Post-season T report

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In how many of these situations did the nine nonshooters go behind the division line?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I wouldn't know.

Agreed BNR. I couldn't care less......or is it, I could care less?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know for a fact none of them went inside the 3-point arc or below the free throw line extended, and that none of them committed any unsporting acts during the free throws. That's all I cared about.

Originally Posted by grunewar

I couldn't care less.

That's it. No 10% discount for you two when I come to your town on my national article signing tour.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Agreed BNR. I couldn't care less......or is it, I could care less?

It sounds like it really does not matter.

Could care less vs. Couldn't care less

It sounds like the regardless vs. irregardless situations. Both are right but people are convinced one is wrong.

BTW, I agree with you. Never cared as I never tell players where they ultimately go. They go where they want to go. I only stop them from being directly on the lane line.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It sounds like it really does not matter. .... It sounds like the regardless vs. irregardless situations. Both are right but people are convinced one is wrong.

No, sir. The link you provided says to stick with "couldn't care less." Same with "regardless." The others are indeed wrong.

(A fun one in these parts is "unthaw.")

Originally Posted by Aremred

2nd tech on the kid. Unfortunately I forgot he had one so I didn't get to do the fun ejection signal.

Why not? Is there any reason you can't give a flagrant T after a run-of-the-mill T?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

No, sir. The link you provided says to stick with "couldn't care less." Same with "regardless." The others are indeed wrong.

(A fun one in these parts is "unthaw.")

Irregardless is in many dictionaries. And the link I listed is more about what is accepted by culture than giving more of a reason why one should or should not be used.

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Irregardless is in many dictionaries. And the link I listed is more about what is accepted by culture than giving more of a reason why one should or should not be used.

Peace

In most dictionaries, irregardless is listed as a non-standard word. Because irregardless has a prefix, ir, and a suffix, less, that mean the same thing, they actually change the meaning of the word to caring about something or considering something with regard, when the word is used to demonstrate a person's lack of caring or regard. You are correct about the cultural acceptance of irregardless, but that doesn't change the fact that it is technically incorrect, and its use should be avoided in all but casual communications.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

In most dictionaries, irregardless is listed as a non-standard word. Because irregardless has a prefix, ir, and a suffix, less, that mean the same thing, they actually change the meaning of the word to caring about something or considering something with regard, when the word is used to demonstrate a person's lack of caring or regard. You are correct about the cultural acceptance of irregardless, but that doesn't change the fact that it is technically incorrect, and its use should be avoided in all but casual communications.

I have read that it is not technically correct. Again, it really depends on who is saying it and where you are saying that word. Language is fluid and changes all the time with slang and dialect. Nothing new here.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Language is fluid and changes all the time with slang and dialect.

I'm on a personal campaign to bring back the word, "Groovy". It's a cool word, and even sounds cool to say it, it kind of flows off your tongue.

Now if all Forum members can try to use this word at least once every day, and if they can get two others to so the same, and if they can get two others to do the same, etc., etc., then we'll get, "Groovy", right back into circulation. It never should have left everyday language usage to begin with.

[Dexter555]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have read that it is not technically correct. Again, it really depends on who is saying it and where you are saying that word. Language is fluid and changes all the time with slang and dialect.

Language DOES change, and what becomes so commonplace can sometimes become accepted. Technically, "Can I have some water?" is incorrect, but so few people say "May I" anymore that it may soon become accepted by use.

Not so with irregardless. I have never seen a credible grammar source or dictionary--and I have looked extensively--that suggests "irregardless" is accepted or interchangeable with "regardless." All recommend, much like the Oxford dictionary: "Irregardless is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as irrespective , but should be avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean ‘without regard or consideration for’ or ‘nevertheless’."

It is however, clearly understood what the user is saying when they say "irregardless," and it is boorish to correct the user. But I think it would be GROOVY if we all used the more proper word.

Oh, and I didn't make a pre-season prediction, but 3 Ts. 2 for substitutions, 1 for unsportsmanlike spiking the ball after a call.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Why not? Is there any reason you can't give a flagrant T after a run-of-the-mill T?

I hear what you are saying, but it wasn't really deserving of a flagrant T. The kid tossed the ball over his shoulder in my direction -- he didn't gun the ball at me trying to hit me. A stupid play even if unintentional, and no one complained.