SERIOUS PROGRESSIVE LISTENERS’ THREAD

Finally a thread devoid of the shallow aesthetics of so-called 'humour' characteristic of most discussions on Progarchives, and truly deserving of the attention of a serious listener to progressive music.

And yet the presence of this thread on the front page seems to be but a futile attempt at resurrecting the commendable initiative of endowing at least a symbolic fraction of Progarchives with the seriousness it was meant to possess from the very outset, of retaining the sense of fear and wonder essential to any meaningful discussion on the subject of progressive music.

In a day this thread will return to the dark depths it rose from, like the derelict it truly is.

And any hope that might have seen the light of day with it, will sink together with its unwilling bearer, thereby continuing its sempiternal mission of taunting and misleading humankind.

Tony R wrote: Peter wrote: dalt99 wrote: Peter wrote: Ricochet wrote: This thread look nice...what's the subject? See page 1. That's 'page ONE' - Don't you know that it's proper English to spell out numbers below 10? <----------  Not a clown in sight (debatable) Yes. In fact, a common rule of practice in writing is: if the number can be said with two or fewer words, write it in word form, thus: "six hundred" If it takes three or more words to say it, use numeric form, thus: "666" Next: the arcane mysteries of its and it's, demystified, and the proper use of the apostrophe -- it's not something to be randomly inserted into simple plurals.   Yet why bother, when all is for naught? Dust in the wind, my fellow sufferers -- all we are is dust in the wind.... here you are kids: http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/ How to avoid rapped knuckles courtesy of Uncle Peter...

Whew. For a second there I thought I might be mistaken. My "it's" happens to be correct. I thought it was correct but Peter brought up the point of simple plurals. For a moment, I was confused.

Oops, is confusion an emotion? If it is, I really need to be flogged - or just torn apart via a verbal barrage.

Maani:

That is the most intellegent thing you ever said.

Peter wrote: dalt99 wrote: Peter wrote: Ricochet wrote: This thread look nice...what's the subject? See page 1. That's 'page ONE' - Don't you know that it's proper English to spell out numbers below 10? <----------  Not a clown in sight (debatable) Yes. In fact, a common rule of practice in writing is: if the number can be said with two or fewer words, write it in word form, thus: "six hundred" If it takes three or more words to say it, use numeric form, thus: "666" Next: the arcane mysteries of its and it's, demystified, and the proper use of the apostrophe -- it's not something to be randomly inserted into simple plurals.   Yet why bother, when all is for naught? Dust in the wind, my fellow sufferers -- all we are is dust in the wind....

here you are kids: http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/

How to avoid rapped knuckles courtesy of Uncle Peter...

dalt99 wrote: Peter wrote: Ricochet wrote: This thread look nice...what's the subject? See page 1. That's 'page ONE' - Don't you know that it's proper English to spell out numbers below 10? <----------  Not a clown in sight (debatable)

Yes.

In fact, a common rule of practice in writing is: if the number can be said with two or fewer words, write it in word form, thus: "six hundred"

If it takes three or more words to say it, use numeric form, thus: "666"

Next: the arcane mysteries of its and it's, demystified, and the proper use of the apostrophe -- it's not something to be randomly inserted into simple plurals.

Yet why bother, when all is for naught?

Dust in the wind, my fellow sufferers -- all we are is dust in the wind....

Ricochet wrote: This thread look nice...what's the subject?

See page 1.

"she's a brick....

...house. She's mighty mighty. She's lettin' it all hang out."