I had my first blog on Geocities when it started. I met so many people through it! It was a blog about my aggressive dog and also Springer Spaniel rescue and I think I did good things with it and helped some people and helped some dogs.
I even learned some HTML programming. I enjoyed the experience until I lost my password and then Yahoo took over. I loved egroups until Yahoo took over, too. Sigh. But I have friends from back in those days even now.
To be fair to Yahoo, the GeoCities deal was all-stock, as no doubt a hypothetical Google deal would have been. Yahoo was trading at $370/share when the GeoCities news broke, and it was trading at $14/share when the Google talks were underway (split adjusted $45 and $7, respectively).
The GeoCities deal amounted to less than 5% of Yahoo's then-market cap, whereas a potential Google deal would have been more than 1/3 of Yahoo's summer-2002 market cap. Using the stock-currency equivalent, a $3bn Google deal would have been a $20bn deal, compared to the GeoCities deal.
And, most importantly, while that $20bn price tag looks good in retrospect, remember that Yahoo management would have been running Google in the interim. Would you bet $20bn that Yahoo could have turned the Google asset into something worth an eighth of a trillion dollars in seven years' time?
Owen, I may be overreacting to what is just a personal peeve, but I'm also right, and you do this all the time: you really need to use "that" and "which" correctly. The general rule is to use "which" when there's a comma before it, and "that" when there is not. So: "Websites THAT allow us to idle."
@johnnypotatoes: The comma is not what drives the usage. While "which" takes a comma and "that" does not, the comma does not dictate which one to use when. look it up little johnny.
@BxgrlJeri: et. al. I know the grammar and that the comma doesn't determine the usage, but it's a helpful guideline or rule of thumb (or "general rule," as I said, less precisely), and the point remains that I'm right, and Owen often uses "which" when he means "that."
"Websites which..." makes you stop and wonder if he's talking about all Websites before you realize that he's not. The same thing happens to me whenever I read the Economist, so at least Owen's in rarefied company.
Since we're citing scripture, Strunk and White says: "The careful writer, watchful for small conveniences, goes which-hunting..." (Not to say Owen isn't a careful writer -- he is, which is why I bothered to say anything.)
Fowler has a long, entertaining passage on this that essentially agrees with my point. The author opines that some people use "which" in this way to sound more formal. I think that's the case most times, though I think it's subconscious ("I am Writing now, not merely speaking.")
James Kilpatrick, in "The Writer's Art," agrees with my advice to use the presence of commas as a general guideline, though "it will not work in every construction." He cites several examples that use "which" the way Owen uses it and says they "grate upon the ear."
And even the Chicago scripture, which I disagree with (as I often do), says only that Owen's usage is "more or less correct" and is usually employed by Brits.
AP Stylebook says it's "preferred" to use "that" in these instances, the exception being only when "that" is used as a conjunction elsewhere in the sentence. (Like, "He said that the part of his body which contained the most festering boils was...". Otherwise, it's "that contained...")
So it's not exactly a commandment to use "which" for "that" when there's no comma, but the usage is still clumsy, and unnecessarily so. The reason some grammar and style guides don't mention using commas as a rule of thumb is that it's a just rule of thumb. But as such, it works.
@johnnypotatoes: ... and 54 percent of the American Heritage usage panel thinks that Owen's usage is "acceptable," but "many" of that number say my usage is preferred most of the time.
@johnnypotatoes: I thought you said you weren't going to say anymore about this Potatoes.
Now, counting down to the poorly thought out, faux-insightful rejoinder from you about my "rage" and "being online all the time" and whatever else you commonly say to the people who don't like your comments and are bored by them.....
@johnnypotatoes: Strange, hmmm. I know who you are because you won't stop commenting. They're almost all snarky, critical, boring and whiny. I don't ordinarily bother to even respond most of the time because really, what good would it do? However, I simply hate people who put in their unsolicited 2 cents about a writer's writing. If your comments are any reflection of your writing skills, there is no way you'd ever make a website financially viable for the aforementioned reasons.
@WilliamMarkFelt: >there is no way you'd ever make a website financially viable for the aforementioned reasons.
Except that I do. Every day. And I have been doing the equivalent for 20 years, and now I write for some of the biggest, best-known publications on the planet. For a living.
Not sure what this has to do with anything, however, other than your being REALLY BOTHERED that I once complained nearly a year ago that you were plastering this site with twitty, addled comments. Many, many comments, every day, for months. You don't seem to be doing that as much, though, at least not here, so that's good.
Still, "won't stop commenting?" What the fuck are you talking about?
Well first Potatoes, let's discuss you for a second here, OK? First off, I think you are the one really bothered. After all, if my comments are addled, then why bother continuing an argument? You are the one who should just move on. But...you won't. And let's just say it's one of my personal flaws that if someone wants to prolong something silly like this, I have a hard time not biting.
Now, your issue with Owen and the "that" and "which" argument. You said you weren't going to raise the issue anymore. Then you did, at least two more times, about the correct usage of "that" and "which", making sure that anyone with enough time to waste (I know, I'm guilty here) really knows that 54% of the people agree with you.
Which is a perfect segue into the "won't stop commenting" issue. You wouldn't stop commenting about grammar when you said you would, and then when I read Gawker, well there you are again, spouting gems like this:
Tell me, what professional writer who, or anyone born after 1912 for that matter, uses the word "ninnies."
If you don't like the "verprivileged commentariat ninnies who tend to post here most often", then just read some other website, or at the very least, just refrain from commenting.
You really compliment yourself believing that I still care about what you had to say to me whenever it was. What really bothers me is a) if your comments aren't negative, then they're not very intelligent and b) I hate people who pick fights with the writers about writing. It's rude, it's bad form, it's subjective, and you end up looking bad - which...you did, especially when you continued posting comments about the issue! If you have an issue with Owen's writing, then discuss it with him privately, not in a public forum.
Now, more about you..
"Except that I do. Every day. And I have been doing the equivalent for 20 years, and now I write for some of the biggest, best-known publications on the planet. For a living."
I don't believe you. I read a lot of intelligent, insightful comments on this website and other Gawker sites. Never, ever from you, however.
Now, does this answer your questions to your satisfaction? I guess I'll see you here tomorrow to continue this pointless waste of life of an argument.
Until a few weeks ago, my favorite film ciritc Outlaw Vern was still using Geocities. Now he's got his own domain. He may have literally been their last client.
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: Don't forget Prodigy, the first service with both a Windows client and full web-access. I used to update my Geocities John D. MacDonald fan page from my Netcom dial-up account.
@Aaron Altman: I remember when you had to write code (I think it was PASCAL) to get the newsgroups before the WWW. Those were the "I am a superior being because I can get on the internetz" days.
This is the Microsoft model, and unfortunately it has worked for far too long. Google (and the press) make an exception with its "do no evil" motto and we are always looking for signs that they have slipped up (again). But for most companies, if they make a gadget or software title we like we don't seem to care much about how it arrived at our doorstep or who got hurt in the process.
While consumers are oblivious to the sins of Microsoft the company has at least worn out their reputation with potential partners and it is now commonly accepted that anyone who does business with them is in "take the money and run" mode.
04/25/09
04/24/09
I even learned some HTML programming. I enjoyed the experience until I lost my password and then Yahoo took over. I loved egroups until Yahoo took over, too. Sigh. But I have friends from back in those days even now.
04/24/09
The GeoCities deal amounted to less than 5% of Yahoo's then-market cap, whereas a potential Google deal would have been more than 1/3 of Yahoo's summer-2002 market cap. Using the stock-currency equivalent, a $3bn Google deal would have been a $20bn deal, compared to the GeoCities deal.
And, most importantly, while that $20bn price tag looks good in retrospect, remember that Yahoo management would have been running Google in the interim. Would you bet $20bn that Yahoo could have turned the Google asset into something worth an eighth of a trillion dollars in seven years' time?
04/25/09
04/24/09
I'll never mention it again.
04/24/09
04/25/09
04/25/09
"Websites which..." makes you stop and wonder if he's talking about all Websites before you realize that he's not. The same thing happens to me whenever I read the Economist, so at least Owen's in rarefied company.
Since we're citing scripture, Strunk and White says: "The careful writer, watchful for small conveniences, goes which-hunting..." (Not to say Owen isn't a careful writer -- he is, which is why I bothered to say anything.)
Fowler has a long, entertaining passage on this that essentially agrees with my point. The author opines that some people use "which" in this way to sound more formal. I think that's the case most times, though I think it's subconscious ("I am Writing now, not merely speaking.")
James Kilpatrick, in "The Writer's Art," agrees with my advice to use the presence of commas as a general guideline, though "it will not work in every construction." He cites several examples that use "which" the way Owen uses it and says they "grate upon the ear."
And even the Chicago scripture, which I disagree with (as I often do), says only that Owen's usage is "more or less correct" and is usually employed by Brits.
AP Stylebook says it's "preferred" to use "that" in these instances, the exception being only when "that" is used as a conjunction elsewhere in the sentence. (Like, "He said that the part of his body which contained the most festering boils was...". Otherwise, it's "that contained...")
So it's not exactly a commandment to use "which" for "that" when there's no comma, but the usage is still clumsy, and unnecessarily so. The reason some grammar and style guides don't mention using commas as a rule of thumb is that it's a just rule of thumb. But as such, it works.
04/25/09
04/26/09
Now, counting down to the poorly thought out, faux-insightful rejoinder from you about my "rage" and "being online all the time" and whatever else you commonly say to the people who don't like your comments and are bored by them.....
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/28/09
Except that I do. Every day. And I have been doing the equivalent for 20 years, and now I write for some of the biggest, best-known publications on the planet. For a living.
Not sure what this has to do with anything, however, other than your being REALLY BOTHERED that I once complained nearly a year ago that you were plastering this site with twitty, addled comments. Many, many comments, every day, for months. You don't seem to be doing that as much, though, at least not here, so that's good.
Still, "won't stop commenting?" What the fuck are you talking about?
04/28/09
Well first Potatoes, let's discuss you for a second here, OK? First off, I think you are the one really bothered. After all, if my comments are addled, then why bother continuing an argument? You are the one who should just move on. But...you won't. And let's just say it's one of my personal flaws that if someone wants to prolong something silly like this, I have a hard time not biting.
Now, your issue with Owen and the "that" and "which" argument. You said you weren't going to raise the issue anymore. Then you did, at least two more times, about the correct usage of "that" and "which", making sure that anyone with enough time to waste (I know, I'm guilty here) really knows that 54% of the people agree with you.
Which is a perfect segue into the "won't stop commenting" issue. You wouldn't stop commenting about grammar when you said you would, and then when I read Gawker, well there you are again, spouting gems like this:
[gawker.com]
Tell me, what professional writer who, or anyone born after 1912 for that matter, uses the word "ninnies."
If you don't like the "verprivileged commentariat ninnies who tend to post here most often", then just read some other website, or at the very least, just refrain from commenting.
You really compliment yourself believing that I still care about what you had to say to me whenever it was. What really bothers me is a) if your comments aren't negative, then they're not very intelligent and b) I hate people who pick fights with the writers about writing. It's rude, it's bad form, it's subjective, and you end up looking bad - which...you did, especially when you continued posting comments about the issue! If you have an issue with Owen's writing, then discuss it with him privately, not in a public forum.
Now, more about you..
"Except that I do. Every day. And I have been doing the equivalent for 20 years, and now I write for some of the biggest, best-known publications on the planet. For a living."
I don't believe you. I read a lot of intelligent, insightful comments on this website and other Gawker sites. Never, ever from you, however.
Now, does this answer your questions to your satisfaction? I guess I'll see you here tomorrow to continue this pointless waste of life of an argument.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
GeoCities, check. Compuserve, check. Aol before internet, check.
Aaron, I think you are me, but funnier and easternier.
04/24/09
04/25/09
03/26/09
03/25/09
While consumers are oblivious to the sins of Microsoft the company has at least worn out their reputation with potential partners and it is now commonly accepted that anyone who does business with them is in "take the money and run" mode.