"Cause if you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it"
I'm not sure this is what she meant! Silly Boy ;)
A Munich man has set what may prove an unassailable record for the number of steel rings lodged on a penis after presenting himself at a local hospital with no less than 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member. Die Welt explains that the unnamed 52-year-old had endured four days of entrapment when he rolled up at …
3 rings for the Elven Kings, under the sky,
7 for the Dwarf lords, in their halls of stone,
13 for mortal Men, doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord, on his Dark Throne, in the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all,
Except for those 13, which are all icky, and I don't want stinking up my beautiful Barad Dur! Thankyou!
I don't believe adding frostbite to said Precious would be conducive to an active sex life...
Can you get frostbite from methedrine these days? Whoda thunkit? Fifty years ago it just made you ejaculate without an erection and without an orgasm. Bit of a waste of money if you ask me...
You're going out on a limb there. Forums are full of the 'no less' v 'no fewer' arguement.
(no less than) Used to emphasize a surprisingly large amount.
'That test has been applied in this Court on no less than eight subsequent occasions.'
I guess he knows.
I've always wanted to ask a "Grammar Nazi" something. What do you get out of this?
"It's annoying to us to see incorrect usage. Even if it IS listed in 'OxfordDictionaries'.
Back in my day they knew how to use spaces, where's my sherry"
IS = is
OxfordDictionaries = Oxford dictionaries
Spaces = see above
Where's my sherry = where's my sherry?
Now call me a pedant but ... pot kettle black !
>OxfordDictionaries = Oxford dictionaries
No, it is Oxford Dictionaries. It is the name of an organisation, and thus a proper noun. Similarly, we have British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, and not Bbc.
Without the space, OxfordDictionaries suggests to most people here that it is probably a website, and the capitalised D aids legibility.
Sorry so late to the party. If there's still room, might I throw the poor hapless imbeciles who mistake thus for a "highfalutin" way of saying so into the pot? Please? Especially the ones who allow themselves to become so addled by their ignorance that they start using "thusly" when attempting to evoke thus.
Also, RE: "There is no Old English equivalent for 'fewer'."
...which explains why he was unable to use it, doesn't it? A deficiency which has long since been resolved. Please try to keep up.
I should have revisited this thread earlier. I’m reading some interesting and informative posts from GNHQ itself, no fewer.
It's a website, OxfordDictionaries.com, God knows where the '.com' went; maybe I deleted it.
I do enjoy reading comments where the GNs start correcting each other. Great stuff… keep up the good fight.
Uhh, I think I couldn't care less!
I know this is sort of an American vs British thing, but it's interesting to compare the two statements logically and linguistically.
I think it's more down to how little different people are capable of caring. In my case I quite definitely could care less. My capacity for not caring is rarely tested to its limits even by grammar disputes.
In my mind "less" and "fewer" are used when there is no indication of the exact number. In other words things like "10 items or fewer", "less than 10grams of cocaine" etc.
In this instance, the phrase "[...] himself [...] with no less than 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member" produces the received meaning of "the chap had 13 rings on his cock, no less" which equals "the chap had 13 rings on his cock, amazingly". Rephrasing the original, it comes out as "presenting himself at a local hospital with an amazing 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member"
It's not that they didn't know how many he had jammed on there, of course they did, it's just that "no less" was being used like an adjective.
"The person who showed up to perform the removal operation was no less than the head surgical consultant". Being a countable item, shouldn't that be "... operation was no fewer than the head surgical consultant"? Of course not.
Whilst being a grammar pedant myself (my particular bugbear is the inability of some to distinguish the words lose and loose), I also like to wind other pedants up. I do this by liberal use of the word 'fewer' when the correct word is 'less'. This is like fingernails down a blackboard for a died-in-the-wool true grammar nazi.
"I've always wanted to ask a "Grammar Nazi" something. What do you get out of this?"
There be no getting. 'Tis but a reaction las Pavlov, to correct an effable error, unlike the multitude of distortions in the web of reality we're forced to abide which we cannot do anything about. In other words, it's all death and taxes out there but at least I can impart yet again what the difference is betwixt loose and lose. Sigh. Yes, I am a sad little man in a sad little world. Happy now?
"It's 'fewer', not 'less'."
18th century pedantry, just another rule invented to help the public schoolboys detect oiks (from oikos, meaning townspeople). While you've been obsessing over fewer/less, genuinely useful distinctions like diinterested/uninterested have died. Pedants are always fighting the wrong battles.
"...with no less than 13..."
It's 'fewer', not 'less'. Not asking a lot; somebody who writes for a living really ought to know this.
Having carried this 'rule' in my head for decades, I was somewhat surprised when the lingo experts on BBC Radio 4 debunked it as a bit of 'hypercorrection*.' They said that the use of 'less' to denote quantity OR count has a long and valid history.
*Hypercorrect = over-pedantic application of rules which are actually wrong. E.g, insisting that "octopi" is the plural of "octopus" when it isn't.
Being a pedant is one thing, but being a WRONG pedant is really undesirable.
You people are giving pedantry a bad name, by nit-picking on such minor quibbles. If those were the only flaws, rampant in written English, I'd be delighted. Save your spleen-venting [as I do] for the folks who:
1: Use "your" and "you're" interchangeably
2: Do likewise with "their", "there" and "they're"
3: Think apostrophe+S indicates a plural
4: Mix together UK and US English [I'm looking at you El Reg]
5: Use "could care less" when they mean the exact opposite [I'm looking at you 'Merkins']
6: Have a vocabulary for expressing positivity which consists entirely and solely of the word "Awesome" [I'm looking at you again 'Merkins']
They have kit which can cut through way more serious stuff than steel nowdays. You have to have it when dealing with the various space alloys and ceramics which go into the prosthetics and implants.
However, that kind of gear is usually not in A&E (it is only in places where they do specialized surgery). There is definitely a sh*ts and giggles element too and that is on purpose. They want the most ridiculous instances to become famous enough for people not to try it again and create more work for the A&E department (though that usually does not work - people never learn).
Firemen get training, at least the specialist teams do, on how to cut people out of vehicles etc without injuring them. I suspect it's largely because it's easier to get the firemen to come in and do the job than to try and get the fancy surgeons to do so (and a hell of a lot cheaper too I suspect)
Would our junior doctors (on strike today) have regarded this as an emergency and done something, or told him that he must wait until tomorrow ?
I would suggest then that he makes his way over the border into Wales. Though how the German lad is to get onto the train at Paddington or Euston without causing offence is, indeed, another conundrum.
"Tungsten carbide would be a better choice for rings because it's stiffer than steel, but at a push can be cracked in a vice and removed.
Same for rings that go on your finger."
But it was something getting stiffer that caused the whole problem in the first place!
And you say this as if putting your precious hampton in a steel vice is a good thing...
Did they try the usual method for rings stuck on fingers? Pass the end of a piece of string under the ring, then wrap it all the way down, then unwrap from the top sliding the ring along as you do.
A penis is presumably more compressible than a finger since there's no bone.
It would be interesting to immerse the affected area in something with nascent hydrogen - connect the rings with copper wire, immerse in dilute acetic acid and connect via a suitable battery to a carbon anode. After a while the rings should embrittle enough to be snapped off. Assuming they're mild steel.
Another electrolytic option would be to reverse the current and simply dissolve the rings off.
However, since this seems to be becoming a common A&E problem, perhaps what is needed is a suitable tool with grippers disposed around a circle and connected to a mechanism which then gradually pulls them all outward, expanding the ring without risk.
But in the long term perhaps the best option is to require that all metal rings in a certain size range must be sold in a box with an accompanying health warning in all the official community languages: Sticking your dick in this ring may endanger your dignity.
One of the few remaining reasons for me visiting El Reg after the downgrade are the articles by Mr. Haines
and the comments. Congrats to my fellow commentards, I still have a spare keyboard hooked up to the Pi.
Which I will be using the rest of the day....
P.S. Thanks for the Pi U.K.!
Do none of these sexually adventurous folks possess any foresight?... or tools of their own?
If I was planning to insert my nether regions into something "unorthodox", which it might subsequently prove difficult to remove it from, and which I'd rather not have World + Dog© read about on the internets –I'd make sure to have a Dremel on stand-by in the house or tool-shed, just in case I needed to perform a "self-extraction"!
Wow. Your European firefighters are loads more hardcore than our American ones, but your medical professionals are pants-on-head retarded by comparison.
Here in eagleland, our firemen tend to faint, or at least Nope the hell out, if you ask them to approach a fellow's machinery with, um, machinery.
We go for the much safer and simpler option; a urologist drains the dude's dick of blood by making a cut (liberal use of anesthetic is preferred,) and then the constricting object(s) can simply be removed. As a bonus, you also get the ring back, if you want it back, this way. (This can be an important consideration if, say, said ring was a wedding ring.)
around fifteen years ago near here, a young farmer on his stag night was fitted with a castration ring by his mates as a joke.....in their drunken stupor it was left on overnight, by which time the damage had been done and his bollocks were dead.
Strange thing is the marriage still went ahead.
One of my mother's first patients when she started nursing in the 1960s was a homeless man who wandered into the ER with the neck of a glass bottle cinched around the anatomical member under discussion here. Most of the staff were flustered, but a doctor solved matters expediently: he got a hammer from maintenance personnel, wrapped the appendage in cloth to contain fragments, and gave the glass a tap. Scarcely a nick.
My brother, a fire fighter and paramedic, took a call by a middle aged man who was trapped in a chaise lounge. The man had stepped out on his porch to enjoy the sunrise and, being in a rural area with no nearby neighbors, didn't bother with clothing when he relaxed in the lounge. In time, dangling bits became entrapped between straps and necessitated fire fighter intervention. Simple scissors worked in that case. The codger was apparently a sport and told his rescuers they didn't need to hold back the laughter, just his name in any retellings.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019