|
|
Post by 25or624 on Aug 19, 2024 10:29:12 GMT -5
Per the Stanford forum, there are 4 players joining the application process. They figure Sarah Hickman is one of the 4. I hope this is the end of the 2026 wish list and we can start on 2027 tomorrow. ~ |
|
|
|
Post by Pepperjack on Aug 19, 2024 10:37:02 GMT -5
Per the Stanford forum, there are 4 players joining the application process. They figure Sarah Hickman is one of the 4. I hope this is the end of the 2026 wish list and we can start on 2027 tomorrow. ~ Are you familiar with the 2027 class? |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbadgerbadger on Aug 19, 2024 10:38:51 GMT -5
(A pet peeve of mine, but there are no "degrees" of uniqueness. One thing is not "more unique" or "less unique" than another thing. "Unique" means "one of a kind". Can something be MORE "one of a kind" than something else that is also "one of a kind"? No. One of a kind is one of a kind.) This is wrong. Per Merriam-Webster, "unique" has multiple definitions (like most words), one of which is, yes, "one of a kind" or "being the only one". However, another definition is "distinctively characteristic" and even just "unusual". Hell, Merriam-Webster even has a usage connotation on the definition page of the word to address specifically pedantic (but wrong) people like you here: "Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary... In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unique) So yeah, no, you're wrong. Words can have more than one meaning, and the way the Insta page uses it, just like the way many people uses it, is perfectly correct. |
|
|
|
Post by vbbadgirl on Aug 19, 2024 10:57:59 GMT -5
Good morning, friends. Do people want a thread for the Bradley scrimmage? I would love a great match review! Out of the country for a couple weeks. I’ll be starved for Badger updates! |
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Aug 19, 2024 10:58:39 GMT -5
I hope this is the end of the 2026 wish list and we can start on 2027 tomorrow. ~ Are you familiar with the 2027 class? No, and I don't want to be. Fall 2024 starts tomorrow and that's what I've been waiting for. Ms. Hickman and the Class of 2027 pale in comparison to the first look at Charlie and the other newcomers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Aug 19, 2024 11:15:25 GMT -5
GG and Franklin just cracked me tf up lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 19, 2024 11:22:02 GMT -5
(A pet peeve of mine, but there are no "degrees" of uniqueness. One thing is not "more unique" or "less unique" than another thing. "Unique" means "one of a kind". Can something be MORE "one of a kind" than something else that is also "one of a kind"? No. One of a kind is one of a kind.) This is wrong. Per Merriam-Webster, "unique" has multiple definitions (like most words), one of which is, yes, "one of a kind" or "being the only one". However, another definition is "distinctively characteristic" and even just "unusual". Hell, Merriam-Webster even has a usage connotation on the definition page of the word to address specifically pedantic (but wrong) people like you here: "Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary... In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unique) So yeah, no, you're wrong. Words can have more than one meaning, and the way the Insta page uses it, just like the way many people uses it, is perfectly correct. "Commentators" is another one. Why "commentate" when you can simply "comment"? Be a commenter, not a commentator. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 19, 2024 11:26:31 GMT -5
(A pet peeve of mine, but there are no "degrees" of uniqueness. One thing is not "more unique" or "less unique" than another thing. "Unique" means "one of a kind". Can something be MORE "one of a kind" than something else that is also "one of a kind"? No. One of a kind is one of a kind.) This is wrong. Per Merriam-Webster, "unique" has multiple definitions (like most words), one of which is, yes, "one of a kind" or "being the only one". However, another definition is "distinctively characteristic" and even just "unusual". Hell, Merriam-Webster even has a usage connotation on the definition page of the word to address specifically pedantic (but wrong) people like you here: "Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary... In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unique) So yeah, no, you're wrong. Words can have more than one meaning, and the way the Insta page uses it, just like the way many people uses it, is perfectly correct. I hate semantic arguments. They never end because everyone talks past each other. Merriam Webster explicitly embraces the idea that English is a living language and that usage should be what defines definitions of English words. MW has no problem accommodating new grammatical constructions or amending previous definitions if a particular usage becomes common. I tend to side with them being a lit major in my early larval stages, but there are perfectly valid and more conservative (with a small non political c) approaches that try to preserve standard definitions for the sake of clarity. Rob seems to be arguing from this position. That's a tension that can never be resolved because it's how languages evolve. Just learn to live with it and be at peace. |
|
|
|
Post by Pepperjack on Aug 19, 2024 11:29:15 GMT -5
AVCA Aug. 19 - 2024 AVCA/TARAFLEX Preseason Division I WVB Poll
Rank School (First-Place Votes Adjusted) Total Points Adjusted
1 Texas (46) 1,503
2 Nebraska (15) 1,474
3 Wisconsin 1,391
4 Pittsburgh 1,338
5 Stanford 1,228
6 Louisville 1,221
7 Penn State 1,005
8 Purdue 986
9 Kentucky 963
10 Oregon 943
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 19, 2024 11:34:35 GMT -5
Tosia's english is very good. She has the cadence of someone very comfortable in the language. ADD: Also really wanted to hear one of Julia's Dad jokes. |
|
|
|
Post by talkbdgrvb65 on Aug 19, 2024 11:36:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 19, 2024 11:38:22 GMT -5
AVCA Aug. 19 - 2024 AVCA/TARAFLEX Preseason Division I WVB Poll Rank School (First-Place Votes Adjusted) Total Points Adjusted 1 Texas (46) 1,503 2 Nebraska (15) 1,474 3 Wisconsin 1,391 4 Pittsburgh 1,338 5 Stanford 1,228 6 Louisville 1,221 7 Penn State 1,005 8 Purdue 986 9 Kentucky 963 10 Oregon 943 OUTRAGED! /S |
|
|
|
Post by PeoriaBucky on Aug 19, 2024 12:11:05 GMT -5
Good morning, friends. Do people want a thread for the Bradley scrimmage? The only thing I need for the Bradley game is what online radio station is Jon Arias calling the games on now? |
|
|
|
Post by gazelle1 on Aug 19, 2024 12:29:34 GMT -5
This is wrong. Per Merriam-Webster, "unique" has multiple definitions (like most words), one of which is, yes, "one of a kind" or "being the only one". However, another definition is "distinctively characteristic" and even just "unusual". Hell, Merriam-Webster even has a usage connotation on the definition page of the word to address specifically pedantic (but wrong) people like you here: "Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary... In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unique) So yeah, no, you're wrong. Words can have more than one meaning, and the way the Insta page uses it, just like the way many people uses it, is perfectly correct. I hate semantic arguments. They never end because everyone talks past each other. Merriam Webster explicitly embraces the idea that English is a living language and that usage should be what defines definitions of English words. MW has no problem accommodating new grammatical constructions or amending previous definitions if a particular usage becomes common. I tend to side with them being a lit major in my early larval stages, but there are perfectly valid and more conservative (with a small non political c) approaches that try to preserve standard definitions for the sake of clarity. Rob seems to be arguing from this position. That's a tension that can never be resolved because it's how languages evolve. Just learn to live with it and be at peace. Without outrage there would be no drama. Where would volleytalk be without the drama? There are some serious drama queens and internet karens on this board. I say embrace the chaos!  |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 19, 2024 12:48:55 GMT -5
Good morning, friends. Do people want a thread for the Bradley scrimmage? The only thing I need for the Bradley game is what online radio station is Jon Arias calling the games on now? I believe it's ESPN MADISONOr linktr.ee/ESPNMadison. Look at the live link. It's the same feed. |
|
