Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Short post today.

Last weekend was spent moving into the new house. It was a long, cold weekend to say the least. I say we moved, and this is true, but notice I didn't say we were unpacked. We are to finish painting before we finish unpacking. Hopefully Sunday will see us unpacking (that's the plan), but the arrival of the rest of my stuff via the movers is set for sometime in the next 3 days. This event could easily change the plans, as the garage is currently full meaning that surely something must go in the house when it arrives, irregardless of paint status.

Also, we have been internet free at home since last Saturday. Suffice it to say, these have been 4 long, hard, arduous days...

16 Comments:

At Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am fairly certain that "irregardless" is not a word. I expect more from you big brother:)

 
At Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:48:00 PM, Blogger _paul said...

@little brother:

Oh, well, you should try out dictionary.com then my friend. Or merriam webster's site. Both of these will show you that, while not typically used, irregardless is most certainly a word.

In fact, were you to read this blog in 1930's you might even say that it's usage was 'hip' (though I'm not positive that 'hip' is a '30's era word...).

 
At Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think "swingin'" is appropriate. Swinging in the '30's was not the same thing as being a swinger now.

--John

 
At Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stand corrected. It IS a word, but only because people insist on using it, no matter how incorrect and unnecessary it may be (like the word "ain't.")

I apologize, half-heartedly, as even your definitions of it do not recommend its use.

P.S. How exactly would I be reading this blog in the 1930s before Al Gore invented the internet?

 
At Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:14:00 PM, Blogger _paul said...

@John:

thanks for the era-appropriate slang!

@rick (again):

What is this, our annual word debate? lol See this set of comments if you need your memory refreshed.

Also, after reading recent comments (see Nov 9) on my myspace, I'm starting to think you and Bonnie are in league against me! Egads! Has my writing become so abhorrent, abysmal, and acrid as to cause traitorous mutiny by mine own kin?!

 
At Friday, December 08, 2006 11:13:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I anit got a clue what ANY of these words are meaning. I am only able to speech to yous guys via babblefish. Please translation.

 
At Friday, December 08, 2006 4:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, as long as we are doing verbal gymnastics, might as well throw this in...

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html

-Randall

 
At Monday, December 11, 2006 11:26:00 AM, Blogger _paul said...

@mpm: lol

@Randall: Yay! Antagonyms!!

 
At Monday, December 11, 2006 10:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you'd think you all were a bunch of english majors or something. i'm feeling quite at home in the present discussion.

 
At Monday, December 11, 2006 11:09:00 PM, Blogger _paul said...

@anon: Awesome! What is your take on irregular then? How 'bout invaluable in a negative light??

 
At Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:11:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether it is in the dictionary or not, irregardless is sort of a double negative.

ir-regard-less. Does that mean NOT regardless? Which would really mean something like regardful?

I am not an English major, but I also find this discussion very interesting. :)

 
At Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:30:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What can I say, Rick and Bonnie are the cools for making jest of your ostensible use of inutile words.

 
At Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What kind of sons have I raised that they have such infantile debates over such trivial matters rather than something much more important like how a 2nd rate team like Florida can displace the mighty (Thea will attest to that) Wolverines in their annual quest (usally collapse) for the Holy Grail. Young men you must get your priorities in order.


Your not quite understanding father.

 
At Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to that.

 
At Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:59:00 PM, Blogger _paul said...

@Dear Ole Dad: You are right. I say down with the BCS! We could go with the ESPN rankings (at least this year), however, as they list the Amazin' Blue at almost the right spot. They got 'em at second, and we all know they should be first. Still the title game'd still be the same...

 
At Friday, December 15, 2006 8:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

_paul: I don't know about this Big Blue of which you speak, but I hear that the Whalers are favorites for the King's Ashes, or Lord Stanley's Cup, or whatever it is they play for.

--John

 

Post a Comment

<< Home