What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Phrases/terms that need to be retired immediately (1 Viewer)

Recently I was in a .NET class where the instructor, who is from California, must have said "groovy" 100 times during a virtual class. I thought that went out in the 60s? This guy was 30 something. Are you telling me people from that state are still stuck in the 60s?
I try to say it only once per conversation rather than 100 times, but I like 'groovy' a lot.
I agree. I like saying it, but I don't force it into a conversation. Sparingly used, I think it's a groovy word :D
Indeed.

 
Time for "optics" to go...awful
Fiber optics? :shuked:
yeah... not sure how this would be over or mis-used, unless it's gone slang somehow.
It means "how something looks" in work slang. Haven't heard it? Was really big a couple of years ago but haven't heard it much lately.

For example: "Regarding that problem last week... Sales changed the optics so the customer is OK now."
That's effin terrible.
For example...Obama is on vacation due to whatever national emergency...the "optics" don't look so good...awful and needs to stop now.

 
Time for "optics" to go...awful
Fiber optics? :shuked:
yeah... not sure how this would be over or mis-used, unless it's gone slang somehow.
It means "how something looks" in work slang. Haven't heard it? Was really big a couple of years ago but haven't heard it much lately.

For example: "Regarding that problem last week... Sales changed the optics so the customer is OK now."
That's effin terrible.
For example...Obama is on vacation due to whatever national emergency...the "optics" don't look so good...awful and needs to stop now.
I just started seeing this very recently. Holy crap is it painful!! Make it stop!!!

 
Using "that which" instead of "what."

The NFL received a much-deserved round of national applause for finally admitting that which pretty much everyone knew: The league got it wrong when suspending Ravens running back Ray Rice for only two games for committing domestic violence against his then-fiancée.

PFT is a huge offender.

 
Using "that which" instead of "what."

The NFL received a much-deserved round of national applause for finally admitting that which pretty much everyone knew: The league got it wrong when suspending Ravens running back Ray Rice for only two games for committing domestic violence against his then-fiancée.

PFT is a huge offender.
Regional thing?

Overuse of hyphens going on there too

 
Using "that which" instead of "what."

The NFL received a much-deserved round of national applause for finally admitting that which pretty much everyone knew: The league got it wrong when suspending Ravens running back Ray Rice for only two games for committing domestic violence against his then-fiancée.

PFT is a huge offender.
Regional thing?

Overuse of hyphens going on there too
Not regional, pompous, self-important speak. Sounds like something on tv commentary news.

 
I've noticed a lot of people saying this lately: BUYER BE AWARE!

Not sure if it's shtick or stupidity. I've seen it in both article comments and in actual articles, so I'm not sure which it is. Either way, it's moronic.

 
Ending a sentence with "go with.", as in "Do you want to go with?", or "Do you want to come with?". I never heard phrases like this until I moved to Minnesota. Not only does it end a sentence with a preposition, but it leaves out the object of the preposition. The sentence sounds unfinished and that is uncomfortable sounding.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ending a sentence with "go with.", as in "Do you want to go with?", or "Do you want to come with?". I never heard phrases like this until I moved to Minnesota. Not only does it end a sentence with a preposition, but it leaves out the object of the preposition. The sentence sounds unfinished and that is uncomfortable sounding.
It's regional. The object of the phrase is implied. And the "ending a sentence with a preposition' thing is just Victorian weirdness. Fell free to ignore it.

 
I'm not Indian and I refuse to give this up in the mocking/sarcastic way that I use it.

Me: Bob, can you update that spreadsheet and send it over to me?

Bob: I guess - give me an hour and I'll take care of it.

Me: DO THE NEEDFUL!

Bob: Be right back, I have to use the restroom.

Me: DO THE NEEDFUL!
:yes: Often said by our offshore personnel
So what does this mean ...you really need to do something?

 
Using "that which" instead of "what."

The NFL received a much-deserved round of national applause for finally admitting that which pretty much everyone knew: The league got it wrong when suspending Ravens running back Ray Rice for only two games for committing domestic violence against his then-fiancée.

PFT is a huge offender.
That which or what?
Question:

In the following example, is it better to write that which or what?

  • The agency will determine what or that which is reasonable.
Answer:Michael Swan, author of Practical English Usage (1995), was the only one among the various authors consulted who had anything to say on this subject. Swan considers that which to be an older form of what. In fact, he says that the form that which is very unusual in modern English. However, a search in Google shows that there are over 1.5 million hits for that which; surely, that many sources can't be completely off the mark!

It's really a question of style, so be sure to take into account the tone and the level of language you are aiming for. That which isn't wrong, it's just more formal. If you're striving for a lighter writing style, stick with what.
It's pretty simple - if you want to sound like a pretentious #######, use "that which", if you don't, use "what".

 
Ending a sentence with "go with.", as in "Do you want to go with?", or "Do you want to come with?". I never heard phrases like this until I moved to Minnesota. Not only does it end a sentence with a preposition, but it leaves out the object of the preposition. The sentence sounds unfinished and that is uncomfortable sounding.
It's regional. The object of the phrase is implied. And the "ending a sentence with a preposition' thing is just Victorian weirdness. Fell free to ignore it.
It just sounds wrong to me and I would think most of the country feels the same way.

 
Using "that which" instead of "what."

The NFL received a much-deserved round of national applause for finally admitting that which pretty much everyone knew: The league got it wrong when suspending Ravens running back Ray Rice for only two games for committing domestic violence against his then-fiancée.

PFT is a huge offender.
That which or what?
Question:

In the following example, is it better to write that which or what?

  • The agency will determine what or that which is reasonable.
Answer:Michael Swan, author of Practical English Usage (1995), was the only one among the various authors consulted who had anything to say on this subject. Swan considers that which to be an older form of what. In fact, he says that the form that which is very unusual in modern English. However, a search in Google shows that there are over 1.5 million hits for that which; surely, that many sources can't be completely off the mark!

It's really a question of style, so be sure to take into account the tone and the level of language you are aiming for. That which isn't wrong, it's just more formal. If you're striving for a lighter writing style, stick with what.
It's pretty simple - if you want to sound like a pretentious #######, use "that which", if you don't, use "what".
"That what doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

I think not.

 
Ending a sentence with "go with.", as in "Do you want to go with?", or "Do you want to come with?". I never heard phrases like this until I moved to Minnesota. Not only does it end a sentence with a preposition, but it leaves out the object of the preposition. The sentence sounds unfinished and that is uncomfortable sounding.
It's regional. The object of the phrase is implied. And the "ending a sentence with a preposition' thing is just Victorian weirdness. Fell free to ignore it.
It just sounds wrong to me and I would think most of the country feels the same way.
It sounds wrong to me, too. But here (Texas), people say "fixing to" meaning "about to" or "going to", so I guess that sort of thing happens.

 
Ending a sentence with "go with.", as in "Do you want to go with?", or "Do you want to come with?". I never heard phrases like this until I moved to Minnesota. Not only does it end a sentence with a preposition, but it leaves out the object of the preposition. The sentence sounds unfinished and that is uncomfortable sounding.
That isn't a bad thing.

 
Not sure this belongs here or not, but I'm tired of sports reporters saying that "Cam Newton is probable with a rib." He has a rib so he's probable? Really? I hope Cam has a lot of ribs but I'm betting only one or two are cracked/sore.

Or a player has 'an ankle', 'a shoulder', 'a hamstring', etc, etc. Is it that hard to say what the injury is?

 
Not sure this belongs here or not, but I'm tired of sports reporters saying that "Cam Newton is probable with a rib." He has a rib so he's probable? Really? I hope Cam has a lot of ribs but I'm betting only one or two are cracked/sore.

Or a player has 'an ankle', 'a shoulder', 'a hamstring', etc, etc. Is it that hard to say what the injury is?
This has annoyed me as well.

 
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!

 
I'm not Indian and I refuse to give this up in the mocking/sarcastic way that I use it.

Me: Bob, can you update that spreadsheet and send it over to me?

Bob: I guess - give me an hour and I'll take care of it.

Me: DO THE NEEDFUL!

Bob: Be right back, I have to use the restroom.

Me: DO THE NEEDFUL!
:yes: Often said by our offshore personnel
So what does this mean ...you really need to do something?
holy ####.

I was just about to post about how I didn’t recognize the phrase and I work with a lot of Indians. I searched my email and found hundreds of examples.

Somehow I blocked it all out.

I guess I didn’t do the needful. :(

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. WTF are those things?
Cross-cutting a rack of just means cutting them across the bones. So you take a 14 bone rib rack and cut it down the middle, to make two smaller 14 bone rib racks.

Why someone would want to use this as a marketing strategy is beyond me.

 
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. WTF are those things?
Cross-cutting a rack of just means cutting them across the bones. So you take a 14 bone rib rack and cut it down the middle, to make two smaller 14 bone rib racks.

Why someone would want to use this as a marketing strategy is beyond me.
Because they can't use "we can't cook" as a strategy?

 
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. WTF are those things?
Cross-cutting a rack of just means cutting them across the bones. So you take a 14 bone rib rack and cut it down the middle, to make two smaller 14 bone rib racks.

Why someone would want to use this as a marketing strategy is beyond me.
Because some people honestly believe getting two smaller pizzas is better.

 
"raise awareness". Mostly this is used to mean "hey, let's turn you into a radical on this stupid issue!"

See: high fructose corn syrup, gluten, etc.

 
"optics" in reference to politics. It's probably one of the most vague, lazy terms I've never heard.
Still true.
Just heard Mike Greenberg use it this morning and I was embarrassed for him.
Never heard it before this thread. Since then, I've probably heard about 10 different sports guys say it. And it sounds stupid.
Had never heard it before this week. Then Obama popped it out multiple times in a brief he was giving.

 
"optics" in reference to politics. It's probably one of the most vague, lazy terms I've never heard.
Still true.
Just heard Mike Greenberg use it this morning and I was embarrassed for him.
Never heard it before this thread. Since then, I've probably heard about 10 different sports guys say it. And it sounds stupid.
I'd never heard it before, either. But it turned up yesterday on a board I was reading. I mocked it.

 
"optics" in reference to politics. It's probably one of the most vague, lazy terms I've never heard.
Still true.
Just heard Mike Greenberg use it this morning and I was embarrassed for him.
Never heard it before this thread. Since then, I've probably heard about 10 different sports guys say it. And it sounds stupid.
I'd never heard it before, either. But it turned up yesterday on a board I was reading. I mocked it.
RIGHT NOW?!

 
Rock Star/Rock Stars.

Only applies to actual, bona fide Rock Stars. Yet I see it applied to all kinds of ridiculous things. For instance I just got an email for this conference about 3D printing:

"How Will 3D Printing Affect Your Industry? Don’t Miss Rock Stars of 3D Printing"

Previously I'd received notices for conferences about the Rock Stars of Big Data (Big Data - there's another term that should kindly shove it).

I want to put whoever is responsible for applying this term to the most tedious, mundane, non-interesting things in a blender with kerosene and live flesh eating ants, turn the blender on and drop it in a tub of boiling water.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pairing. And it's all over this board. I think of a sommelier selling a bottle to go with some cheese and crackers or whatever...not Alfred Blue to go with Arian Foster.

 
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. WTF are those things?
Cross-cutting a rack of just means cutting them across the bones. So you take a 14 bone rib rack and cut it down the middle, to make two smaller 14 bone rib racks.

Why someone would want to use this as a marketing strategy is beyond me.
Well most of the meat is on one side of the rib. So the can cross cut the rack and serve only the fat side of the rib....fyi

 
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. WTF are those things?
Cross-cutting a rack of just means cutting them across the bones. So you take a 14 bone rib rack and cut it down the middle, to make two smaller 14 bone rib racks.

Why someone would want to use this as a marketing strategy is beyond me.
Because they can't use "we can't cook" as a strategy?
Never ate at Applebee's until 2 years ago and then my Son-in-law became a asst mgr at the Nampa store.

The food is actually not that bad at all and they have several tasty low cal dishes that do really well.

This Rib promotion is doing insanely well for them.

 
Gr00vus said:
Rock Star/Rock Stars.

Only applies to actual, bona fide Rock Stars. Yet I see it applied to all kinds of ridiculous things. For instance I just got an email for this conference about 3D printing:

"How Will 3D Printing Affect Your Industry? Dont Miss Rock Stars of 3D Printing"

Previously I'd received notices for conferences about the Rock Stars of Big Data (Big Data - there's another term that should kindly shove it).

I want to put whoever is responsible for applying this term to the most tedious, mundane, non-interesting things in a blender with kerosene and live flesh eating ants, turn the blender on and drop it in a tub of boiling water.
Great call. I feel this should have been posted 3 years ago, but it's the first time I recall seeing it. Terrible phrase.
 
Seeing commercials for one of the horrible chain restaurants selling "cross-cut ribs".

Wow, you cut the ribs in half?!?!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. WTF are those things?
Cross-cutting a rack of just means cutting them across the bones. So you take a 14 bone rib rack and cut it down the middle, to make two smaller 14 bone rib racks.

Why someone would want to use this as a marketing strategy is beyond me.
Well most of the meat is on one side of the rib. So the can cross cut the rack and serve only the fat side of the rib....fyi
"Most of the meat is on one side of the rib"? What the #### are you talking about. Also, that's not why Applebees/Fridays or whoever is doing it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top