U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 7,997,567 times
Reputation: 2267

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
I guess you didn't, then, even though it was linked to earlier. (Not the Wikipedia entry, the Merriam-Webster entry, you know, the dictionary.)

So, since you chose to answer the question with what is, in essence, a non sequitor, and since getmeoutofhere chose to post a selection of the entry while ignoring the part that was most pertinent. I'll post the entire Merriam-Webster entry for you. I do find it amusing that you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, though. Seems a bit desperate to me, as if you have no valid argument to put forth on the topic and so are reduced to this.

Definition of IRREGARDLESS

nonstandard : regardless

Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

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.

The important parts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
16,426 posts, read 22,759,209 times
Reputation: 12678
Yes. Originated in American dialectal speech. As do most words, when you get right down to it. (Well, some originate in Italian dialectal speech, or British dialectal speech, or Latin dialectal speech, but you get the idea.)

This has what to do with civil liberties and bans of smoking, foods, perfumes, and speeding?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:03 PM
 
91 posts, read 77,404 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
I guess you didn't, then, even though it was linked to earlier. (Not the Wikipedia entry, the Merriam-Webster entry, you know, the dictionary.)

So, since you chose to answer the question with what is, in essence, a non sequitor, and since getmeoutofhere chose to post a selection of the entry while ignoring the part that was most pertinent. I'll post the entire Merriam-Webster entry for you. I do find it amusing that you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, though. Seems a bit desperate to me, as if you have no valid argument to put forth on the topic and so are reduced to this.

Definition of IRREGARDLESS

nonstandard : regardless

Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

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.
Well "Bless your heart"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 7,997,567 times
Reputation: 2267
I didn't bring it up again, and you seem to be the only one arguing that it's appropriate. Even Urban Dictionary mocks the people who use it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:06 PM
 
27 posts, read 6,360 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Yes. Originated in American dialectal speech. As do most words, when you get right down to it. (Well, some originate in Italian dialectal speech, or British dialectal speech, or Latin dialectal speech, but you get the idea.)

This has what to do with civil liberties and bans of smoking, foods, perfumes, and speeding?

The fact that your so dense makes it appropriate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
16,426 posts, read 22,759,209 times
Reputation: 12678
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm dense, and let's explain to the dense person exactly what the use of irregardless has to do with the regulation of smoking, and with civil liberties. Which is, of course, the topic of the thread. If, of course, one is able to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 7,997,567 times
Reputation: 2267
It has nothing to do with it. I pointed it out because you try and make your posts sound educated and give the appearance that you know what you are talking about, and by using that non-word, you belie all that. I was trying to help you, and you decided to dig in and argue this particular point, which is laughable to everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
16,426 posts, read 22,759,209 times
Reputation: 12678
No, sorry, you were trying the argument ad hominem for the usual reason - you weren't able to put forward a convincing argument or, in particular, answer the question that would be so uncomfortable to answer because it would weaken your agenda.

That's actually pretty obvious. And I'm done enabling that particular kind of behavior.

It's not fair to the people who would actually like to have a substantive discussion of the very important issues on this thread.

That being said, once again, if you have strong feelings on this issue, I hope that you have contacted your legislator to let them know exactly what they are. I certainly did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:23 PM
 
27 posts, read 6,360 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
No, sorry, you were trying the argument ad hominem for the usual reason - you weren't able to put forward a convincing argument or, in particular, answer the question that would be so uncomfortable to answer because it would weaken your agenda.

That's actually pretty obvious. And I'm done enabling that particular kind of behavior.

It's not fair to the people who would actually like to have a substantive discussion of the very important issues on this thread.

That being said, once again, if you have strong feelings on this issue, I hope that you have contacted your legislator to let them know exactly what they are. I certainly did.

"And she's on the next train to Siberia" !!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 7,997,567 times
Reputation: 2267
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
No, sorry, you were trying the argument ad hominem for the usual reason - you weren't able to put forward a convincing argument or, in particular, answer the question that would be so uncomfortable to answer because it would weaken your agenda.

That's actually pretty obvious. And I'm done enabling that particular kind of behavior.

It's not fair to the people who would actually like to have a substantive discussion of the very important issues on this thread.

That being said, once again, if you have strong feelings on this issue, I hope that you have contacted your legislator to let them know exactly what they are. I certainly did.

I'm sorry that case law, health codes, and basically common law back to before we were a country dictates that you're wrong and you won't accept it.

You've failed to put forth any reasonable argument except for your belief that something should be one way, when in fact and and in law, it is not. And you've attacked me on many levels instead of addressing the facts and the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:11 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top