ATJ Question: Why doesn't this family have a LAST NAME?

[the truth]

It's a bit odd to be going into year six and have a family known by first names only don't you think? I mean, we've never even heard any reference to their last name in any episode that I can recall. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I wonder why that would be?

I thought this would be an interesting subject to comment on so I thought I'd post it, not that anyone uses this board much.

So in the meantime, I'll leave you with another CTS pic....



OK, maybe more than one more pic....

[Ireneparalegal]

Here is something i found that is a quote from Courtney Thorne Smith:

Cheryl, Jim and their clan can claim something rather unique for a TV family: They have no known last name. "They're determined to go through life without one," Thorne-Smith jokes. "It's so funny, especially in scenes when Jim and Cheryl have to visit their kids' teachers. Since there's no last name, the teachers will say things like, 'Hi, Ruby's mom.' I think the show's producers didn't give us a last name just for their own entertainment."

[MitchS]

Irene: If you are a paralegal, be sure that you don't allow legal documents to get out of the office containing "rather unique" -- or any other adjective attached to unique. Unique means one of a kind, so it can never have a modifier attached; something is or isn't unique. Period.
s/Fussy Lawyer

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by MitchS

Irene: If you are a paralegal, be sure that you don't allow legal documents to get out of the office containing "rather unique" -- or any other adjective attached to unique. Unique means one of a kind, so it can never have a modifier attached; something is or isn't unique. Period.
s/Fussy Lawyer

I was quoting someone's words...just like in the legal field, when one is quoting someone, you do it word for word, the way the person stated it. Which is why I posted in MY WORDS, that I am quoting the actress. It would be wrong for me to change the words of someone; if I do that, at that point, I cannot claim it is a quote. Simple grammar rules.

[MitchS]

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

Here is something i found that is a quote from Courtney Thorne Smith:

Cheryl, Jim and their clan can claim something rather unique for a TV family: They have no known last name. "They're determined to go through life without one," Thorne-Smith jokes. "It's so funny, especially in scenes when Jim and Cheryl have to visit their kids' teachers. Since there's no last name, the teachers will say things like, 'Hi, Ruby's mom.' I think the show's producers didn't give us a last name just for their own entertainment."

This is the post that led me to warn Ireneparalegal against the error of attaching a modifier to "unique."

Now comes the fun. Irenelegal tried some legalistic arguments to show that she was correct to write as she did. Nice try, Irenelegal, but your argument, as lawyers like to say, has no merit.

Irenelegal says "Here is something i found that is a quote from Courtney Thorne Smith" The "here" is the next paragraph.

She says that paragraph is a quote from Courtney Thorne-Smith. Not so. Just look at the third sentence, which ends with these three words, Thorne-Smith jokes, which come after a close-quotes. You expect anyone believe this is quote from Courtney, Irenelegal? That she refers to herself as Thorne-Smith? That she makes a joke, and then tells the reader that she has made a joke? No way. It is the person who put that paragraph together after interviewing Courtney who wrote that -- and the offending words rather unique.

Irenelegal talks about how things are done in legal writing. If she wants to get into that area, she's in more trouble. Her post would have been wrong as legal writing even if "rather unique" had been part of a real Thorne-Smith quote. In legal writing, if you quote something that is incorrect, you indicate that to the reader by adding [sic]. Then the reader understands that only the person quoted was incorrect; the writer was aware of the error.

To answer an argument that Irenelegal hasn't made yet, but could -- another thing lawyers like to do -- she might say that the entire paragragh was a verbatim quote, though not from Courtney but from the interviewer/writer.
That still wouldn't excuse the lack of [sic].

Mitch

[MitchS]

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

Here is something i found that is a quote from Courtney Thorne Smith:

Cheryl, Jim and their clan can claim something rather unique for a TV family: They have no known last name. "They're determined to go through life without one," Thorne-Smith jokes. "It's so funny, especially in scenes when Jim and Cheryl have to visit their kids' teachers. Since there's no last name, the teachers will say things like, 'Hi, Ruby's mom.' I think the show's producers didn't give us a last name just for their own entertainment."

This is the post that led me to warn Ireneparalegal against the error of attaching a modifier to "unique."

Now comes the fun. Irenelegal tried some legalistic arguments to show that she was correct to write as she did. Nice try, Irenelegal, but your argument, as lawyers like to say, has no merit.

Irenelegal says "Here is something i found that is a quote from Courtney Thorne Smith" The "here" is the next paragraph.

She says that paragraph is a quote from Courtney Thorne-Smith. Not so. Just look at the third sentence, which ends with these three words, Thorne-Smith jokes, which come after a close-quotes. You expect anyone believe this is quote from Courtney, Irenelegal? That she refers to herself as Thorne-Smith? That she makes a joke, and then tells the reader that she has made a joke? No way. It is the person who put that paragraph together after interviewing Courtney who wrote that -- and the offending words rather unique.

Irenelegal talks about how things are done in legal writing. If she wants to get into that area, she's in more trouble. Her post would have been wrong as legal writing even if "rather unique" had been part of a real Thorne-Smith quote. In legal writing, if you quote something that is incorrect, you indicate that to the reader by adding [sic]. Then the reader understands that only the person quoted was incorrect; the writer was aware of the error.

To answer an argument that Irenelegal hasn't made yet, but could -- another thing lawyers like to do -- she might say that the entire paragragh was a verbatim quote, though not from Courtney but from the interviewer/writer.
That still wouldn't excuse the lack of [sic].

Mitch

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by MitchS

This is the post that led me to warn Ireneparalegal against the error of attaching a modifier to "unique."

Now comes the fun. Irenelegal tried some legalistic arguments to show that she was correct to write as she did. Nice try, Irenelegal, but your argument, as lawyers like to say, has no merit.

Irenelegal says "Here is something i found that is a quote from Courtney Thorne Smith" The "here" is the next paragraph.

She says that paragraph is a quote from Courtney Thorne-Smith. Not so. Just look at the third sentence, which ends with these three words, Thorne-Smith jokes, which come after a close-quotes. You expect anyone believe this is quote from Courtney, Irenelegal? That she refers to herself as Thorne-Smith? That she makes a joke, and then tells the reader that she has made a joke? No way. It is the person who put that paragraph together after interviewing Courtney who wrote that -- and the offending words rather unique.

Irenelegal talks about how things are done in legal writing. If she wants to get into that area, she's in more trouble. Her post would have been wrong as legal writing even if "rather unique" had been part of a real Thorne-Smith quote. In legal writing, if you quote something that is incorrect, you indicate that to the reader by adding [sic]. Then the reader understands that only the person quoted was incorrect; the writer was aware of the error.

To answer an argument that Irenelegal hasn't made yet, but could -- another thing lawyers like to do -- she might say that the entire paragragh was a verbatim quote, though not from Courtney but from the interviewer/writer.
That still wouldn't excuse the lack of [sic].

Mitch

Oh God, get a friggin' life.

One reason I worked for female attorneys rather than men because the men attorneys thought they were GOD...

So glad I have two businesses that allow me to BE MY OWN BOSS.

Try and get a life...it will do you some good. People here could care less abt your post.

[MitchS]

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

Oh God, get a friggin' life.

One reason I worked for female attorneys rather than men because the men attorneys thought they were GOD...

So glad I have two businesses that allow me to BE MY OWN BOSS.

Try and get a life...it will do you some good. People here could care less abt your post.

I worked with lots of female attorneys, and female paralegals, who had too much respect for themselves to "answer" the correction of an error with name-calling.
Mitch

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by MitchS

I worked with lots of female attorneys, and female paralegals, who had too much respect for themselves to "answer" the correction of an error with name-calling.
Mitch

WHERE THE HELL DID I USE NAME CALLING????? Oh God, you need to get a life seriously. Now you are just plain lying. You know what, I will not respond to you anymore. You are just a waste of time and no one on this board is paying attention to you and your posts...I made the mistake of looking at your two posts. But after this, no more, nada, zip...no more responses from me on this matter. So, if you like playing with yourself, go right ahead and keep on posting ridiculous and idiotic crap and read it yourself because no one else is.

Btw: You made the error of even dealing with me and also YOU POSTED THE SAME POST TWICE...what a stupid error on your part.

[the truth]

Mitch needs to get laid! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by the truth

Mitch needs to get laid! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or get that big stick outta his ass...

[pbsausie]

They must be related to the family of Charles from Charles in Charge! (another no last namer)

[Ohio8]

Not to mention the family on Malcolm in the Middle.