LDan has made a faux paux. So what. It is neither irreversible nor serious. It did not involve an abuse of his sysop powers. I suggest that we all forget about it and move on. There are far more pressing matters to attend to. Louis

"Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote: I thought it was "hear, hear" Whichever it was, add my name to it. ~S~ --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

From: "Jake Nelson" <jnelson(a)soncom.com> "Here" is an interjection meaning "to concur", Thus, Here. Here. Means, "I concur. I concur." (repeated for emphasis). See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Here Oral utterances are always open to ambigious interpretation and I am not suggesting that one who listens to UK or other Commonwealth countries Commons debates incorrectly believes that "Here!" (meaning "I agree") cannot also be interpreted to mean means"hear him". or "listen to the speaker"; http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/178100.html which is the origin of Hear, hear! or Hear! Hear! though I have never seen that exclamation used without exclamatory punctuation. The exclamatory form is acceptable when drawing attention to the speaker's words as a type of cheer. I was using "Here." as an expression of concurrance with Louis Kyu Won Ryu's utterance, not primarily to draw attention to his speech. It can be considered an idiomatic expression: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hear that some interpret as being a sign of agreement. Either word is acceptable as far as I am concerned, but then lawyers are always looking for alternative meanings and the gray zones. Academics, grammarians (and others too!) may be looking for black and white answers, nothing wrong with that, it these POVs that keeps us "gray zone workers" searching for the NPOV! Alex756