2
   

The writer's stammering humourously?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
oristarA
 
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 08:17 pm
http://b.pictureupload.us/2129060921500227ae22e5e.jpg

More:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-07-02/eugenics-jukes-family/55944082/1
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,321 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
JTT
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 08:22 pm
@oristarA,
My guess is no, Ori, but you could be right.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 11:49 pm
Thank you JTT.
Here we got another one::
"If you rinse off a dropped hot dog you will will probably greatly reduce the amount of contamination, but there will still be some amount of unwanted and potentially nonbeneficial bacteria on that hot dog," said Parada, who admits to employing the five-second rule on occasion. "Maybe the dropped item only picks up 1,000 bacteria, but typically the innoculum, or amount of bacteria that is needed for most people to actually get infected, is 10,000 bacteria -- well, then the odds are that no harm will occur. But what if you have a more sensitive system, or you pick up a bacteria with a lower infectious dose? Then, you are rolling the dice with your health or that of your loved one."

More:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 12:59 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

Thank you JTT.
Here we got another one::
"If you rinse off a dropped hot dog you will will probably greatly reduce the amount of contamination, but there will still be some amount of unwanted and potentially nonbeneficial bacteria on that hot dog," said Parada, who admits to employing the five-second rule on occasion. "Maybe the dropped item only picks up 1,000 bacteria, but typically the innoculum, or amount of bacteria that is needed for most people to actually get infected, is 10,000 bacteria -- well, then the odds are that no harm will occur. But what if you have a more sensitive system, or you pick up a bacteria with a lower infectious dose? Then, you are rolling the dice with your health or that of your loved one."

More:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/
The "will will" is only a typografical error.
That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:37 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:40 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 04:00 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 09:17 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?


As a lawyer, you've got to prove your point. Ask yourself How please.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 09:26 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?


As a lawyer, you've got to prove your point. Ask yourself How please.
U requested to be shown.
HOW do u wish to be shown ??

Please note that in litigation,
the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE side
(except in regard to affirmative defenses).

I rendered a DENIAL; (that 's negative).




IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I hereto set my hand:





David, Esq.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 09:37 am
No. It's a typo. There is nothing particularly humorous about it as it stands, nor is it in any way relevant to the story. For the most part English speakers know the stammerer can't help itand regard it as something arousing sympathy, not humor. A couple generations ago, it might have been different--I think there was a comedian whose shtick revolved around a stammer (a fake stammer) in the 20's, but he couldn't get away with that today.

This is one of those rare times when David actually is talking sense. Make not of it.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 09:58 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?


As a lawyer, you've got to prove your point. Ask yourself How please.
U requested to be shown.
HOW do u wish to be shown ??

Please note that in litigation,
the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE side
(except in regard to affirmative defenses).

I rendered a DENIAL; (that 's negative).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I hereto set my hand:

David, Esq.



You've got "you've got to show me" wrong, sir.
It refers to "you've got to show (your proof in front of) me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 10:02 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?


As a lawyer, you've got to prove your point. Ask yourself How please.
U requested to be shown.
HOW do u wish to be shown ??

Please note that in litigation,
the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE side
(except in regard to affirmative defenses).

I rendered a DENIAL; (that 's negative).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I hereto set my hand:

David, Esq.



You've got "you've got to show me" wrong, sir.
It refers to "you've got to show (your proof in front of) me.
No one has to prove a negative, Oristar.
It is impossible to do so.
I rendered a negative.
For instance, if u deny the existence
of the Easter Bunny, it is impossible for u to prove
that he does not exist somewhere.





David
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 10:11 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?


As a lawyer, you've got to prove your point. Ask yourself How please.
U requested to be shown.
HOW do u wish to be shown ??

Please note that in litigation,
the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE side
(except in regard to affirmative defenses).

I rendered a DENIAL; (that 's negative).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I hereto set my hand:

David, Esq.



You've got "you've got to show me" wrong, sir.
It refers to "you've got to show (your proof in front of) me.
No one has to prove a negative, Oristar.
It is impossible to do so.
I rendered a negative.
For instance, if u deny the existence
of the Easter Bunny, it is impossible for u to prove
that he does not exist somewhere.

David


Are you saying "saying NO is a cure-all strategy," sir?







OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 10:44 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


That is also true of the "one one"; merely accidental.
There is no humor in either one.


Does it serve as evidence of stammer of the writer?
Any trace is important, Lawyer, as Sherlock Holmes told us.
No.


I'm from Missouri, sir. You've got to show me.
How ?


As a lawyer, you've got to prove your point. Ask yourself How please.
U requested to be shown.
HOW do u wish to be shown ??

Please note that in litigation,
the burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE side
(except in regard to affirmative defenses).

I rendered a DENIAL; (that 's negative).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I hereto set my hand:

David, Esq.



You've got "you've got to show me" wrong, sir.
It refers to "you've got to show (your proof in front of) me.
No one has to prove a negative, Oristar.
It is impossible to do so.
I rendered a negative.
For instance, if u deny the existence
of the Easter Bunny, it is impossible for u to prove
that he does not exist somewhere.

David


Are you saying "saying NO is a cure-all strategy," sir?
No.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 12:00 pm
If it were meant humorously it would be humorous. It isn't, not even slightly.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:11 pm
Good grief Oristar. Listen to people. It's a typo. Get over it.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 05:05 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Good grief Oristar. Listen to people. It's a typo. Get over it.


Of course I know all along, Dlowan. Very Happy

Good morning, guys. (Here's morning in China)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 11:20 pm
@oristarA,
dlowan wrote:
Good grief Oristar. Listen to people. It's a typo. Get over it.
oristarA wrote:
Of course I know all along, Dlowan. Very Happy

Good morning, guys. (Here's morning in China)
WHERE in China r u ?

I am acquainted with a lad (a young law student, who shares my first name)
who has been very severely afflicted with stammering. Presumably, by now,
he has thriving law practice.
We belong to the same world-wide club.
I have not seen him for several years.
I consider it to be very unlikely that when he writes,
he accidentally repeats his written words more than normal, non-stammerers do.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 11:28 pm
@oristarA,
I 'm not sure whether there is a tacit implication
in your questions, concerning whether repetition
of these words can be intended as an intensifier,
similar to how "very, very" or "beautiful, beautiful" is.

Those words (will and one) cannot logically be used as intensifiers.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Expert help needed: pronoun form following main verb before a gerund - Question by adavis444
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Do you understand what "Transition overground" means? - Question by Alexander7
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
Is this paragraph incomprehensible? Would you suggest an edit? - Question by tamara123454
Does this sentence make any sense in English? - Question by estherara
Could someone review my assignment? - Question by kair0s
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The writer's stammering humourously?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 10:22:17
▲ ▼