UKTC Archive

Re: Throw away your resistographs

Subject: Re: Throw away your resistographs
From: Andersonarb
Date: Dec 15 2008 05:42:55
 
In a message dated 14/12/2008 11:17:38 GMT Standard Time,  
anthony.j.mills@xxxxxx.com writes:

A while  ago it became fashionable amongst many who very well
knew better to say  ''pacific'' instead of ''specific''.  I am sorry but I
found this  infuriating, stupid, and contributing no useful additional
meaning to the  word as correctly used.
So frass is insect faeces and wood dust is wood  dust or wood drillings.  Why
not say what it is?
fuddy duddy  Anthony Mills



'Frass' in my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (ninth edition, 1995,  
perhaps it's time I had a new one), which is kept very close to hand, (by my  
right knee in fact, to check the numerous words that I don't know) is  
defined 
firstly as fine powder left by insects boring, and secondly as insect  
excrement.
 
'Specific' and 'Pacific?' surely not. My grumpy gland gets agitated by  
'your' instead of 'you're' and 'could of' instead of 'could have.' On the 
other  
hand 'would'nt've' for 'would not have' seems vaguely progressive?
 
I've also got a copy of 'Eats, shoots and leaves' which is vaguely helpful  
but almost annoying for what it doesn't tell me as much as what it does. 
Should 
 we say "frass" or 'frass.' When do we use which particular sort of quotation 
 mark? 
 
By and large I consider that I ought to "get a life." And as for texting  (or 
txtng)...... C U L8R? Help!
 
Bill.



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/