Archive for Stuff

I love this – must read – 24 Things You Might Be (ARE) Saying Wrong

// August 27th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // Stuff

Please read this and make a mental note of what you mean when you say things like “I could care less” or “Supposably”. Words mean what they mean, not what you mean.

* by Reader’s Digest Magazine, on Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:23am PDT

The Reader’s Digest Version of all those confusing words and seemingly random rules you missed in English class.

You never mean: Could care less
You always mean: Couldn’t care less

Why: You want to say you care so little already that you couldn’t possibly care any less. When the Boston Celtics’ Ray Allen said, “God could care less whether I can shoot a jump shot,” we know he meant exactly the opposite because 1) God has other things on his mind, and 2) God is a Knicks fan.

You might say: Mano a mano
You might mean: Man-to-man

Why: You don’t speak Spanish by adding vowels to the end of English words, as a columnist describing father–teenage son relationships seemed to think when he wrote, “Don’t expect long, mano a mano talks.” Mano a mano (literally, “hand to hand”) originated with bullfighting and usually refers to a knock-down, drag-out direct confrontation.

You might say: Less
You might mean: Fewer

Why: In general, use fewer when you’re specifying a number of countable things (“200 words or fewer”); reserve less for a mass (“less than half”). So when you’re composing a tweet, do it in 140 characters or fewer, not less.

You never mean: Hone in
You always mean: Home in

Why: Like homing pigeons, we can be single-minded about finding our way to a point: “Scientists are homing in on the causes of cancer.” Hone means “to sharpen”: “The rookie spent the last three seasons honing his skills in the minor leagues.” But it’s easy to mishear m’s and n’s, which is probably what happened to the Virginia senator who said, “We’ve got to hone in on cost containment.” If you’re unsure, say “zero in” instead.

You might say: Bring
You might mean: Take

Why: The choice depends on your point of view. Use bring when you want to show motion toward you (“Bring the dog treats over here, please”). Use take to show motion in the opposite direction (“I have to take Rufus to the vet”). The rule gets confusing when the movement has nothing to do with you. In those cases, you can use either verb, depending on the context: “The assistant brought the shot to the vet” (the vet’s point of view); “the assistant took the shot to the doctor” (the assistant’s).

You might say: Who
You might mean: Whom

Why: It all depends. Do you need a subject or an object? A subject (who) is the actor of the sentence: “Who left the roller skates on the sidewalk?” An object (whom) is the acted-upon: “Whom are you calling?” Parents, hit the Mute button when Dora the Explorer shouts, “Who do we ask for help when we don’t know which way to go?”

You almost never mean: Brother-in-laws, runner-ups, hole in ones, etc.
You almost always mean: Brothers-in-law, runners-up, holes in one, etc.

Why: Plurals of these compound nouns are formed by adding an s to the thing there’s more than one of (brothers, not laws). Some exceptions: words ending in ful (mouthfuls) and phrases like cul-de-sacs.

You almost never mean: Try and
You almost always mean: Try to

Why: Try and try again, yes, but if you’re planning to do something, use the infinitive form: “I’m going to try to run a marathon.” Commenting on an online story about breakups, one woman wrote, “A guy I dated used to try and impress me with the choice of books he was reading.” It’s no surprise that the relationship didn’t last.

You almost never mean: Different than
You almost always mean: Different from

Why: This isn’t the biggest offense, but if you can easily substitute from for than (My mother’s tomato sauce is different from my mother-in-law’s), do it. Use than for comparisons: My mother’s tomato sauce is better than my mother-in-law’s.

You almost never mean: Beg the question
You almost always mean: Raise the question

Why: Correctly used, “begging the question” is like making a circular argument (I don’t like you because you’re so unlikable). But unless you’re a philosophy professor, you shouldn’t ever need this phrase. Stick to “raise the question.”

You might say: More than
You can also say: Over

Why: The two are interchangeable when the sense is “Over 6,000 hats were sold.” We like grammarian Bryan Garner’s take on it: “The charge that over is inferior to more than is a baseless crotchet.”

You almost never mean: Supposably
You almost always mean: Supposedly

Why: Supposably is, in fact, a word—it means “conceivably”—but not the one you want if you’re trying to say “it’s assumed,” and certainly not the one you want if you’re on a first date with an English major or a job interview with an English speaker.

You might say: All of
You probably mean: All

Why: Drop the of whenever you can, as Julia Roberts recently did, correctly: “Every little moment is amazing if you let yourself access it. I learn that all the time from my kids.” But you need all of before a pronoun (“all of them”) and before a possessive noun (“all of Julia’s kids”).

You might say: That
You might mean: Which

Why: “The money that is on the table is for you” is different from “the money, which is on the table, is for you.” That pinpoints the subject: The money that is on the table is yours; the money in my pocket is mine. Which introduces an aside, a bit of extra information. If you remove “which is on the table,” you won’t change the meaning: The money is for you (oh, and unless you don’t want it, it’s on the table). If the clause is necessary to your meaning, use that; if it could safely be omitted, say which.

You never mean: Outside of
You always mean: Outside

Why: These two prepositions weren’t meant for each other. Perfectly acceptable: “Wearing a cheese-head hat outside Wisconsin will likely earn you some stares and glares (unless you’re surrounded by Green Bay Packers fans, that is).”

You might say: Each other
You might mean: One another

Why: Tradition says that each other should be used with two people or things, and one another with more than two, and careful speakers should follow suit: “The three presenters argued with one another over who should announce the award, but Ann and Barbara gave each other flowers after the ceremony.” (By the way, if you need the possessive form of either one when writing that business letter, it’s always each other’s and one another’s; never end with s’.)

PLUS: 10 Dos and Don’t of Corporate Culture

8 Confusing Pairs

leery, wary: suspicious
weary: tired

farther: for physical distance
further: for metaphorical distance or time

principle: rule
principal: of your school

compliment: nice thing to say
complement: match

continual: ongoing but intermittent
continuous: without interruption

stationary: stands still
stationery: paper

imply: to suggest a meaning
infer: to draw meaning from something

affect: typically a verb, meaning “to act upon or cause an effect”; as a noun, it’s “an emotional response”
effect: typically a noun, meaning “something produced,” like a special effect; as a verb, “to bring about,” as in “to effect change”

The Masters & Tiger – Finally Time to Watch Some Golf

// April 8th, 2010 // 5 Comments » // Stuff

Yes, I am a Tiger Woods lackey.  As much as I am disgusted by his transgressions, I can not wait to watch him play golf again.  You see, to me, Tiger is a golfer, athlete, entertainer and nothing more.  Do I want my son to look up to him as a role model when it comes to how to live your life and treat your family?  Of course not, that’s what I am for.  Would I like my son to appreciate his approach and focus when it comes to competing?  Yeah, the same why I looked up to Michael Jordan and somehow never managed to be a gambler or womanizer.

All I really wanted to do was post the new Nike video (as you know I am also a lifelong Nike lackey too).  I, of course, like it.  What say you?

Ringo’s Drumming – Black Crowes’ Drummer Speaks

// February 19th, 2010 // No Comments » // Stuff

A friend of mine just passed this along to me and, although I really don’t know much about drumming, I think he nailed it. Especially the last part.  On the Crowes website you can ask their drummer questions, here’s the Q&A:

Hey Steve,

Long time fan. Saw you guys with Joan Jett and Aerosmith in Miami in 1990,  I think.

Here’s my question- I’ve recently been playing The Beatles: Rock Band and I’m realizing more now just how different Ringo was as a drummer.  His playing is pretty simple and very connected to the songs, yet less intuitive than a lot of subsequent rock drummers.  I can’t really put my finger on why, but learning the tunes is actually kinda difficult.

Any thoughts?

Spencer

San Francisco, CA

—————————————

Spencer,

First things first – I don’t remember ever having played a show in Miami with Aerosmith and Joan Jett.  We certainly did some shows with Aerosmith in 1990, but none were anywhere near Miami.  And, as much as we do in fact love rock n’ roll, we never were party to anyone putting another dime in any jukebox, baby, either.

So, with that cleared up, let’s move on:

Ringo Starr’s drumming is infallible, untouchable, and he is quite simply the greatest drummer in the history of rock n roll music.  So, there’s that.

With this in mind, it would stand to reason that you might struggle to learn his parts, even on so rudimentary a level as Rock Band provides.  I will resist the urge to write an endless screed about why Ringo’s drumming is beyond reproach and instead offer a quick “Q and A” to examine your specific points.

Q)  Was Ringo actually “different as a drummer”?
A)  Was Magic Johnson “different as a point guard“?  Was Frank Lloyd Wright “different as an architect”?  You bet your ass.  As much as people try to disparage Ringo’s playing, no one ever seems to have a suggestion as to what drummer would have made those recordings better.  And that’s because there was not, is not, and never will be, a drummer more perfectly suited for the Beatles.

Q)  Was his playing “pretty simple and connected to the songs”?
A)  If by “pretty simple”, you mean “pretty perfect” and if by “connected to the songs”, you mean, “integral to the execution of these rock n’ roll masterpieces”, then the answer is a resounding YES.

Q)  Was Ringo “less intuitive” than a lot of subsequent rock drummers?
A)  Absolutely not.   Few if any drummers in rock history have been more intuitive.  Ringo understood exactly what every song needed to have, and bear in mind he was working with not one, but three songwriters.

Q)  Any thoughts?
A)  Yes.  Don’t argue with me about this.  I know what I know.

I love John Bonham, Charlie Watts, Phil Rudd, and the nutjob from Wilco (and about a million other drummers) as much as anyone could.  They are all perfect for their bands.  They are all irreplaceable.  But Ringo was in THE BEATLES.

Check the scoreboard.

Ringo wins.

SG

Couple Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure…

// January 11th, 2010 // No Comments » // Stuff

Beatles Rock Band Break Up

Stuck in the Newark Airport

I’ve been reading Newsweek lately…

// June 3rd, 2009 // 2 Comments » // Stuff

I’m not sure why we started getting it, but I’ve been killing time in the throne room with Newsweek lately.  They recently changed the format/layout and it seems more like real news.  Anyhow, the recent My Turn article by Peter Peterson (whom I had never heard of – founder of the Blackstone Grou) titled Why I’m Giving Away $1 Billion is a worth 10 minutes of your time.  I can only hope that I can be like Joseph Heller (author Catch-22) and know the meaning of enough.  It’s a quick read and very thoughtful.  Please have a look.

Why I’m Giving Away $1 Billion -The moment is overdue for us to become moral and worthy ancestors.
By Peter G. Peterson – NEWSWEEK – Published May 30, 2009 – From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 2009

Anyone need a Hot/Cold Therapy wrap for their 12 year old Lab?

// February 25th, 2009 // 3 Comments » // Stuff

marthasmall

Hey, who’s that little brown old lady in the picture?  Yup, it’s Martha Byrne in her national catalog debut.  It’s the real thing, a Byrne finally hit the big time.  One of our Vet’s Techs recommend her and Kelly took her down to Mass. for a photo shoot.  A few months later and here’s the finished product.

She looks great, even with a belly full of treats!  Maybe they’ll have a need for a crazy 3 year old half breed like Jude in the spring? 

BTW, Jack got a hamster (straight A’s on the old report card) and his name is Frodo.  We also got the new Lord of the Rings game for Xbox.  Go figure.

Been pretty busy lately, Jack has 3 sports (hoops, flag, & lax) so there isn’t much down time for posting.  With all you fruitcakes spending hours on facebook these days, I think the only person who reads my posts is Kelly anyway. 

Bank of Obama: Send a Bailout Check to Your Friends

// February 24th, 2009 // No Comments » // Stuff

Even you Obama crazies have to admit this is pretty funny.  Most of you won’t see a penny of this!  Lighten up a bit and don’t take this too seriously.  I’m pulling for the guy and I hope he does us all right.

Bank of Obama: Send a Bailout Check to Your Friends

Speak & Spell Emulator

// January 9th, 2009 // No Comments » // Stuff

Speak and Spell Emulator I never owned one of these but most of my friends did.  This bring back some great memories but I still stink at spelling.  Click on the link below to give it a go.  Don’t try any naughty words!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speak & Spell Emulator on The Website of Kevin St.Onge

From Michael Souza’s Facebook Photos – College Friends

// January 9th, 2009 // 1 Comment » // Stuff

.

Summer of 1990 – Ithaca NY – Joe Williams (‘91), me, & Kelly.  We all look about 15.  Thanks Mike – good stuff.

Facebook | Michael Souza’s Photos – College Friends

Interesting Quote from an Industry Rag…

// January 7th, 2009 // No Comments » // Stuff

“My father used to tell me that people who do, don’t need to talk, and people who need to talk, need to do so because they don’t. Think about the really successful people you know. They don’t need to remind us of their accomplishments. It’s usually the less successful that need to talk up their accomplishments.”

Honesty Is A Great Marketing Policy » Adotas