Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> I think this was discussed here at some point in time, but I don't recall
> when or what was opined.
>
> Does anyone actually verbalize the "word" *prolly*, or just type it?
> (Sounds like rolling marbles in the mouth, ala Buddy Hackett.)
>
> Is it just an aesthetic preference for the aberration, or is it just sheer
> laziness? Typing 6 characters instead of 8 must save lots of energy and
> time! :-)
>
> "Prolly" sounds like babytalk, and is really just too "cute". I think it
> sounds idiotic coming from an adult.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> Wayne

I usually pronounce it "probly". I sometimes type "prolly" because it it
easy to type and people know what I mean, and sometimes I spell it out
"probably". I suspect "prolly" comes to us from text messaging and chat
room shorthand, (which I don't do, but I assume typing speed and message
brevity are important) and it spilled over into usenet.

"Prolly" doesn't bother me, but "shrooms" does. Whatever.

Best regards,
Bob

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> I think this was discussed here at some point in time, but I don't
>> recall when or what was opined.
>>
>> Does anyone actually verbalize the "word" *prolly*, or just type it?
>> (Sounds like rolling marbles in the mouth, ala Buddy Hackett.)
>>
>> Is it just an aesthetic preference for the aberration, or is it just
>> sheer laziness? Typing 6 characters instead of 8 must save lots of
>> energy and time! :-)
>>
>> "Prolly" sounds like babytalk, and is really just too "cute". I
>> think it sounds idiotic coming from an adult.
>>
>> What do you folks think?
>>
>> Wayne
>
> I usually pronounce it "probly". I sometimes type "prolly" because it
> it easy to type and people know what I mean, and sometimes I spell it
> out "probably". I suspect "prolly" comes to us from text messaging
> and chat room shorthand, (which I don't do, but I assume typing speed
> and message brevity are important) and it spilled over into usenet.
>
> "Prolly" doesn't bother me, but "shrooms" does. Whatever.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob
>
>

I guess we all have pet words that irritate. "Prolly" just happens to be
one of mine. I *probably* type other things that I take for granted and
that others don't like.

Wayne

I've never seen the "prolly" discussion before, but I have seen the "all
caps" discussion and the "no caps" discussion and the "uses ... instead
of periods and commas" discussion and the "mispells everything"
discussion the "your/you're, there/their/they're, who's/whose and
it's/its" discussion and a dozen others like it. They all go roughly
like this:

1. Original poster posts peeve about some manner of posting that drives
him/her nuts.

2. Other posters chime in about how much that bothers them too.

3. Discussion broadens out to include other peeves.

4. Plea is made for people to make their messages more easily
understood/read.

5. Poster for the dissent says that s/he speaks English as a second
language and is being made to feel uncomfortable about
typing/grammar/spelling skills. (Or sometimes time constraints or
arthritis are given as reasons for typing the way one does.)

6. Original poster says that while some excuses for obnoxious
communications are acceptable, other messages are simply too hard to be
bothered with. Repeat offenders are killfiled.

7. Errors are found in the messages written by those who purport to
support good spelling and good grammar. Those people are now dubbed
pompous.

8. All hell breaks loose with accusations flying. "If you want me to
read your messages, write them so I can read them." "Don't be so mean
to poor arthritic poster who's typing the best she can." "Pompous!"
"Asshole!"

9. If there's a moderator, the moderator gets on to tell everyone to
cut it out. If not, accusations continue for a while until all get bored.

I've found that I can even cut to the chase by admitting that I killfile
people who post in a way I always find difficult to read without naming
the specific habits that are too much trouble to bother with.

--Lia

"Julia Altshuler" wrote in message

> I've never seen the "prolly" discussion before, but I have seen the "all
> caps" discussion and the "no caps" discussion and the "uses ... instead
> of periods and commas" discussion and the "mispells everything"
> discussion the "your/you're, there/their/they're, who's/whose and
> it's/its" discussion and a dozen others like it. They all go roughly
> like this:
>
> 1. Original poster posts peeve about some manner of posting that drives
> him/her nuts.
>
> 2. Other posters chime in about how much that bothers them too.
>
> 3. Discussion broadens out to include other peeves.
>
> 4. Plea is made for people to make their messages more easily
> understood/read.
>
> 5. Poster for the dissent says that s/he speaks English as a second
> language and is being made to feel uncomfortable about
> typing/grammar/spelling skills. (Or sometimes time constraints or
> arthritis are given as reasons for typing the way one does.)
>
> 6. Original poster says that while some excuses for obnoxious
> communications are acceptable, other messages are simply too hard to be
> bothered with. Repeat offenders are killfiled.
>
> 7. Errors are found in the messages written by those who purport to
> support good spelling and good grammar. Those people are now dubbed
> pompous.
>
> 8. All hell breaks loose with accusations flying. "If you want me to
> read your messages, write them so I can read them." "Don't be so mean
> to poor arthritic poster who's typing the best she can." "Pompous!"
> "Asshole!"
>
> 9. If there's a moderator, the moderator gets on to tell everyone to
> cut it out. If not, accusations continue for a while until all get bored.
>
> I've found that I can even cut to the chase by admitting that I killfile
> people who post in a way I always find difficult to read without naming
> the specific habits that are too much trouble to bother with.
>
> --Lia

I fell off my chair laughing when I read this - it's
so true. Thanks, Lia!

Dora>

Julia Altshuler writes:

>I've found that I can even cut to the chase by admitting that I killfile
>people who post in a way I always find difficult to read

Why do you lack the inner strength (fortitude) to simply refrian from
continuing to read something past the point where you find you would rather not
read further, are you afflicted with an obsessive-compulsive disorder or are
you a wuss?


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

PENMART01 wrote:
> Julia Altshuler writes:
>
>> I've found that I can even cut to the chase by admitting that I
>> killfile people who post in a way I always find difficult to read
>
> Why do you lack the inner strength (fortitude) to simply refrian from
> continuing to read something past the point where you find you would
> rather not read further, are you afflicted with an obsessive-
> compulsive disorder or are you a wuss?
>
Jeez - calling the kettle black or what?!!

Julia Altshuler > wrote in
news:wZQxb.248145$9E1.1337446@attbi_s52:

> I've never seen the "prolly" discussion before, but I have seen the
> "all caps" discussion and the "no caps" discussion and the "uses ...
> instead of periods and commas" discussion and the "mispells
> everything" discussion the "your/you're, there/their/they're,
> who's/whose and it's/its" discussion and a dozen others like it. They
> all go roughly like this:
>
> 1. Original poster posts peeve about some manner of posting that
> drives him/her nuts.
>
> 2. Other posters chime in about how much that bothers them too.
>
> 3. Discussion broadens out to include other peeves.
>
> 4. Plea is made for people to make their messages more easily
> understood/read.
>
> 5. Poster for the dissent says that s/he speaks English as a second
> language and is being made to feel uncomfortable about
> typing/grammar/spelling skills. (Or sometimes time constraints or
> arthritis are given as reasons for typing the way one does.)
>
> 6. Original poster says that while some excuses for obnoxious
> communications are acceptable, other messages are simply too hard to
> be bothered with. Repeat offenders are killfiled.
>
> 7. Errors are found in the messages written by those who purport to
> support good spelling and good grammar. Those people are now dubbed
> pompous.
>
> 8. All hell breaks loose with accusations flying. "If you want me to
> read your messages, write them so I can read them." "Don't be so mean
> to poor arthritic poster who's typing the best she can." "Pompous!"
> "Asshole!"
>
> 9. If there's a moderator, the moderator gets on to tell everyone to
> cut it out. If not, accusations continue for a while until all get
> bored.
>
> I've found that I can even cut to the chase by admitting that I
> killfile people who post in a way I always find difficult to read
> without naming the specific habits that are too much trouble to bother
> with.
>
> --Lia
>

As the OP of this thread, I have to say that I had a great laugh reading
your post. Reading the thread itself is almost as bad as wading through
the "prollys" and "kewls"! Thanks for brightening and lightening it all.

Wayne

That's two of you found it amusing and liked it. Thanks for the note of
support. The funny thing is that I wasn't trying to be funny when I
wrote it. I figured someone would be mad at me for admitting that I
sometimes killfile people for their writing style as opposed to the
content of their posts.

(There's also the "too many abbreviations" discussion and the "doesn't
trim previous discussion" discussion and the "top posts/bottom posts"
discussion and the "too/two/to" discussion and the "apostrophes in
plurals discussion" which is quickly followed by the "no apostrophes in
contractions" discussion ...)

--Lia


Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> As the OP of this thread, I have to say that I had a great laugh reading
> your post. Reading the thread itself is almost as bad as wading through
> the "prollys" and "kewls"! Thanks for brightening and lightening it all.

Julia Altshuler wrote:

> That's two of you found it amusing and liked it. Thanks for the note of
> support. The funny thing is that I wasn't trying to be funny when I
> wrote it. I figured someone would be mad at me for admitting that I
> sometimes killfile people for their writing style as opposed to the
> content of their posts.

but there's nothing wrong with the "..." thingie... It's a habit carried
over from AIM that I can't seem (nor want) to break... and
<dot><dot><dot> is much faster to type than <dot><space><space> IMO...
plus you get the added benefit of hiding poor punctuation skilz...

ok sorry 'bout that one... SKILLS...

~john!

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:22:56 GMT, Julia Altshuler
> wrote:

>That's two of you found it amusing and liked it. Thanks for the note of
>support. The funny thing is that I wasn't trying to be funny when I
>wrote it. I figured someone would be mad at me for admitting that I
>sometimes killfile people for their writing style as opposed to the
>content of their posts.
>
>(There's also the "too many abbreviations" discussion and the "doesn't
>trim previous discussion" discussion and the "top posts/bottom posts"
>discussion and the "too/two/to" discussion and the "apostrophes in
>plurals discussion" which is quickly followed by the "no apostrophes in
>contractions" discussion ...)

Yeah, but... As the length of the thread (so far) shows, some rambling
discussions are of interest to many. It's therapy. :-) Why do (many)
people like Andy Rooney's commentaries? Many of his pieces present
gripes *we* have, and so we watch and mutter, "right. And what about
X, too?"

As for repetition, since the day the first internet cooking newsgroup
was formed, the subject of chilli/chile has resulted in the same
virtually endless thread of recipes, arguments about ingredients, etc.
Surely everything that *can* be said *has* been said. But it goes on.
And on. And enough people are interested to keep it going.

>From: zxcvbob

>I suspect "prolly" comes to us from text messaging and chat
>room shorthand, (which I don't do, but I assume typing speed and message
>brevity are important) and it spilled over into usenet.

Yeah. That's where I first saw prolly. Back on IRC, oh, I guess in late 95,
early 96. We would have Sunday Night Tsunami's (very fast exchanges of WAVs) on
one particular channel I hung out at, and typespeak became a fast way to
communicate, though crudely.

Despised kewl though. Oh, and the Loose for Lose, ARGH.....that drives me
bonkers!

Ellen

SportKite1 > wrote in message
...
> Despised kewl though. Oh, and the Loose for Lose, ARGH...
> that drives me bonkers!

My pet peeves for common abuse are "can not" (it's "cannot" or "can't"), the
Idiot's Shorthand "u/ur" (spell out "you" or "you're"), and any (l)user that
won't punctuate a sentence due to their laziness.

The Ranger