Thread: lose ≠ loose
View Single Post
Old 03-05-2007, 11:17 AM   #1
red sky
#1 Goaltender
 
red sky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default lose ≠ loose

Too many times on this board I have read people's comments on the flames "loosing" or that the flames "loose" when they don't do this or don't do that. I know that we are all strapped for time and that people generally don't proofread their post but this is beyond ridiculous. We are all educated individuals (assuming) who should know the difference here and if you didn't, you do now. Out with the loose and in with the lose!!! Who is on board?

Here are some classic examples:

"What should happen is the Flames should destroy the Oilers, which makes me think it'll be a tight game as the Oilers will have something to prove, and the Flames like to loose games like this (see Dec. 26 vs. Vancouver)."

" He deserves to have it retired and imo if they don't do it the whole jersey thing will loose something on me. You only come upon guys like that once so often and we can't ignore."

"At least if you loose either of those two players it doesn't send the whole we are screwed and rebuilding again flag up in the air."

"And good for him to be able to loose the weight he has, good for him and I have zero problems with a fighter doing what it takes for him to win."

That was just a quick search, although I do commend those that used the term correctly.

Flame on... end or rant!
red sky is offline   Reply With Quote