Nagative thinking

[Paul Stephens]

The best way to get a Casuals style result tonight is for people to speak it into existence.

 

Me I see this as being a good chance to improve out goal difference. When they played us at home I thought their goalkeeper was an outfielder playing out of position. When I watched them against Worthing he played much better till the last five minutes when came to collect a high through ball on the edge of the box, and let the ball bounce through his hands above his head and into the net.

 

Lets be positve about this match.!

[evadne]

"Nagative" is an interesting neologism - a sort of negative nagging.

 

We certainly don't want any of that tonight!

[Paul Stephens]

A neologism (pronounced nee-AH-low-djism) is a newly invented word or term. Neologisms would seem to occur at a greater rate in cultures with rapidly changing technologies and with greater means for information dispersal.

 

 

A neology is, according to our Webster's, the use of a new word or the use of an existing word but given a new meaning.

 

A second meaning given by Webster's for neologism is that of "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic."

 

Who me psychotic?

 

 

[Barry Scott]

hang on, this a FOOTBALL forum for FOOTBALL supporters. no discussions of what words mean please...

[evadne]

How about pointing out errors in the match reports on the web-site and Dominic's use of the word "of" instead of "have" or "'ve" as in ",,, Slough could of found them selves in real trouble"?

 

[PJ-STFC]

[ignoring rebelboy...]

 

Interesting. 'Negative nagging' could be a good thing...?

Since 'nagging' is 'finding fault incessantly', or 'irritating by constant scolding or urging', the negative forms of these could be quite encouraging!

[Barry Scott]

damn, only PJ took the bait... hehehe

[PJ-STFC]

Maybe other readers haven't seen (or are ignoring) the other thread?

 

I meant to include a <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue2.gif" alt="" /> for you in my previous post, so kindly accept one now!

 

PJ <img src="/images/graemlins/chat.gif" alt="" />

[PJ-STFC]

[continuing post I had started earlier, but after being interrupted....

...I'm really gonna have to start typing more quickly.....]

 

Evadne, such points do not go un-noticed.

When I have a chance, I proof-read the match reports and email Gary with any changes required. I try to do this Monday lunchtimes, when work permits.

The different report writing styles give me more, or less, work to do, depending on the author (for example, the recent Windsor report required almost no changes, while Bracknell and Whyteleafe required rather more). However, I leave it up to Gary to highlight any common failings to the authors in question, if he so wishes.

 

What I do not do is bring any required corrections to the attention of the forum, as I feel that this could cause embarrassment to the author, or at least lay them open to ridicule from everyone else. (As if anyone needed an excuse...). The down side of this is that other forum readers are not aware that a report has been proof-read, and may also report problems independently.

 

 

PJ <img src="/images/graemlins/chat.gif" alt="" />

(unofficial STFC Official Website proof reader) <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[evadne]

I am well rebuked. Sorry, Dominic.

 

(You see I used to be a teacher - and I can't resist the red pen.)

[PJ-STFC]

Sorry Evadne - meant as information rather than rebuke.

 

Please do not let me stop you from proof-reading too, if you wish!

(But a hint - don't complain too much about the English used on the forum

- some of 'em get a bit shirty if you start pickin' holes in their grammer (sic) <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

 

PJ <img src="/images/graemlins/chat.gif" alt="" />

[Paul Stephens]

My grammas dead - you leave her alone