[onoway]

I ended up ordering a computer through Amazon.ca and that was another adventure. First they couldn't find my account, then the system would not accept the home address...it wasn't complaining about the street address, it was objecting to the postal code and province, claiming it was invalid. I had planned to order something smaller which would have gone to the post office and it was perfectly content to process that one but was absolutely adamant that the same combination was not acceptable for a residence. All in all, ordering from Amazon took 4 emails,three phone calls, (the second one taking almost two hours, accomplishing nothing) and two days.

They sent me an email Monday saying the order had been shipped and since it doesn't take a week to get here from Ontario I tried to track the order today, not wanting the package to sit in the snow on the step at 20 below. FedEx said they didn't have it so called the company. It hasn't left the shop yet, they said they will let me know when they get around to sending it ( my words, getting a bit frustrated here). They also said it was a good thing I had called as otherwise Amazon might have cancelled the order.

Don't know Memory Express at all, doubt they are in east central Sask. Purolater has been decent, at least they don't just drop stuff off unless you have given then a signed slip of permission. They take it away and leave a notice giving you a way to contact them to arrange delivery, which is fair enough. This is the first time I've dealt with FedEx. First the store has to let them pick up the computer though. Fedex said some companies wait until they have a "shipment" so they get a better shipping rate. So it may be a good two weeks after I finally got the order accepted before I get the thing. Gotta love living in the boonies sometimes.

[mycroft]

http://www.memoryexpress.com . They're stating $8.99 shipping throughout Canada if less than 20kg (not applicable to northern territories, whatever that means). Not east Saskatchewan, no, but they have a Winterpeg store (although online stuff will almost certainly ship from Calgary).

As I said, not the cheapest, and the more you know about computers, the better the store will be for you, but nobody I know has complained about their customer service or their tech service. Of course, everybody I know has built their own computer from parts, too, so take that as you will.

Spent my summers growing up north of Fairview Alberta. I understand both the joys and the frustrations of the boonies. Have to admit I am a city boy, however...

I seriously feel your pain. I cringe whenever I need to get something shipped from anywhere, and I live in the middle of Calgary. I can't imagine it when they won't accept "R.R.2, Okotoks" as an address at all, never mind a shipping address.

[Vampyr]

British Christmas lights. You have to find an outlet for each one of the huge plugs and run the wire up the tree.

American lights plug in end to end. This is so much more convenient.

[Zelandakh]

Dwarves. Outside of fantasy literature, primarily because of Tolkien, the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. This is one of 3 primary exceptions to the f->ves rule (dwarf, roof, chief (including hankerchief)). Because of the vast influence of JRRT in the world of fantasy, it is accepted practice to use dwarves in that context. It is not ok in an everyday context! And today I saw on BBF a post containing dwarve for the singular form. No, just no!

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 07:21, said:

Dwarves. Outside of fantasy literature, primarily because of Tolkien, the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. This is one of 3 primary exceptions to the f->ves rule (dwarf, roof, chief (including hankerchief)). Because of the vast influence of JRRT in the world of fantasy, it is accepted practice to use dwarves in that context. It is not ok in an everyday context! And today I saw on BBF a post containing dwarve for the singular form. No, just no!

Citation? dictionary.com shows both "dwarfs" and "dwarves" as plurals, and doesn't say that one is improper or only for a specific context. Merriam-Webster says "also dwarves", so there's a suggestion that "drarfs" is more preferable, but not that "dwarves" is improper.

Language changes, and "accepted practice" is the very definition of what's correct at that point in time.

I guess my pet peeve would be people who think that the language of their youth is the only correct way.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-December-15, 09:14, said:

Citation?

I put "dwarf dwarfs dwarves" into google and this was the first hit. Seems to sum it up well and *relief* matches to what I wrote earlier.

[mycroft]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 07:21, said:

Dwarves. Outside of fantasy literature, primarily because of Tolkien, the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. This is one of 3 primary exceptions to the f->ves rule (dwarf, roof, chief (including hankerchief)). Because of the vast influence of JRRT in the world of fantasy, it is accepted practice to use dwarves in that context. It is not ok in an everyday context! And today I saw on BBF a post containing dwarve for the singular form. No, just no!

barmar, on 2016-December-15, 09:14, said:

Citation? dictionary.com shows both "dwarfs" and "dwarves" as plurals, and doesn't say that one is improper or only for a specific context. Merriam-Webster says "also dwarves", so there's a suggestion that "drarfs" is more preferable, but not that "dwarves" is improper.

I'd heard that story before, too, so I looked it up. Note that my source isn't cite-worthy, but assuming its citations aren't totally misinterpreted (and do you expect Tolkien SBs not to correct that?), it seems to support the case (my emphasis):

Tolkien Gateway said:

According to Tolkien, the "real 'historical'" plural of dwarf is dwarrows or dwerrows. He once referred to dwarves as "a piece of private bad grammar" (Letters, 17), but in Appendix F to The Lord of the Rings he explains that if we still spoke of dwarves regularly, English might have retained a special plural for the word dwarf as with man. The form dwarrow only appears in the word Dwarrowdelf, a name for Moria. Tolkien used Dwarves, instead, which corresponds with Elf and Elves, making its meaning more apparent. The use of a different term also serves to set Tolkien's Dwarves apart from the similarly-named creatures in mythology and fairy-tales.

The enduring popularity of Tolkien's books, especially The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, has led to the popular use of the term dwarves to describe this race in fantasy literature. Before Tolkien, the term dwarfs (with a different spelling) was used, as seen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In fact, the latter spelling was so common that the original editor of The Lord of the Rings "corrected" Tolkien's dwarves to dwarfs (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 138).

You're absolutely correct, language (especially English) evolves. But this particular evolution was deliberately created by one person to make a point, and driven into the real world because he happened to make it in the ur-example of Modern Fantasy (warning: TVTropes link).

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 07:21, said:

Dwarves. Outside of fantasy literature, primarily because of Tolkien, the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. This is one of 3 primary exceptions to the f->ves rule (dwarf, roof, chief (including hankerchief)). Because of the vast influence of JRRT in the world of fantasy, it is accepted practice to use dwarves in that context. It is not ok in an everyday context! And today I saw on BBF a post containing dwarve for the singular form. No, just no!

Would it be fair to say that your peeve about dwarves dwarves any other issue for you? Or would it be fairer to say that your concern about dwarves is dwarved by other concerns, such as the use of a noun as a verb? As for the latter issue, one could, I suppose, google whether such is acceptable practice. Of course, maybe your concern about dwarves is not dwarved but merely dwarfed?

[Kaitlyn S]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 07:21, said:

Dwarves. Outside of fantasy literature, primarily because of Tolkien, the plural of dwarf is dwarfs. This is one of 3 primary exceptions to the f->ves rule (dwarf, roof, chief (including hankerchief)). Because of the vast influence of JRRT in the world of fantasy, it is accepted practice to use dwarves in that context. It is not ok in an everyday context! And today I saw on BBF a post containing dwarve for the singular form. No, just no!

If this is your major peeve then you live a charmed life. I mean, seriously, who gives a rat's ***?

[mikeh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-15, 21:32, said:

If this is your major peeve then you live a charmed life. I mean, seriously, who gives a rat's ***?

I think I've just discovered a new pet peeve: people with no discernible sense of humour.

[barmar]

I was also going to comment on this:

Quote

It is not ok in an everyday context!

How often do you refer to dwarfs in everyday context? Especially since it's not PC these days to use that term to refer to short people.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2016-December-15, 12:52, said:

Would it be fair to say that your peeve about dwarves dwarves any other issue for you? Or would it be fairer to say that your concern about dwarves is dwarved by other concerns, such as the use of a noun as a verb? As for the latter issue, one could, I suppose, google whether such is acceptable practice. Of course, maybe your concern about dwarves is not dwarved but merely dwarfed?

Sometimes you can really make me laugh Mike. You missed a trick though - you could have thrown in a sneaky practise so that we could extend our "grammar police" pet peeve sub-thread.

barmar, on 2016-December-16, 09:41, said:

How often do you refer to dwarfs in everyday context? Especially since it's not PC these days to use that term to refer to short people.

Well if you are interested in bonsai I would imagine you refer to dwarfs often. Similarly for some that deal with animals or pets, dwarf rabbits being quite common. But yes, the verb form is probably more common in normal parlance these days but the -ves form is also used there and it is probably even worse in that context.

[Zelandakh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-15, 21:32, said:

If this is your major peeve then you live a charmed life. I mean, seriously, who gives a rat's ***?

As Mike points out, this thread is perhaps not meant to be taken with the same gravity as the Trumped one. Believe me, racism is much higher on my personal pet peeves list than dwarves.

[mycroft]

Mike: that was truly ban-worthy of you. Well done, *******.

Kaitlyn: speaking of pet peeves, I think Zel would be very upset with your issue; I expect he doesn't give a rat's ****, instead.

Now that I've used up my daily quota of cusswords, I return you to your regularly scheduled peeve-griping.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2016-December-16, 10:39, said:

Kaitlyn: speaking of pet peeves, I think Zel would be very upset with your issue; I expect he doesn't give a rat's ****, instead.

Ah, now I get it - I was wondering how a rodent owned a donkey!!!

[mikeh]

deleted: zel already beat me to it.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-December-16, 10:16, said:

Well if you are interested in bonsai I would imagine you refer to dwarfs often. Similarly for some that deal with animals or pets, dwarf rabbits being quite common. But yes, the verb form is probably more common in normal parlance these days but the -ves form is also used there and it is probably even worse in that context.

Ah, thought you were a connoisseur of that type of pr0n

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-December-16, 17:34, said:

Ah, thought you were a connoisseur of that type of pr0n

Perhaps we should challenge Kaitlyn to post her first 5 links to the web search "bonsai pr0n"...

[cherdano]

Not forcing to game with 6-4 and AK AK in the long suits opposite a 2-level negative double.

[Cyberyeti]

People who think it's the right thing to do to attend a public event with a heavy cold.

This has bitten me twice, one I posted about before because it was at a bridge event, they gave it to me, my stepmum was recovering from chemo, so I couldn't attend family Christmas.

The recent one is much more annoying. Nearly 2 years ago, I'd lost nearly 60 pounds, I enrolled at a gym feeling good and wanting to lose a little more. At the group induction, one of the people there turned up with a horrendous cold. They gave it to me and basically since then I've had ME/CFS (which is why some people that might have expected to see me at things like the Tolly haven't for the last 2).