Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Private Messages - censored?

IMO that's extra tough because, due to usage and realities of contemporary culture, you have to sometimes break the rule or else you'll sound ponderous and absurd. I know the rule but often break it on purpose to avoid sounding like an a---hole
(BTW, let's see if that gets past the censor) ....which I think we do sound like if we compulsively follow the rule. IMO it depends on the situation, and we should feel free to use our judgment.

Take this to the bank: before too many more decades, the "rule" will change. IMO for all intents and purposes it already has.

P.S. "All intensive purposes" is another one.
But really the phrase is so hackneyed that we probably shouldn't use it at all, even correctly.
I have half a mind to whip myself with a wet noodle for it.
And actually I just used 2 more cliches that one shouldn't.

Hahahaha! I know you're frustrated, but this is awesome.

By the way, if you REPLY to a specific post all the censored words appear. I seeeeee what you said Pogo! =p

Precisely why it's actually worse, stores!! The old way you couldn't see the word because there was nothing to be censored!!
[censored] damn!

What the hell-- I figured out a clever way around it!

(hehe... hope that doesn't get me into trouble...)

-Jason

LOL! Or, you can do what I do, which is to substitute "he" or "him," see which one sounds best, and go with the corresponding "who" vs. "whom." For example, if you wanted to decide between "who ordered the steak?" vs. "whom ordered the steak?", you'd try "he ordered the steak" vs. "him ordered the steak." Very easy: It's obviously "he"/"who". To decide between "the steak was ordered by who" vs. "the steak was ordered by whom," you'd compare "the steak was ordered by he" vs. "the steak was ordered by him." "Whom" wins.

Kreisler,
Thanks for acknowledging the request for transparency, and explaining the layers beneath it.

... how! I can't figure it out!

Edit: Hahahahah.. clever!

What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee?

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)

No they're not, it's even more clever than that..

odd... that i just wrote a pm with a censored word.

ha ha .. i am bad!

They are things that look like 1.

Nope that's totally not it.. this is fun! (and btw, it works with ANY "censored" word)

I'll tell you guys I did it... but Angelina, I'm surprised you reverse-engineered it... just because I have no idea how I would have reversed engineered it if someone else did it! (Do you have a programming background?)

-J

hell

Yeah, it works!

Mark,

I think I can help you with your grammar, here. In American English, it would be "a hole." In British English, it would be "an hole." You don't have to use both "an" and "a" at the same time, 'cuz now you know!

DAM! How are y'all doing it?

BTW....I'm just being rhetorical. I don't need you to reveal the secret.....I'm more just marveling at what you're doing.

Sort of like with magic tricks. We don't necessarily really WANT to know how they're done.

It's weird....in the post, they look like lower-case L's, but when we hit "quote," they look like ones....

Thank you very much!!

Now please tell me how to avoid being an a$$.

The "e" is not an "e"

Physician, heal thyself!

Mine too. It's really unusual to hear the "could" version in Australia, incidentally. I'd never come across it until I came to PW.