Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Keep Your Eyes Peeled

Some New Orleans news.

(by patsbrother)

Tonight, on CBS, presumably between 6.30pm and 7pm, you may be able to catch a glimpse of paT and I's uncle Elmore. CBS taped an interview with him and may show part of it. He is Chief Medical Officer(?) for Catholic Charities in New Orleans. He has white hair, cool bushy-black eyebrows, and ususally a black mustache. He is also, incidentally, a really good cook.

If you are offended by the construction of the first- and second-person possessive constructive "pat and I's", I apologize. I saw this much as I originally viewed last year's election and voted for the least worst. The other candidates were "my and paT's" and "mine and paT's" and both of those sounded retarded. That is all.

(Sprout, you do know that you can actually make posts to this blog, don't you? News like this is why I enabled you to be a 'contributor.' I found this in the comments section of a completely different post - the one on Iraq where we're now talking about Tocquville.)

4 comments:

petallic said...

I would have gone with "Pat's and my Uncle Elmore." I like traditional rules of grammar:
1. Always put the other person first
2. Test taking out one or the other person and follow the rule that would apply if the other person in the series were removed.

They're oldies, but they're goodies.

Dante said...

I would've dodged the issue entirely by restructuring the sentences:

Pat and I have an uncle Elmore who is Chief Medical Officer(?) for Catholic Charities in New Orleans. Tonight, on CBS, presumably between 6.30pm and 7pm, you may be able to catch a glimpse of him. CBS taped an interview with him and may show part of it. He has white hair, cool bushy-black eyebrows, and ususally a black mustache. He is also, incidentally, a really good cook.

Patrick Armstrong said...

Of course only the Sprout would correct himself in his own post at the same time he posted in the wrong place.

I wonder what his retraction will sound like...

patsbrother said...

So it didn't show. Pooh. Sorry, y'all, if you got nothing from the program.

However, I did. About a year ago, speaking of civil liberties, Mr. Bush made the affirmative statement (statements, actually) that a warrant is required for domestic wiretaps and that nothing had changed that requirement.

In light of recent admissions, it appears Mr. Bush lied outright.

The White House is attempting to cover its ass by pointing out Mr. Bush was speaking only to the Patriot Act, a line of reasoning to which I would ask: why, then, mention that nothing had changed?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we did impeach the last President for a much more benign statement, which may or may not have been a genuine statement of fact (if your definition of 'sexual relations' truely is 'intercourse', it wasn't a lie).

This administration's 'credibility gap' is looking more and more like a stip mine without any ore.