Banned Words List

[VitaminD]

Not a sports term, but my one friend uses the term "irregardless" constantly. Is that even a correct word? The way he uses it, it seems like plain old "regardless" is more correct.

All better.

"Irregardless" is not a word. Never was, never will be. "Regardless" or "irrespective" are both correct choices. That one belongs on the gear-grinder list...

[Shumway]

Not a sports term, but my one friend uses the term "irregardless" constantly. Is that even a correct word? The way he uses it, it seems like plain old "regardless" is more correct.

All better.

"Irregardless" is not a word. Never was, never will be. "Regardless" or "irrespective" are both correct choices. That one belongs on the gear-grinder list...

Ah, good. So I'm right. It's just the whole "ir" and "less" being the double negative that bothers the crap out of me. I guess "more correct" isn't really a good use of grammar either, but eh, I make up words and terms.

[BlueSky]

OK, non-sports reminded me. How about "I could care less" ?

Clearly it should be, "I COULD'NT care less."

And finally, "(team) is (number) games over .500." Let's say the team is 20-10. Someone saying this will usually say they're "ten games over .500." No. They've played 30 games so .500 would be 15-15, thus a 20-10 team is FIVE games over .500, not ten.

I think you make an interesting point. Out of curiosity, how would you classify a team that is 11-8? 1.5 games over .500?

Now you have made an interesting point. I don't know how that would be addressed but they're sure not 3 games over .500.

They're not? What happens if they go on a 3-game losing skid, and wind up with a record of 11-11, and a .500 winning percentage? I get your point, but you're going to have a hard time making your case, since it involves going into the Wayback Machine for potential outcomes of games that have already been decided (basically, taking away earned wins or losses to even the record to .500, then adjusting win and loss totals relative to that). As per the current convention, there are no "half-games over .500" to deal with, as epiphanic suggested. Moreover, your theory doesn't work any time a team has played an odd number of games, since there's no way to be .500 unless you've played an even number of games. You may not like it, and I understand what you're trying to say, but the system works and is readily understood by everyone. And mathematically, it makes sense.

You're right, it's about perspective. I see both sides.

[Hat Boy]

I guess "more correct" isn't really a good use of grammar either, but eh, I make up words and terms.

"More correct" is a perfectly cromulant phrase.

[VitaminD]

I guess "more correct" isn't really a good use of grammar either, but eh, I make up words and terms.

"More correct" is a perfectly cromulant phrase.

You've embiggened us all with this statement. And ain't no double negatives is good when talking, neither. (Yeah... that's a tripler negative - which is totally kewl. )

[OB33]

I guess "more correct" isn't really a good use of grammar either, but eh, I make up words and terms.

"More correct" is a perfectly cromulant phrase.

You've embiggened us all with this statement. And ain't no double negatives is good when talking, neither. (Yeah... that's a tripler negative - which is totally kewl. )

A noble statement embiggens the smallest man.

[charger77]

Embiggens is a perfectly cromulant word!