Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: 2023 National Medal of the Arts recipient, Mark Bradford's painting: Gatekeeper (2019)

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Morley »

Bret Ripley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:07 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 1:04 pm


Thanks!
There is something kind of charming about having an insane autocorrect feature on a board that is evidently okey-dokey with a typo on its banner.

Absolutely. It cracks me.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Res Ipsa »

Morley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:11 pm
Bret Ripley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:07 pm
There is something kind of charming about having an insane autocorrect feature on a board that is evidently okey-dokey with a typo on its banner.

Absolutely. It cracks me.
i'm only on my first cup of coffee. The apostrophe?
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: 2023 National Medal of the Arts recipient, Mark Bradford's painting: Gatekeeper (2019)

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Morley »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:22 pm
Morley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:11 pm



Absolutely. It cracks me.
i'm only on my first cup of coffee. The apostrophe?
Yeah, the ever-lovable "Never-Mo's."
User avatar
IWMP
Pirate
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:46 pm

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by IWMP »

I don't see a banner. Ah the banner is present on desktop view.
Last edited by IWMP on Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Physics Guy »

The posts of the collective Never-Mormon are welcome, even though the alien intelligence of its colossal hive mind is too overwhelming for it to be welcome itself.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Res Ipsa »

Morley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:27 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:22 pm


i'm only on my first cup of coffee. The apostrophe?
Yeah, the ever-lovable "Never-Mo's."
I'd say it's arguably permissible under this rare exception:
An apostrophe is indispensable, however, in the rare case in which you need to pluralize a letter of the alphabet or some other unusual form which would become unrecognizable with a plural ending stuck on it:

Mind your p's and q's.
How many s's are there in Mississippi?
It is very bad style to spatter e.g.'s and i.e.'s through your writing.
Without the apostrophes, these would be unreadable. So, when you have to pluralize an orthographically unusual form, use an apostrophe if it seems to be essential for clarity, but don't use one if the written form is perfectly clear without it. (Note that I have italicized these odd forms; this is a very good practice if you can produce italics.)
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/pu ... he/plurals

I will occasionally use the apostrophe in a similar way when I think the reader is like to stumble over or mispronounce the term without it.
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: 2023 National Medal of the Arts recipient, Mark Bradford's painting: Gatekeeper (2019)

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Morley »

Okay. I can see how one could possibly arrive at that.

How about the quirky capitalization in "Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!"?





Edited typo. Ha!
Last edited by Morley on Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: 2023 National Medal of the Arts recipient, Mark Bradford's painting: Gatekeeper (2019)

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Morley »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:35 pm
Morley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:27 pm


Yeah, the ever-lovable "Never-Mo's."
I'd say it's arguably permissible under this rare exception:
An apostrophe is indispensable, however, in the rare case in which you need to pluralize a letter of the alphabet or some other unusual form which would become unrecognizable with a plural ending stuck on it:

Mind your p's and q's.
How many s's are there in Mississippi?
It is very bad style to spatter e.g.'s and i.e.'s through your writing.
Without the apostrophes, these would be unreadable. So, when you have to pluralize an orthographically unusual form, use an apostrophe if it seems to be essential for clarity, but don't use one if the written form is perfectly clear without it. (Note that I have italicized these odd forms; this is a very good practice if you can produce italics.)
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/pu ... he/plurals

I will occasionally use the apostrophe in a similar way when I think the reader is like to stumble over or mispronounce the term without it.
There are ways to get around that without straining the English language. One could rephrase the heading. Or reorder the words. Or say "never-Mormons."

Personally, I kind of like it the way it is. But it is funny. And it is inconsistent with the head moderator's demand for adherence to his own stylesheet, that he claims is proper English.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5905
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Marcus »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:29 pm
The posts of the collective Never-Mormon are welcome, even though the alien intelligence of its colossal hive mind is too overwhelming for it to be welcome itself.
The Never-Mos(s) Postings brook no Rough-Rolled Stonings.

(Yea, I know. I'll be back after I find some caffeine. Or my mind.)
User avatar
Bret Ripley
1st Counselor
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:55 am

Re: Temple Sealings of Dead People who Were Married More than Once

Post by Bret Ripley »

Morley wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:01 pm
One could rephrase the heading. Or reorder the words. Or say "never-Mormons."
"Never-Mormons" -- quoth the Raven, had it been allowed to finish its sentence. (Oh, and spellcheck doesn't recognize the word "quoth.")
Personally, I kind of like it the way it is.
I very much like it the way it is. I wasn't complaining; but as one of these selfsame Never-Mo's I reserve the right to be offended by the apostrophe next time I'm losing an argument and need an excuse to flounce.
Post Reply