NFL draws line on Pinto Ken's bowling ball shots

[DanInSouthBuffalo]

 

“Irregardless of the fact that he may have been doing this over the course of a number of years, it doesn’t make it right,” Miller said. “People taking shots out of a bowling ball actually has the effect of repelling families.”

 

 

It may have the effect of repelling paying customers as well.............

Edited September 17, 2010 by DanInSouthBuffalo

[The Dean]

Is "across the street" Hammer's lot?

 

If so, that's a great unintended consequence for all involved. Hammer has the best lot around.

[Just Jack]

Is "across the street" Hammer's lot?

 

If so, that's a great unintended consequence for all involved. Hammer has the best lot around.

Not Hammers, it was mentioned in one of the other threads, due to the crowd Kenny attracts (number of people, not the people themelves). Kenny's looking at locations near the RV lot or the ECC lot I've heard.

 

Found it. Rockpile talked to Ken about Hammers.

[Kelly the Dog]

Seeing how that was written by "our" very own John Wawrow, someone should credit him.

And who the hell is Jay Crowe? Is he the lead singer of The Black Crowes? That band sucks.

[The Dean]

Not Hammers, it was mentioned in one of the other threads, due to the crowd Kenny attracts (number of people, not the people themelves). Kenny's looking at locations near the RV lot or the ECC lot I've heard.

 

Found it. Rockpile talked to Ken about Hammers.

 

 

Yes, I think it would probably overwhelm Hammer's lot, now that you mention it. Too bad.

[stevestojan]

I did a bowling ball shot. Actually, I did 4. When I went over there, the "rule" (which I'm convinced was made up the second I got there) was after you did the shot, you needed to drop the ball and it had to land thumb hole perfectly facing up. Took me 4 tries, but I got it.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh, but you are wrong. We have already had this discussion on these forums, since I also use the word irregardless from time to time in my vocabulary, and had to have this same discussion with them.

 

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

 

"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."

In other words, it's not really a word, but so many witless idiots use it as a word, that it has become accepted as a word.

[The Dean]

In other words, it's not really a word, but so many witless idiots use it as a word, that it has become accepted as a word.

 

 

Precisely.

[West End Stench]

This is so dumb for so many reasons probably already discussed in this thread. There are things going on during Buffalo Bills and other teams' tailgates that are 10X worse than bowling ball shots, including things being snorted, other things being smoked, and asses getting kicked. Not to mention the occasional tit-flashing and horribly entertaining profanity. Get bent, NFL.

[Big Turk]

In other words, it's not really a word, but so many witless idiots use it as a word, that it has become accepted as a word.

 

Well, not exactly. Many words started out in similar fashion, as no language is static. Words are constantly being added/created/made popular while others are discontinued/diminished/become less popular. Irregardless of your opinion on the matter, it is still a word, and is used in both speech and writing. It is estimated that a new English word is created every 98 minutes. Better "step your game up" and start subscribing to some Word A Day sites that email you a new word each day with its meaning.

 

Perhaps you seem witless to those with expanded vocabularies for not knowing this...

 

As Money May would say: Step your game up!

Edited September 17, 2010 by matter2003

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, not exactly. Many words started out in similar fashion, as no language is static. Words are constantly being added/created/made popular while others are discontinued/diminished/become less popular. Irregardless of your opinion on the matter, it is still a word, and is used in both speech and writing. It is estimated that a new English word is created every 98 minutes. Better "step your game up" and start subscribing to some Word A Day sites that email you a new word each day with its meaning.

 

Perhaps you seem witless to those with expanded vocabularies for not knowing this...

 

As Money May would say: Step your game up!

Well, not exactly. I understand new words, slang words that become common usage words, making up words that catch on and become words, etc. I actually make up words all the time. Even added a couple to the Urban Dictionary. I even misuse words on purpose all the time, and I am a professional writer.

 

That is not at all the same thing as misuse of correct words that are so abused that they are reluctantly accepted as words because so many people misuse them. It's not even the same as a word like "ain't" which has become acceptable (and I use all the time). Ain't is not a misused word as much as a slang term that became common and is now acceptable language. But, IMO at least, irregardless is not. It's either akin to a double negative, or it doesn't really make sense.

 

And just because something becomes common doesn't mean it should be accepted.

[The Dean]

This is so dumb for so many reasons probably already discussed in this thread. There are things going on during Buffalo Bills and other teams' tailgates that are 10X worse than bowling ball shots, including things being snorted, other things being smoked, and asses getting kicked. Not to mention the occasional tit-flashing and horribly entertaining profanity. Get bent, NFL.

 

Um, where precisely. And am I invited?

 

 

Well, not exactly. Many words started out in similar fashion, as no language is static. Words are constantly being added/created/made popular while others are discontinued/diminished/become less popular. Irregardless of your opinion on the matter, it is still a word, and is used in both speech and writing.

 

Perhaps you seem witless to those with expanded vocabularies for not knowing this...

 

 

You are right that language grows and develops. But in this case, "irregardless" was entered into dictionaries not because it was a new word, communicated something other words couldn't effectively communicate or was some folksy slang that became accepted. It clearly was used by idiots that didn't understand how to use "regardless" and/or "irrespective". It may be listed in the dictionary, but is usually described as a something that is NOT accepted as proper, and shouldn't be used. Take this definition for example:

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?show=0&t=1284695819

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.

 

I can see it now, the definition of "mute" will expand to include "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic" because so many freaking idiots don't know how to pronounce "moot".

 

My favorite dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary. They have a usage panel "consisting of around 200 prominent members of professions whose work demands sensitivity to language." For controversial words they tell you what percentage of the panel finds a particular word, or use of a word, acceptable. Very interesting, really. For what it's worth, The American Heritage Dictionary's online definition of "irregardless" (without Usage Panel info) is:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s...

 

...Word Origin & History

irregardless

an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s...

Edited September 17, 2010 by The Dean

[HurlyBurly51]

The NFL should employ people who aren't so stupid.

 

"Irregardless"

 

Exactly what I was gonna post.

 

no because somebody might get some stray vinegar and tomato paste in their eye

 

They were showing him getting showered with ketchup and mustard all over the newscasts Sunday.

 

In other words, it's not really a word, but so many witless idiots use it as a word, that it has become accepted as a word.

 

Exactly, except it's not really even accepted as a word. When I hear someone using this "word" in their daily vocabulary, my perception of their intelligence level drops precipitously.

[Kelly the Dog]

irregardless

an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s...

That's probably the best reason right there why it should not be considered a word. Because it actually means the opposite of what people want to say.

 

Usually I am an advocate of "communication" over grammar and correctness. If people understand what you are trying to convey, in most cases, I don't usually care what words are used. But when they are just plain wrong, and in this case, saying the opposite, it gets to be something different.

 

And it obviously doesn't hold true in other cases. You could not use capitals and periods and paragraphs and people would still understand what you meant to communicate, but that doesn't make it right or okay.

[The Dean]

That's probably the best reason right there why it should not be considered a word. Because it actually means the opposite of what people want to say.

 

Usually I am an advocate of "communication" over grammar and correctness. If people understand what you are trying to convey, in most cases, I don't usually care what words are used. But when they are just plain wrong, and in this case, saying the opposite, it gets to be something different.

 

And it obviously doesn't hold true in other cases. You could not use capitals and periods and paragraphs and people would still understand what you meant to communicate, but that doesn't make it right or okay.

 

 

I agree with all of this. I accused a teacher of being a "language vigilante" once, as he was totally unacceptable of slang and regionalism in language. But this goes far beyond that.

[Kelly the Dog]

I accused a teacher of being a "language vigilante" once, as he was totally unacceptable of slang and regionalism in language. But this goes far beyond that.

On a vocabulary test, I once answered "underneath de floor" as the definition for "debasement", and had an hour long argument with the "language vigilante" teacher over its validity.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[The Dean]

On a vocabulary test, I once answered "underneath de floor" as the definition for "debasement", and had an hour long argument with the "language vigilante" teacher over its validity.

 

 

[Big Turk]

That's probably the best reason right there why it should not be considered a word. Because it actually means the opposite of what people want to say.

 

Usually I am an advocate of "communication" over grammar and correctness. If people understand what you are trying to convey, in most cases, I don't usually care what words are used. But when they are just plain wrong, and in this case, saying the opposite, it gets to be something different.

 

And it obviously doesn't hold true in other cases. You could not use capitals and periods and paragraphs and people would still understand what you meant to communicate, but that doesn't make it right or okay.

 

With as many screwed up things that exist in the English language that make it among the hardest to learn, because of nonsensical rules and language constructs, this is pretty minor.

 

Its much better to have:

 

1) Words that have no business being spelled the way they are such as Colonel, but inexplicably pronounced the same as the word Kernel, even though it contains neither an "e" or "r" and somehow has a silent "o" after those sounds. Knight(pronounced the same as night), feat/feet pronounced the same with different meanings, but meanwhile the word fete which seems like it should be pronounced the same as the other 2 has the same pronunciation as fate. Huh?

 

2) Words with the same spelling that have different pronunciations depending on how they are used in a sentence like read(can be pronounced like red or reed), both of which are words that sound the same as read but have different meanings of course

 

3) Words with the same spellings and pronunciations but different meanings like the word colon.

 

4) Having the same letters appear in words but having multiple pronunciations, such as "ough" as in rough(ruff), dough(doe), through(thru), cough(koff) and

 

5) Letters that sometimes are pronounced one way and other times are pronounced other ways(C--ex: cotton and celebrate and Y--ex:yard and thyme) immediately come to mind

 

Perhaps you could better focus your English language crusades on things that actually need fixing rather than words that are actually words that people still want to debate are not words...

 

For a casual outside observer, the English language must look like it was put together by a bunch of witless idiots.

Edited September 17, 2010 by matter2003

[Kelly the Dog]

With as many screwed up things that exist in the English language that make it among the hardest to learn, because of nonsensical rules and language constructs, this is pretty minor.

 

Its much better to have:

 

1) Words that have no business being spelled the way they are such as Colonel, but inexplicably pronounced the same as the word Kernel. Knight(pronounced the same as night), feat/feet pronounced the same with different meanings, but meanwhile the word fete which seems like it should be pronounced the same as the other 2 has the same pronunciation as fate. Huh?

 

2) Words with the same spelling that have different pronunciations depending on how they are used in a sentence like read(can be pronounced like red or reed), both of which are words that sound the same as read but have different meanings of course

 

3) Having the same letters appear in words but having multiple pronunciations, such as "ough" as rough(ruff), dough(doe), through(thru), cough(koff) and

 

4) Letters that sometimes are pronounced one way and other times are pronounced other ways(C--ex: cotton and celebrate and Y--ex:yard and thyme) immediately come to mind

 

Perhaps you could better focus your English language crusades on things that actually need fixing rather than words that are actually words that people still want to debate are not...

 

For a casual outside observer, the English language must look like it was put together by a bunch of witless idiots.

:lol: Two posts and an anecdotal joke is a crusade?

 

I should worry about 3-4 other worse uses of language instead of this one that have absolutely nothing to do with this one? That's actually a really good point and idea. From now on, I am not going to worry or think badly of date-rape or robbery because first degree murder and nuclear weapons are so much worse.

 

FWIW, I happen to use and rely on the (unabridged) Random House Dictionary of the English Language. It's a very good one. My nice hardcover edition is 2500+ pages. It labels "irregardless" as "non-standard" and I shall, too, regardless of what you think. The Oxford dictionaries say "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’.

 

In other words, it ain't a word. And if you intentionally want to appear to be a witless idiot to others, please continue to use it as such.

[cåblelady]

......As a member of the extended 'bowling ball shot' family, (although, once was quite enough!) I think that this is an outrage.

The NFL (and of course, the Bills) is biting the hand that feeds it.

The bloated security detail in lot one was ridiculous (They threw everyone out of the lot at 6:00) and I hope to see the unofficial TBD lot 1/pole5 tailgate move elsewhere..

They killed Kenny. No Fun League.