Some important news regarding Bob Barker

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'May 2 2005, 09:54 PM\']When directly preceded by the words "three years", it sure as hell does.
[/quote]
Um, a Google search agrees with him, folks. So either a DAMNED LOT of people are using the term incorrectly, or he's right. I lean towards the latter.

[Robert Hutchinson]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 3 2005, 12:06 AM\']Um, a Google search agrees with him, folks. So either a DAMNED LOT of people are using the term incorrectly, or he's right. I lean towards the latter.[/quote]

A Google search is what gave me the definition of the word, which does not agree with him.

Yes, "removed" is used far more often to indicate that the time period referenced is in the past. But not always--and with the phrasing in the story, it's confusing. The verb tense doesn't clarify the meaning, and when you're also talking about how much longer Barker will be working on TPIR, it's more interesting and/or much easier to think he's three years away from a record than to think he's three years past one.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'May 3 2005, 12:54 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 1 2005, 07:45 PM\']
Always a good idea to tell a moderator he's stupid.[/quote]
Which I didn't do, of course. You made it perfectly clear that the sentence never confused you. I simply said your criticism was unfounded, since the phrase in question was unambiguous.[/quote]
There's a difference between "accurate" and "unambiguous".  While the language the author used may have been correct, he chose to use a phrase that is easily misunderstood by an awful lot of people, even smart ones.  If the goal of mainstream writing is to be understood, he probably could have found a better way to express the same idea.

[Don Howard]

And now, to swerve this fat baby back on topic, this is just precautionary surgery, yes? Bob is wisely following his physician's advice to prevent what COULD be a major problem if this bad boy isn't excised from his person.
I've seen a blog (no doubt a self-serving piece of dramatics) where someone is readying himself/herself for the worst!!!!!, but if this was such a life-and-death operation, I suspect Bob would've been "opened up" a week or more ago so pulling a shroud over the man is way too premature.

[cmjb13]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'May 7 2005, 08:49 AM\']And now, to swerve this fat baby back on topic, this is just precautionary surgery, yes? Bob is wisely following his physician's advice to prevent what COULD be a major problem if this bad boy isn't excised from his person.
I've seen a blog (no doubt a self-serving piece of dramatics) where someone is readying himself/herself for the worst!!!!!, but if this was such a life-and-death operation, I suspect Bob would've been "opened up" a week or more ago so pulling a shroud over the man is way too premature.

[snapback]84659[/snapback]

[/quote]
Barker taped an interview this past week after a taping (also aired on the L.A. CBS station Other pieces of the interview weren't related to health. ie: popularity of the show, etc...)  where he mentioned there's one on his ear and one on his back.

Precautionary could mean different things to different people. You could get rid of it, thinking down the road it could be an issue. Or you have something and you have to take notice now, otherwise it could be a problem in the future. Either way, he's taking care of it.

[SplitSecond]

I think the point is that this is not the first surgery for this thing the man has had.  I would be surprised if it was even one of the first ten.