll produce the critical mass necessary for the second
American Revolution. Got ammo? Got a bunker? Duck!

--
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

How about ilnonirregardlessnesses?

David.

"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
> september.org:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>
>> If it looks like a word, sounds like a word, and is spelt like a word,
>> why ain't it a word?
>>
>
> It's application was turned down by committee. It can try again next
> year,
> though.
>
> Puckdropper
> --
> Imagine that... Just imagine that.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>> Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing something
>> 'without irregard'?
>
> It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries. As
> we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
> accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer age.
> They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
> they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
> that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.
>
> Consider the explanation in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
> "usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
> early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to
> the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
> frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.”
> There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech,
> although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its
> reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way
> from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Similar to "fingernails on a blackboard", it's almost as irritating as
an aspiring world leader saying "We've got" rather than "We have". My
(Canadian) mother would have slapped _me_ silly for that abuse of the
language...

- Doug

Robatoy wrote:
> I did NOT know that B & D owned Price Pfister. The Pfabulous Pfaucet
> Pfor Pfussy Pfuckers.

LOL.... and I actually did.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

RonB wrote:
>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Froz...
>
> Now THAT ain't funny!

I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that their
strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and that some
cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty cash.

J. Clarke wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>> ;-)
>>> --
>>> Froz...
>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>
> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that their
> strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and that some
> cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty cash.

Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever publicly.

--

Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:12 pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> just thought i'd pass along the news...
>> :http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Stanley-Works-and-Black-bw-59641955...
>>
>> Yikes
>> --
>> Froz...
>
> I did NOT know that B & D owned Price Pfister. The Pfabulous Pfaucet
> Pfor Pfussy Pfuckers.

Oh man, don't get me started. I live in Pflugerville Texas, and you
wouldn't believe the lengths they go to here to change every pfucking
f-word to a pf-word. "Hey, I'm reading here in the Pflugerville Pflag
that the Deutschen-Pfest and the Pfall Pfamily Pfun Pfest are both pfour
days long this year!" It was cute for about pfive minutes, but any more
it makes me want to pfart in their general direction.

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Steve Turner wrote:
>
> Oh man, don't get me started. I live in Pflugerville Texas, and you
> wouldn't believe the lengths they go to here to change every pfucking
> f-word to a pf-word. "Hey, I'm reading here in the Pflugerville Pflag
> that the Deutschen-Pfest and the Pfall Pfamily Pfun Pfest are both pfour
> days long this year!" It was cute for about pfive minutes, but any more
> it makes me want to pfart in their general direction.
>

LMPFAO!


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Joe wrote:

> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.

If it looks like a word, sounds like a word, and is spelt like a word,
why ain't it a word?

--
Jack
Got Change: Individualism =====> Socialism!
http://jbstein.com

Leon wrote:
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> What word isn't a word?

Regardless, it's a perfectly good word meaning "lacking an irregard".

Robatoy wrote:

> "Irregardless" hurts my head just like "fact of the matter" hurts my
> head.

Irregardless of how much it might hurt your head, the fact of the matter
is, who cares?
--
Jack
Got Change: The individual ========> The Collective!
http://jbstein.com

Puckdropper wrote:
> Jack Stein Wrote
>>> Joe wrote:

>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.

>> If it looks like a word, sounds like a word, and is spelt like a word,
>> why ain't it a word?

> It's application was turned down by committee. It can try again next year,
> though.

That would be France. In the USSA, all that a word needs to be a word
is usage.
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors ========> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com

diggerop wrote:

> "The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such
> word.” There is such a word, however.

All a word needs to be a word is usage. If used enough, it gets in the
dictionary. The dictionary is always the last to know a word is a word...

> It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.
> Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from
> general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

> I imagine some will continue to use it, irregardless. ; )

It is used a lot, so much in fact, it is found in most every dictionary.
Matter of fact, it has some really entertaining social value, if you're
a fan of Robocop, the spell wizard.
--
Jack
Got Change: 5% Unemployment =======> 10% Unemployment!
http://jbstein.com

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>>
>>> Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing
>>> something 'without irregard'?
>>
>> It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries.
>
> Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they catagorize things that
> are actually encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a
> dictionary does _not_ give any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any given
> construct.
>
> Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they catagorize how things
> *should* be used.
>
> The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive'
> compendiums is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary educational
> process.

Merriam-Webster and Oxford both contain it--Merriam-Webster says that it is
incorrect usage, Oxford says that it is American dialect. As for the
"divergence between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries, that's a
polite way of saying "There's Oxford, and there's Merriam-Webster, and then
there's a bunch of crap".

Any publisher of a dictionary who thinks that he controls the language is a
fool.

>> As
>> we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
>> accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer
>> age. They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
>> they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
>> that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.
>
> 'Irregardless' is a 'double negative', having a negating prefix _and_
> a negating suffix. A decomposition gets you 'without irregard', or
> '*not* regardless'. It is usually 'obvious', from context, that the
> user of
> the construct does not mean "not regardless"; thus one can only
> conclude, "from usage" (*evil* grin), that the intent is 'without
> irregard',
> whatever _that_ means.

One can level the same sort of criticism at "inflammable".

You can argue for the rest of your life that "irregardless" is not a word,
thereby making a few points with a few purists and annoying everyone else,
or you can find something important to argue about, your choice.

Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
: Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they categorize things that are actually
: encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a dictionary does _not_ give
: any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any given construct.

Why do you need words to be legitimized?


: Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they categorize how things *should*
: be used.

Acording to self-proclaimed experts who typically do not know very much
about language, unfortunately.
Even worse are the Edwin Newman/William Safire/Strunk & White types, who
*really* do not know anything about language..

: The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' compendiums
: is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary educational process.

Or it's a sign that a long-term fad (language prescriptivism in the
poular press) is now dying, which is overall a good thing.

-- Andy Barss

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> No, one *cannot*. flammable, and inflammable come from _different_ root
> words, _both_ are tracable all the way back to Old Latin, where the roots
> dispaly the same confusing similarity.
>
> "Inflammable" comes from the same root as "inflamation", "inflamed",
> "inflamatory", etc.
>
> "Flammable" comes from the same root as "flame".

Interesting. Language is a fascinating thing.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>>>> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing
>>>>> something 'without irregard'?
>>>>
>>>> It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries.
>>>
>>> Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they catagorize things that
>>> are actually encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a
>>> dictionary does _not_ give any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any
>>> given construct.
>>>
>>> Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they catagorize how things
>>> *should* be used.
>>>
>>> The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive'
>>> compendiums is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary
>>> educational process.
>>
>> Merriam-Webster and Oxford both contain it--Merriam-Webster says
>> that it is incorrect usage, Oxford says that it is American dialect.
>> As for the "divergence between prescriptive and descriptive
>> dictionaries, that's a polite way of saying "There's Oxford, and
>> there's Merriam-Webster, and then there's a bunch of crap".
>>
>> Any publisher of a dictionary who thinks that he controls the
>> language is a fool.
>>
>>>> As
>>>> we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular
>>>> word accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the
>>>> computer age. They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us
>>>> were alive, yet they're accepted without question now. It doesn't
>>>> make sense to say that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> 'Irregardless' is a 'double negative', having a negating prefix
>>> _and_ a negating suffix. A decomposition gets you 'without
>>> irregard', or '*not* regardless'. It is usually 'obvious', from
>>> context, that the user of
>>> the construct does not mean "not regardless"; thus one can only
>>> conclude, "from usage" (*evil* grin), that the intent is 'without
>>> irregard',
>>> whatever _that_ means.
>>
>> One can level the same sort of criticism at "inflammable".
>
> No, one *cannot*. flammable, and inflammable come from _different_
> root words, _both_ are tracable all the way back to Old Latin, where
> the roots dispaly the same confusing similarity.
>
> "Inflammable" comes from the same root as "inflamation", "inflamed",
> "inflamatory", etc.
>
> "Flammable" comes from the same root as "flame".

Ah, I see. So if it's old enough it becomes a word.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:44:44 -0700, the infamous Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>> Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing something
>>> 'without irregard'?
>>
>> It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries. As
>> we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
>> accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer age.
>> They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
>> they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
>> that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.
>>
>> Consider the explanation in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
>> "usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
>> early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to
>> the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
>> frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.”
>> There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech,
>> although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its
>> reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way
>> from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
>
>Similar to "fingernails on a blackboard", it's almost as irritating as
>an aspiring world leader saying "We've got" rather than "We have". My
>(Canadian) mother would have slapped _me_ silly for that abuse of the
>language...

With "irregardless" in there, I'm truly surprised that "newkyaler"
isn't there, too. <screeeeeeech>

--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>>>>> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing
>>>>>> something 'without irregard'?
>>>>>
>>>>> It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries.
>>>>
>>>> Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they catagorize things that
>>>> are actually encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a
>>>> dictionary does _not_ give any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any
>>>> given construct.
>>>>
>>>> Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they catagorize how things
>>>> *should* be used.
>>>>
>>>> The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive'
>>>> compendiums is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary
>>>> educational process.
>>>
>>> Merriam-Webster and Oxford both contain it--Merriam-Webster says
>>> that it is incorrect usage, Oxford says that it is American dialect.
>>> As for the "divergence between prescriptive and descriptive
>>> dictionaries, that's a polite way of saying "There's Oxford, and
>>> there's Merriam-Webster, and then there's a bunch of crap".
>>>
>>> Any publisher of a dictionary who thinks that he controls the
>>> language is a fool.
>>>
>>>>> As
>>>>> we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular
>>>>> word accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the
>>>>> computer age. They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us
>>>>> were alive, yet they're accepted without question now. It doesn't
>>>>> make sense to say that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> 'Irregardless' is a 'double negative', having a negating prefix
>>>> _and_ a negating suffix. A decomposition gets you 'without
>>>> irregard', or '*not* regardless'. It is usually 'obvious', from
>>>> context, that the user of
>>>> the construct does not mean "not regardless"; thus one can only
>>>> conclude, "from usage" (*evil* grin), that the intent is 'without
>>>> irregard',
>>>> whatever _that_ means.
>>>
>>> One can level the same sort of criticism at "inflammable".
>>
>> No, one *cannot*. flammable, and inflammable come from _different_
>> root words, _both_ are tracable all the way back to Old Latin, where
>> the roots dispaly the same confusing similarity.
>>
>> "Inflammable" comes from the same root as "inflamation", "inflamed",
>> "inflamatory", etc.
>>
>> "Flammable" comes from the same root as "flame".
>
>Ah, I see. So if it's old enough it becomes a word.

It is only in -recent- (sloppy) usage that the two words have been treated
as more-or-less interchangeable.

As recently as the mid 1960s, in technical usage, the two terms were as
different in meaning as 'explosive' and 'high explosive'.

The difference -- exactly as with explosive/high-explosive -- was in how
fast (and how readily) a thing burned. "Inflammable" things were _more_
sensitive/volatile than merely "flammable" ones.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>>Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>
>>Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing something
>>'without irregard'?
>
>It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries.

Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they catagorize things that are actually
encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a dictionary does _not_ give
any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any given construct.

Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they catagorize how things *should*
be used.

The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' compendiums
is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary educational process.

> As
>we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
>accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer age.
>They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
>they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
>that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.

'Irregardless' is a 'double negative', having a negating prefix _and_ a
negating suffix. A decomposition gets you 'without irregard', or '*not*
regardless'. It is usually 'obvious', from context, that the user of
the construct does not mean "not regardless"; thus one can only conclude,
"from usage" (*evil* grin), that the intent is 'without irregard',
whatever _that_ means.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:17:37 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> just thought i'd pass along the news...
>
>Hey I just bought 4 shares of each so now "I" own Stanley and B&D.

<clap, clap, clap, clap> AND you now have the clap!

--
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:

>"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
>ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
> -- Thomas Jefferson

That about sums up how I feel about Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, and
bombing the shit out of the infrastructure and civilians of Iraq -
useless profiteering bastards.


Greg G.

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0600, [email protected]
>>> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>>>
>>>> Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing
>>>> something 'without irregard'?
>>>
>>> It actually is a word and is currently found in many dictionaries.
>>
>> Some dictionaries are 'descriptive' -- they catagorize things that
>> are actually encountered 'in the wild'. Being listed in such a
>> dictionary does _not_ give any semblance of 'legitimacy' to any given
>> construct.
>>
>> Other dictionaries are 'prescriptive' -- they catagorize how things
>> *should* be used.
>>
>> The increasing divergence between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive'
>> compendiums is a _damning_ indictment of the contemporary educational
>> process.
>
>Merriam-Webster and Oxford both contain it--Merriam-Webster says that it is
>incorrect usage, Oxford says that it is American dialect. As for the
>"divergence between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries, that's a
>polite way of saying "There's Oxford, and there's Merriam-Webster, and then
>there's a bunch of crap".
>
>Any publisher of a dictionary who thinks that he controls the language is a
>fool.
>
>>> As
>>> we all know, if a word is used often enough it becomes a regular word
>>> accepted by most. Consider all the words attached to the computer
>>> age. They weren't around 40 years ago when many of us were alive, yet
>>> they're accepted without question now. It doesn't make sense to say
>>> that irregardless isn't a word, not anymore anyway.
>>
>> 'Irregardless' is a 'double negative', having a negating prefix _and_
>> a negating suffix. A decomposition gets you 'without irregard', or
>> '*not* regardless'. It is usually 'obvious', from context, that the
>> user of
>> the construct does not mean "not regardless"; thus one can only
>> conclude, "from usage" (*evil* grin), that the intent is 'without
>> irregard',
>> whatever _that_ means.
>
>One can level the same sort of criticism at "inflammable".

No, one *cannot*. flammable, and inflammable come from _different_ root
words, _both_ are tracable all the way back to Old Latin, where the roots
dispaly the same confusing similarity.

"Inflammable" comes from the same root as "inflamation", "inflamed",
"inflamatory", etc.

"Flammable" comes from the same root as "flame".

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:37:35 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
<toobusy@themoment> scrawled the following:

>"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Froz...
>>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>>>
>>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that
>>>> their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and
>>>> that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty
>>>> cash.
>>>
>>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
>>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
>>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever publicly.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
> Merriam-webster disagrees with you
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

That reminds me of the ditty "If you repeat a lie often enough, it
becomes a social truth."

See it in "The Dumbing Down of America" on the Useless Channel, #4378!

I didn't give up TeeVee for nothing. Hmm, I mean I dropped sat TV
because there were 500 channels of nothing on. I mean, I'd already
seen all 36 History Channel shows and 7 original SciFi channel movies.
Netflix does me right. I get 4 movies a week and absolutely no noisy
commercials (previews are skippable) and it only costs $12.99/month.
Now I'm reading a lot more -and- getting my projects done instead. I
reroofed the pumphouse so I can clean crap out of my shop. I put up a
carport and can't believe how many acorns are hitting it now, instead
of hitting my new truck. That little oak is not long for this world.
Who wants it? Free for the cutting. Located in Grass Pants, OR.

--
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello Leon,
>
>> I think we could take lessons from the Germans in this
>> category. They tend to have excellent quality control, they
>> insure that no one gets a better deal because of some political
>> association with a friend. They support you supporting your
>> local supplier rather than buying from some one across the
>> country.
>
> After trying for four years to become a Festool dealer, I just
> got my first
> shipment of just over 100 different SKU's.
>
> I didn't like there way of doing business when they wouldn't
> sell me tools,
> but now that I am onboard, I understand it and agree. One
> thousand times
> smarter than B&D.
>
> David.
>
>

I see that they offer the battery drills with NiMH and NiCD
batteries. What did they tell you about which to recommend for
different uses? Have they published any literature on the
differences?

--
Nonny

You cannot make a stupid kid smart by
handing him a diploma. Schools need standards
to measure the amount of education actually
absorbed by children. Don’t sacrifice the smart
kids to make the dumb ones feel good about themselves.

Steve Turner wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 5:12 pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> just thought i'd pass along the news...
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Stanley-Works-and-Black-bw-59641955...
>>>
>>> Yikes
>>> --
>>> Froz...
>>
>> I did NOT know that B & D owned Price Pfister. The Pfabulous Pfaucet
>> Pfor Pfussy Pfuckers.
>
> Oh man, don't get me started. I live in Pflugerville Texas, and you
> wouldn't believe the lengths they go to here to change every pfucking
> f-word to a pf-word. "Hey, I'm reading here in the Pflugerville Pflag
> that the Deutschen-Pfest and the Pfall Pfamily Pfun Pfest are both
> pfour days long this year!" It was cute for about pfive minutes, but
> any more it makes me want to pfart in their general direction.


??? Really?

I heard back in the '70's that during the University of Texas-Texas A&M
game, the Longhorns fired a small cannon when they made a touchdown. The
Aggies responded with a howitzer when they scored. Not to be outdone, the
Texas cheerleaders flung Napalm into the stands in a celebratory gesture
over the next field goal. Texas A&M finally ended the nonsense when they
dropped an Atom bomb on Pflugerville.

I guess by now the town has been rebuilt?

For your entertainment, the world's largest military marching band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1b-f4t1f-o

P.S. Members of the A&M band receive no college credits for participation.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Nov 4, 7:22 am, "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
> >>>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Froz...
> >>>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>
> >>>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans
> >>>>> that their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a
> >>>>> loser and that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them
> >>>>> out out of petty cash.
>
> >>>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
> >>>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
> >>>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever
> >>>> publicly.
>
> >>>> --
>
> >>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>
> >> Merriam-webster disagrees with you
>
> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
>
> > I disagree that it is an accepted word, and so does Merriam Webster. It
> > says:
> > Use regardless instead
>
> > --
> > Best regards
> > Han
>
> diggerop switches to pedantic mode ........
>
> It certainly does advise using "regardless" instead, however it also says
> that irregardless is indeed a word, even though it is a long way from
> general acceptance.
>
> From Merriam Webster's entry.......
>
> "The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such
> word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in
> speech,
> although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation
> has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general
> acceptance. Use regardless instead."
>
> I imagine some will continue to use it, irregardless. ; )
>
> diggerop

"Irregardless" hurts my head just like "fact of the matter" hurts my
head.


Well, the fa...... oh never mind ; )

In article <[email protected]>,
Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> --
>>>>> Froz...
>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>>
>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans that
>>> their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a loser and that
>>> some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them out out of petty cash.
>>
>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever publicly.
>>
>> --
>
>Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.

Really? And just what word _would_ you use to describe doing something
'without irregard'?

<snicker>

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "diggerop" <toobusy@themoment> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>> In other news Ryobi bought Festool.
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Froz...
>>>>>> Now THAT ain't funny!
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno, I think it would be hilarious--teach the bloody Germans
>>>>> that their strategy of pricing their tools as luxury items is a
>>>>> loser and that some cheap purveyor of consumer crap can buy them
>>>>> out out of petty cash.
>>>>
>>>> Don't think they can unless Festool (TTL Gmbh) wants to be bought
>>>> irregardless of how deep their pockets are. AFAICT, they're totally
>>>> privately held and put out no financial information whatsoever
>>>> publicly.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Regardless of what many think, irregardless isn't a word.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Merriam-webster disagrees with you
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
>
> I disagree that it is an accepted word, and so does Merriam Webster. It
> says:
> Use regardless instead
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han

diggerop switches to pedantic mode ........

It certainly does advise using "regardless" instead, however it also says
that irregardless is indeed a word, even though it is a long way from
general acceptance.

From Merriam Webster's entry.......

"The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such
word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech,
although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation
has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general
acceptance. Use regardless instead."

I imagine some will continue to use it, irregardless. ; )

diggerop