All, Grammar. I am in stitches over this conversation.
And my two cents: for those whose two feet are not their means of personal transportation, the more inclusive word "mobility" Chris sent out seems an improvement. Although I admit the idea is so much more pungent in Harrison's original words. So the Law of Mobility becomes a way to acknowledge diversity, not a way to split hairs. Or raise them. Two more cents: the German penchant for splitting verbs (as opposed to hairs, I suppose) may help them hold many ideas in mind at once. Just to survive daily conversations! I salute their ability to concentrate. Perhaps this is another good example of expanding our Now... Megan Davis Organizational Development Consultant, WSDOT OD Services (360) 705-7412 FAX: (360) 705-6803 davi...@wsdot.wa.gov > ---------- > From: Chris Corrigan[SMTP:cor...@interchange.ubc.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:58 PM > To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu > Subject: Grammer (was Re: virtual OS / a proposal regarding one of > the principles)) > > The grammer of the principles is most interesting. For example, "whoever > comes is the right people." should be either "whoever comes are the right > people" or "whoever comes is the right person," according to that sublime > authority, the Microsoft Word 98 Grammer Checker. > > I think that so far, the only accepted change to the principles (as > decreed by the International OS Committee Responsible for Reviewing > Grammer and Other Oversights) is changing the law of two feet to the law > of mobility. The Hair Spliiting and Raising Subcommittee is somewhat > wedded to the status quo, but had to accept this change after realizing > that whereas two feet were useful things to have, they didn't mean squat > until you allowed them to move you. > > I understand that they're currently reviewing a proposal to clarify > exactly why the people who sit at the bar are called butterflies and not > barflies. > > > CJC > > Harrison Owen wrote: > > At 02:53 PM 3/29/00 +0000, you wrote:>"What happens is the only > thing that happens.">I'm with you.>That "only thing that could have" has > stuck in my conscience like a fishbone>for more than a year.>>-Chris > Weaver*******************************I love to split hairs. And being > grammatically correct is not one of my virtues. (Politically correct > neither) So. If it didn't happen -- it couldn't happen -- just then. > Sometime later -- maybe. In the past -- possibly. But right then it > didn't, and therefore couldn't. Not possible. You want it a different way? > Sounds fine to me. Especially when you get it into German. Any people who > split a verb between the front and back of a long sentence which should > have been a paragraph -- making it impossible to decipher for folks who > usually keep their verbs all in one place -- can certainly have it any way > they want. If for no other reason, I for one will never figure it out. So > carry on. Seriously, the words really aren't all that important -- Opening > space is.Harrison > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Drive > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > phone 301-469-9269 > fax 301-983-9314 > website > www.mindspring.com/~owenhh > Open Space Institute websites > www.openspaceworld.org > > -- > CHRIS CORRIGAN > 108-1035 Pacific Street > Vancouver BC > V6E 4G7 > > Phone: 604.683.3080 > Fax: 604.683-3036 > > >