Attention numbskulls! Get edumakated right here, y'all.

Then what are they called where you’re from? Just a pastry? Hardly has the descriptive power.

I’m thinking of a flaky, crusty, light piece of sweet pastry filled with a sweet filling of some kind. It isn’t just a filled doughnut (those are cake pastry) and it isn’t a cruller (those lack filling). Where I’m from, and everywhere I’ve been in the US, the term for those is danish. As in, “The continental breakfast at that hotel included danishes filled with an awful chocolate cream.” Or, “Every bad cop flick shows a grizzled detective eating danishes and coffee at his desk.”

I think you can prove a negative if you only need finite amounts of evidence.

Example: My grandfather never used a cellular phone. I can prove this by comparing his obituary to the patent on the first cellular phone, showing that he died before the patent was registered.


Mayflower:

  1. There is no such frozen dessert as sherbert. It is sherBET, B-E-T.

  • From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.):
    quote:

sherbet (shûrbt)
n.

  1. also sher·bert (-bûrt) A frozen dessert made primarily of fruit juice, sugar, and water, and also containing milk, egg white, or gelatin.

Oh, say it ain’t so! Another yielding to the masses of mispronunciation! wails and gnashes teeth

Ah, but how can we be absolutely sure he didn’t travel through time to use one? Or that one didn’t travel through time and get found by him? Or that he didn’t invent them and never told anyone and the secret died with him?

All of those are ludicrously low-odds scenarios, but in the absence of infinite evidence none can be absolutely ruled out with the certainty of a formal logic proof.

So, could you make a damned strong case that would convince every reasonable person? Certainly, without even trying too hard. Could you formally prove it in a way that would be as airtight as the proof that 1+1=2? No.

Now, could you say that convincing every reasonable person is a valid definition of the word prove? I think you could, and I think that would be a defensible position. But when I, and a lot of other people, hear the word prove, we think of a formal logic system.

D’oh…

My favorite:

“The people were evacuated following the chemical spill.”

They were?! Did you suck out their innards with a vacuum pump?

People are not evacuated. Places are evacuated…

I hate to say this, but if mademoiselle’s writing is indicative of the skill level of the average college journalism student, I am very worried.

Poor spelling is not something to be proud of or complacent about, it is something to be corrected. The same is true of poor sentence structure and poor word choice and usage.

Take advantage of your educational opportunities.

I think Winston means “Danish pastry”, the complete term which nobody seems to use.

Pardon me? That was downright mean. My professors, coworkers, and just about everyone I encounter think I’m quite bright, and am an exceptional writer. This is a message board, not formal writing. I am not proud of my mistakes, however, for the last time, I will not deny that I am imperfect. Do forgive me if I don’t want to spell check every single message of the many I write every day.

If you hate to say it so much, don’t. That is, unless somebody has a gun to your head.

If you act like this in real life, then it could be determined that you will one day be the sort of person who’s funeral no one attends.

Oh, I’m sorry. You had been critiquing the content of people’s posts, so I though I’d join in.

'Bye dear.

Yes, you’re right, it was, and totally uncalled for. I apologize.

If I am feeling tired and bitchy IRL, it gives me no right to come in here and post out of my ass. I do know better.

Maybe I should go watch my new Eddie Izzard DVD now…

Deb

Ahh yes, JUST a message board. Just like it is JUST a newspaper article. Take pride in all things you do. :wink:

It’s okay, Deb.

Listen, I was a bit nasty too, and I am sorry. Maybe I should leave the pit, and head to GD…

(Or maybe not)

:smiley: