Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ism780
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!ism780!jimb
From: jimb@ism780
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Grammar and Spelling on the Net
Message-ID: <62800004@ism780>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 01:48:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780.62800004
Posted: Fri Mar  7 01:48:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 00:24:37 EST
References: <658@frog.UUCP>
Lines: 32
Nf-ID: #R:frog.UUCP:658:ism780:62800004:000:1024
Nf-From: ism780!jimb    Mar  6 22:48:00 1986



>>        I am reminded of a parable which mentions stones and glass houses.
				    ^^^^^
>>              geoff@ism780:

>       ...*THAT* mentions stones... Want to run through that parable again?
>
>                        John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego


What *is* this discussion doing on net.singles?

Oh, well.  We take our tempest in the teapots as we find them.
According to contemporary usage, *WHICH* is perfectly acceptable.
The following is quoted from

   MISS THISTLEBOTTOM'S HOBGOBLINS:
   The Careful Writer's Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules
      of English Usage
   by Theodore M. Bernstein (former editor of The New York Times).

"Grammar teachers tend to be too strict in forbidding the use of "which" to
refer to the whole idea of the preceding clause.  The only thing they need be
strict about is insistence that such a use be neither ambiguous or
clumsy...."

		-- from the musings of Jim Brunet

		   ihnp4/ima/ism780B
		   hplabs/hao/ico/ism780B
		   sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780