Trivia #4

When Ross asks Rachel what "other time periods" she knows in TOW the Apothecary Table...which ones does she list(Hint: she only lists 2)?

yawl(?) (as in days of yawl) and yesteryear

"Struddie" wrote in message news:3d1f5f36$0$8509$[email]...

Close...but no cigar. You've got the first letter of the first period right though. :)

Sofya

"Sofya" wrote in message news:afoaia$hqt$[email]...

right

Yore

"Amy and David" wrote in message news:8iPT8.5201$[email]...

Correct!

Sofya

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Struddie typed this -

That would be 'yore'

In article , "Struddie" wrote:

It's "days of yore".

Tennant Stuart

Colonnial, Your, Yesteryear?

"Owen Shiers" wrote in message news:cRRT8.189$[email]...

Technically, the colonial period was the first period she knew. The "other" periods she knows are Yore and Yesteryear. But indeed, these would be the three periods she knows.

Apart from the spelling....YES!!

Owen

"Owen Shiers" wrote in message news:cRRT8.189$[email]...

Yep, except its "yore" not "your" :)

Sofya

This kind of reminds me of Ross arguing with Rachel after they got back from the beach house in Montauk (401 TOW The Jellyfish).

Ross: Oh, and by the way, Y-O-U-apostrophe-R-E means 'you are,' Y-O-U-R means 'your!'

I guess he missed yore.

"David Buehrle" wrote in message news:wA%T8.852$[email]...

from

Yes, he did. He should have asked her to spell " yore" in TOW the Apothecary table.

Sofya

In article , "David Buehrle" wrote:

He should've asked Joey. :)

Tennant

Sorry about the spelling mistakes, I knew it wasn't "your" but I didn't have a clue what it was!

Owen

"Owen Shiers" wrote in message news:v22U8.2880$[email]...

have

If I'm not mistaken, ep 401 should air today in syndication. How timely!

They must have known....

"Owen Shiers" wrote in message news:kwkU8.1132$[email]...

18 pages FRONT and BACK!

Sofya :)

only

I can't believe she wrote 36 pages, she must have really big writing!

Owen

In article , "Owen Shiers" wrote:

I've always wondered if Rachel wrote on 9 sheets of paper, but because she wrote on both sides, Ross counted that as 18 pages.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

Funny you should mention that because I too have often wondered that. As the show aired the other day, I was trying to see how many sheets of paper there were. It looks thick when she hands it to Ross in the first place, but then, when he's checking to find out what "does it?" means, it looks like only nine.

In article , "David Buehrle" wrote:

This is why the 1,045th entry in the TWWWS reads...

40131 If Rachel's 18-page letter had 9 sheets or 36 sides.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Doesn't "18 pages - front and back!" mean that she wrote on 18 sheets of paper but both sides, so it's 18 pages?

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

It's hard to tell, because Ross's use of English was tautological.

Ross could be describing each side of each piece of paper as a page, in which case case there were only 9 sheets of paper with 18 sides.

Ross could be describing each piece of paper as a page, in which case there were only 18 sheets of paper, but 36 sides were written on.

Note that in a book, magazine, or newspaper, each sheet of paper usually has 4 pages - but some have 6 or more pages on a sheet.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

See...there you go turning the obvious into a mess...18 pages FRONT and BACK...means 18 "pages" written on the front and back...equalling 36 sides...the end...ask the writers and then it will be 100% sure from 99.9% sure.

Sofya

In article , "Sofya" wrote:

The thing is Sofya, that Ross's use of English was tautological.

The word "page" refers to only one side of a piece of paper, so there is no need to say "front and back". If by "page" he meant a page then there were 9 sheets of paper, written on both sides, making 18 pages; but to to say that there were 36 pages means that Ross called a sheet a "page".

Be my guest. :)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

If it were only 9 pages, wouldn't have been more logical to say "9 pages - front and back!"? Anyway, as David already said, the point mainly was that Ross had a lot to read

Andr�

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

Why do people take these things out of context of the story? Ross said: "Eighteen pages (pause) front and back!" The words 'front and back' were clearly added for an extra laugh to show how daunting his task would be. He had to turn the pages over to see writing on both sides and when Rachel first handed them to him, he was clearly holding more than nine separate pages. LOOK AT THE VIDEO!!!! Call them pages. Call them sheets. There were 18 pieces of paper. THE END, THE END, THE END, THE END, THE END.

"Sofya" wrote in message news:agae5o$ab$[email]...

writing!

of

99.9%

I respectfully disagree. I think it could go either way. "Page" can mean sheet or it can mean surface. When you read a book, for example, the first of one sheet might be page number 1, while the other side of that same sheet would be page number 2. However, I believe most people lean toward the idea that page means sheet when referring to a handwritten letter.

Of course, Tennant further complicated the issue by pointing out that often a single sheet in a magazine contains four pages, as it is stapled and folded in the center. Nevertheless, I doubt that Ross was thinking to that level of detail. :-)

Would Rachel have had time to write a letter filling 18 sheets of notebook paper? Maybe she would, maybe not. I lean toward not, and yet, that opinion is in conflict with my belief about handwritten letters. So, I'm still unsure.

Either way, the point is that it was a long letter. :-)

"David Buehrle" wrote in message

first

sheet

idea

I'd go with Sofya on this one. Yes, page can have two meanings. Either it means one side or it means two sides (thank goodness "side" is unambigous). To understand which Ross meant we have to consider the surrounding detail. The phrase "FRONT AND BACK" doesn't make sense if you are just referring to one side... thus Ross either didn't make sense or he meant page=two sides. As Ross is a scientist we can disregard the possibility that he didn't make sense and we conclude page=two sides. Thus 36 sides.

There really is no room for doubt IMO.

Well Ross did have a lot to apologise for :)

Pete

In article , "Pete Bartlett" wrote:

Ross may be a scientist, but he sometimes does *not* make sense.

This is what I'm arguing about, there *is* room for doubt.

I don't care about any particular number.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:[email]...

I think you'll find that it was pretty clear to most of us in the USA. To you it sounds like really bad grammar, but that's because you guys tend to take the proper usage of words a little more seriously than we do. It's common, at least in my small area of the US, to refer to a single sheet of paper as a page if it is not part of a book or magazine. So, when Ross said "18 pages, front and back", I never doubted that Rachel had written a 36 sided letter. As for the feasibility of that, I maintain that a pissed-off woman can easily write that much, especially if her handwriting is large.

Tana

In article , "Tana" wrote:

Lol, flattery will get you everywhere. :)

Eep. Okay then, Tana.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:[email]...

To

to

:) It's true though. Some of the proper grammar rules that you've brought up in the past are completely new to me. My mother was a grammar teacher, and I think that I speak with decent grammar. But, slang and vernacular don't rub me the wrong way like they do you.

BTW. I love reading your responses because they are always so well thought out.

Tana

In article , "Tana" wrote:

OI dunno 'bout that! ;)

Thanks, Tana!

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:[email]...

You know it's sad that in the US, kids aren't taught to use the correct words in situations like this. There wouldn't have been a question if Ross had said "You had rambled on (which is bad grammar as well) for 36 pages." or even better "It was 5 o'clock in the morning and you had filled 18 sheets of paper, FRONT and BACK"

In article , "Tana" wrote:

Well yes, especially since Ross prides himself on his grammar.

Except, of course, that Joey sometimes has to correct him.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Were there more instances of this than 804? And doesn't everybody sometimes make grammar mistakes? You're making a way bigger deal out of this than it is

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

I don't think I'm making as big a deal as your email address does. :-)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Just my way of dealing with getting about 15 spam mails a day all of a sudden :)

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

I do appreciate your pain, but your email address seems less OTT to you since they're all foreign words.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I don't know what you're trying to say, but I know it is OTT, just like being sent an average of 15 spam mails a day is. If you object to the bad language then just say so :) I changed it anyways, it got boring (yay! another thing to fiddle around with apart from my signature)

And back to the original question you so cleverly side-stepped with your remark about my email address:

Have there been more instances of Joey correcting Ross' grammar? And something else I was thinking about, the episode where Joey works in CP and adds up the bill for the gang in a matter of seconds. What if he added up the bill before he went there and just pretended to add it up on the spot, so that all his friends would think of him as some sort of math wizard? I reckon that'd be even smarter than being able to add up the whole bill in a matter of seconds

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Lol!!!

It didn't bother me, but then a neutral reaction is the best you'll get, while others will react negatively, even if they don't say so.

Well, let's just say that your new one is an improvement. :)

Grin.

Oh, that's an *excellent* point, Andr�!

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

My ISP was screwing with me recently, so I posted in a help group for awhile and I got killfiled and called all sorts of things for using a "despammed" (therefore invalid) email address and not posting under my real name... If you're looking for anal fuckwits, German usenet is the place to go

Yeah, but you avoided my question *again*: Have there been any more instances of Joey correcting Ross' grammar than the one in 804?

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Gosh.

You keep distracting me!

Oh, there are bound to be hundreds, I guess.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

But have we seen them?

Andr�

In article , "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Well, don't forget that we see these people for 14 seconds per day, not long enough to check if they clean their teeth after breakfast.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I know that, but I object to this logic that "because x did something in situation y, he or she might be doing it all the time", because it's only speculation without any evidence. I might as well say that Ross is a notorious cheater because we've seen him cheating on Rachel, or that Joey got fired from all his former acting jobs because he claimed something that wasn't quite true in an interview (I could go on for hours with this...).

I'm not against speculating about what the characters are doing when we don't see them, but it shouldn't be based on something we've only seen them do once. For example, I ran into a lampost once, doesn't mean I do it every so often ;)

Andr�

In article , Cookie Dude wrote:

Fair enough, but all that means is that we just don't know.

But it does show that you are *capable* of running into lamposts.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I'm not denying that Joey is capable of correcting Ross' grammar, I was merely saying that you're making it sound like it is something Joey does on a regular basis, even though there is nothing to back up this theory.

I know that it really bugs you how people refer to Joey as the dumb one, it just seems to me that in your efforts to point out that Joey is not an intellectual lightweight, but rather an average guy, you end up making the other characters look as if they were too stupid to breath - or at least that's how it comes across at times.

Andr�

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

It's more than that, Tennant :

24 episodes @ 22 minutes each per year = 528 minutes

Total minutes in year = 365 * 24 * 60 = 525600 minutes

528/525600 = almost exactly 0.001, so we see 1/1000th of their lives. That equates to 1.44 minutes per day = 86 seconds.

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Now divide that by six.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

But we can watch more than one friend at a time can't we?

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Tennant Stuart typed this -

That doesn't work, since almost invariably there are more than one of them on screen at once. :)

Ahhh poor Andre...I have to ask, do they use e-towels on German Usenet to stop you posting? If they're complaining because you don't give your proper email address, just ask them how much spam they get every day.

Owen

Owen Shiers wrote:

I told them that because I was fed up with all the spam I received I changed my email address and they started telling all these old horror stories about how invalid email addresses screw up servers (if your email address is invalid, the spam mail will 'bounce' back to the spammer, but they also use invalid email addresses so the spam will bounce back and forth and eventually be the cause of a server crash) and also they said something like "why don't you use temporary email addresses like [email]?". I'm guessing from that comment that I can register these thingies somewhere on their website, but it takes me ages to find anything on there, so I'll just stick to my fried email address :)

Andr�

Surely servers shouldn't crash because mail is bouncing? Millions of people use fake email addresses, and I don't recall server problems. It's probably their shitty german servers that need updating.

Owen

Owen Shiers wrote:

That's exactly the point, millions of people spamtrapping their email addies causes millions of emails bouncing back and forth which could well cause server downtime. The thing is though, if their email servers go down, it certainly won't be just because I decided to spamtrap my email addy.

Andr�

In article , "Owen Shiers" wrote:

Oh, Owen - I just fell over laughing! :-)

Tennant

You have a cruel sense of humour, Tennant...

Owen

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

LOL Corrected by whom? "Yeah, that's right!" LOL

In article , "David Buehrle" wrote:

Exactly.

Tennant

"Tana" wrote in message news:ageoln$ngr$[email]...

referring

said

pissed-off

Not that this matters, but FYI, I'm in Minnesota. :-)

David Buehrle wrote in message news:LEPW8.2974$[email]...

page=two

he

To

to

of

large.

I'm in Texas. And we destroy the English language on a regular basis. :)

Tana

I think we all have our own way of mutilating the language, although I have to admit, Texans seem to do everything bigger than everyone else. :-)

I ain't been down y'all's way for a long time, but I'm fixin' to visit again real soon.

yawl an yestoryear