Forgive my ignorance… I first heard it enough to remember it in the MST3K “The Home Economics Story” short, but it seems it comes from somewhere. I now vaguely recall hearing “Hi, Opal!” sometime in the past, but I forget where/when/how/etc.
Can someone enlighten me? I’m not stupid, it’s just that I’ve destroyed so many brain cells (drugs - Rx and other - and alcohol… ;))
That’d surprise me, scott, seeing as how this phrase originated right here in our own little community. (Of course, we’re probably more influential than we think 
)
OpalCat is a very well-respected long-time poster who one time expressed annoyance at lists of this type:
She argued that a list perforce had to have three items. So people preparing two-item lists began to write:
Later this passed into general use for all lists.
Someone correct me if I’ve got the details wrong, but I believe this is accurate.
Why, thank you, matt_mcl. Is this board also where “How do pop-tarts work?” originated? Heard that in the same MST3K short. (You must remember watching that one with me… I’m surprised you didn’t mention that “Hi, Opal” originated on SDMB.)
I have to say, it kind of creeps me out when you reply to my posts… j/k
And I still maintain I’m right about the NYC express trains. 
How about “I always put in 110% effort” and its ilk? If you constantly exceed your operational limits, do you have to have to return to starbase for repairs more often, or do you suffer a warp core breach and explode?
"It’s all good."
It isn’t.
Pretty much anything ever said by a sports colour announcer. These people have a higher ratio of hackneyed phrases to original comment than Bartlett’s. You hear the “110% effort” one a lot. However, my “favorite” is “He came to play football today.” Really? Too bad. Here I was thinking he’d shown up to try out for the male lead in “Swan Lake.”
Well but hang on a fucking moment. Are you saying you can have your cake and eat it? Where did this straw man about centerpieces for tables come into it anyway?
And what’s this shit about “you can’t have it both ways” being better? Why? What is “it” anyway? And why can’t you have “it” both ways? I mean, what if “it” is intercourse, and I’m female and into DP’s (neither of which I am, but anyway)?
Or, even better, what if “it” is chocolate brownie pudding with mustard topping? Then I can have “it” both mustardy and chocolaty at the same time. But I can’t have it and eat it, can I?
Put that in your cakehole and smoke it.
:wally
You idiot. God I want to change my location now that I’ve read that and seen where you are from.
There is one phrase I hear waaaayyyy to often, and it is really starting to get on my nerves:
“Sir, please put some pants on.”
Can a phrase be stupid in and of itself?
From “The Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson:
“…Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred…”
Note the AND. It’s not “do or die”, it never has been “do or die”, it has always been “do AND die”. The whole point of that stinking poem was that these brave 600 KNEW THEY WERE RIDING INTO BATTLE TO DIE!!! AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH.
Actually, you’re absolutely right. This was something I was really confused about when I first joined the SDMB.
During “The Home Economics Story”, there’s a scene where the woman majoring in textiles walks down a staircase modeling the dress she’s made as Tom Servo makes circus noises. She then looks at something off-camera, and Joel says “Oh, hi Opal!”
Anyone know what it refers to?
“i may not agree with him but i shall defend to the death his right to say it”
or however it goes.
message for all you people fond of this quote: i’ve heard it before. everyone has. it’s nothing new. no matter how much i agree with sentiments, i really don’t want to hear this cliche one more time. please, please, please find a way to express your fondness of freedom of speech some other way.
isn’t it ironic? i’m trying to prevent people’s freedom to quote a quote about of freedom of speech. it’s like 10000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
uhh… there’s a superfluous ‘of’ in there. send out the ‘of squad’ immediately to remove it, please.
Are you arguing that as there are no stupid questions, just stupid question askers, that there are no stupid phrases, just stupid people? Are you thinking of a specific person?
Whoops. Didn’t see page two, my last doodad was in reference to DopeyDave’s submission.
When I found this mindless little meme-nugget dribbling from my own lips during otherwise reasonable and intelligent discussions, I knew it was time to exterminate this phrase from the face of the Earth:
“Start from ground zero.”
No. Incorrect. If you undertake a project from scratch, from the very beginning, without any prior work to build on, you “start from the ground up,” or you “start from zero.” You do not get to mash these two phrases together into an unholy union and “start from ground zero.”
Ground zero is the point where a nuclear bomb hits. You don’t call an empty construction site, where no tragedy has occurred, where no nuclear device has been detonated, “ground zero.” You don’t start from ground zero unless (and this excerable phrase is rarely used in this context) you already had a project going, and it got (metaphorically) bombed into oblivion, and now you have to start over . . . and even then, yer pushin’ it, buster.
The use of “Ground Zero” to describe the former site of the World Trade Center seems to have resulted in a proliferation of “starting from ground zero” whenever anyone underakes any task, large or small. Far be it from me to crush a potentially theraputic bit of linguistic consonance, to deny people a bit of hope or a ray of sunshine or the promise of a new day after a winter of mourning, but it is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Stop it!
When I found this mindless little meme-nugget dribbling from my own lips during otherwise reasonable and intelligent discussions, I knew it was time to exterminate this phrase from the face of the Earth:
“Start from ground zero.”
No. Incorrect. If you undertake a project from scratch, from the very beginning, without any prior work to build on, you “start from the ground up,” or you “start from zero.” You do not get to mash these two phrases together into an unholy union and “start from ground zero.”
Ground zero is the point where a nuclear bomb hits. You don’t call an empty construction site, where no tragedy has occurred, where no nuclear device has been detonated, “ground zero.” You don’t start from ground zero unless (and this excerable phrase is rarely used in this context) you already had a project going, and it got (metaphorically) bombed into oblivion, and now you have to start over . . . and even then, yer pushin’ it, buster.
The use of “Ground Zero” to describe the former site of the World Trade Center seems to have resulted in a proliferation of “starting from ground zero” whenever anyone underakes any task, large or small. Far be it from me to crush a potentially theraputic bit of linguistic consonance, to deny people a bit of hope or a ray of sunshine or the promise of a new day after a winter of mourning, but it is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Stop it!
When I found this mindless little meme-nugget dribbling from my own lips during otherwise reasonable and intelligent discussions, I knew it was time to exterminate this phrase from the face of the Earth:
“Start from ground zero.”
No. Incorrect. If you undertake a project from scratch, from the very beginning, without any prior work to build on, you “start from the ground up,” or you “start from zero.” You do not get to mash these two phrases together into an unholy union and “start from ground zero.”
Ground zero is the point where a nuclear bomb hits. You don’t call an empty construction site, where no tragedy has occurred, where no nuclear device has been detonated, “ground zero.” You don’t start from ground zero unless (and this excerable phrase is rarely used in this context) you already had a project going, and it got (metaphorically) bombed into oblivion, and now you have to start over . . . and even then, yer pushin’ it, buster.
The use of “Ground Zero” to describe the former site of the World Trade Center seems to have resulted in a proliferation of “starting from ground zero” whenever anyone underakes any task, large or small. Far be it from me to crush a potentially theraputic bit of linguistic consonance, to deny people a bit of hope or a ray of sunshine or the promise of a new day after a winter of mourning, but it is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Stop it!