Author: The Jody

Mr. Dump has decided that if your youth group is going to have a
successful car wash you need a minimum of 30 (!) volunteers divided into
two lines with different people given wash, rinse and dry roles.

I said that if you had 6 really cute girls you'd be all set. He pointed
out that unless severly disfigured, most guys think *any* 16 year old
girl is cute. I have to agree with this theory. But I don't know if you
can staff all 30 positions with cute girls. As long as you have a couple
of them holding signs on the road, you'll suck people in behind the
school where you can actually have boys do the heavy work.

Good thing we have no reason to run a charity car wash. I don't have 30
volunteers lying around.

Does anyone else have this kind of oddball discussion?

[Posted from the SideKick using email]

According to Boston.com Merriam Webster added the word “ginormous” to the dictionary. I’m not sure how I feel about that. I kind of liked using the word because it wasn’t a word. And now it is one. Where does that leave me?

I don’t know.

I may continue to use it, I’ll just have to wait for an appropriate opportunity.

A little personal aside on this topic – back in about 1985 or 86, when I was attending St. Joseph College in West Hartford, getting an English degree (hard to tell, huh?) I took an etymology class (that’s words, not bugs). Sr. Mary Joan Cook, the professor, took us on a field trip to Merriam Webster. Talk about exciting! It was a big building full of little pieces of paper with words on them. Literally. Picture the old card catalogs at your local library, multiply that by 100 and that’s what the words were stored on. The committee would review new words every year, based on usage in publications they recognized as legitimate (New York Times vs. a comic book). The ones with the most cache and the most likely to be long-lived made the cut and got added, and a couple of Olde Tyme words would drop off to make room. So I am very familiar, actually, with the process they follow, although I’m hoping to God that a lot of the physical paper copies of words and definitions and articles have made their way to some sort of electronic media. That place was a major fire hazard.

According to Boston.com Merriam Webster added the word “ginormous” to the dictionary. I’m not sure how I feel about that. I kind of liked using the word because it wasn’t a word. And now it is one. Where does that leave me?

I don’t know.

I may continue to use it, I’ll just have to wait for an appropriate opportunity.

A little personal aside on this topic – back in about 1985 or 86, when I was attending St. Joseph College in West Hartford, getting an English degree (hard to tell, huh?) I took an etymology class (that’s words, not bugs). Sr. Mary Joan Cook, the professor, took us on a field trip to Merriam Webster. Talk about exciting! It was a big building full of little pieces of paper with words on them. Literally. Picture the old card catalogs at your local library, multiply that by 100 and that’s what the words were stored on. The committee would review new words every year, based on usage in publications they recognized as legitimate (New York Times vs. a comic book). The ones with the most cache and the most likely to be long-lived made the cut and got added, and a couple of Olde Tyme words would drop off to make room. So I am very familiar, actually, with the process they follow, although I’m hoping to God that a lot of the physical paper copies of words and definitions and articles have made their way to some sort of electronic media. That place was a major fire hazard.