Am bit confused, Bruce. Whose horse are you on? Your axiom almost sounds Shakespearean. Naw.
No matter: You intentionally recorded, I'm sure, "doen't" for "doesn't." Now I can't be sure about your referent for "horses ass." However you intended the referent, you need to know that all levels of English require an apostrophe in "horse's ass." Or, if in your world--and Al's and TFlan's--one horse may denote multiple asses, then "horses'." Want to let it go yet? Bruce Taylor wrote: > or "Every horse has an ass, but every horses ass doen't have a horse". > > Bruce > > >Consider then the adage: "There Are More Horse's Asses Than There Are > >Horses." > > > >TFlan > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "connie mack rea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:03 AM > >Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Mime-Version: 1.0 > > > > > >> Language will bite you on the ass when you lose control. Or try to be > >> smarter than you are. > >> > >> Perhaps you mean "ad nauseam"? > >> > >> Much depends on whose anus is being bitten. > >> > >> It is better to be the horse fly biting than the horse bitten. > >> > >> > >> > >> Al Taylor wrote: > >> > >> > Anal retentiveness ad nasuem. > >> > >> > > --
