Sexton Joins the "Reraise" Club

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
many poker players consider a bet larger than the BB to be a raise. Get a [censored] life.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no call for such a spiteful response.

Yes, it's a raise. I just can't see how it is a RE-raise, that's all.

Yikes, I might need to find a new hobby. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Rushmore]

Interesting, but I think the following sentence actually helps my case:

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the sentence The teachers were unable to use the new computers might mean only that the teachers were unable to operate the computers, whereas The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers suggests that the teachers could not find ways to employ the computers in instruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

The former seems to denote the most simple effort, while the latter seems to denote an actual practical endeavor.

I don't know. Damn, I seem to have pissed people off again.

Sorry, guys.

[bholdr]

your prof was a nit. sometimes, when writing, an author is forced to use a term many times in a short span. those writers that utilize synonyms instead of repeating the same word make far more intresting reading.

vs:

sometimes, when writing, a writer is forced to use a word more than once. those writers that use the same word aren't using good writing.

utilize=use, term=word, authors=writers, many times=repeating... see?

yuck.

[InfernoLL]

Yes, thank you. I was watching an episode earlier and noticed the same thing, except he did it like 5 hands in a row. Someone limps, and then the next player "reraises". WTF? Doesn't Mike Sexton play poker? How can any poker player not know the difference between a raise and a reraise? How can a poker COMMENTATOR not know the difference? This is very simple. This is unacceptable. Makes me want to flip out and jump kick him in the head. It's a good thing I've never seen him in person.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
your prof was a nit. sometimes, when writing, an author is forced to use a term many times in a short span. those writers that utilize synonyms instead of repeating the same word make far more intresting reading.

vs:

sometimes, when writing, a writer is forced to use a word more than once. those writers that use the same word aren't using good writing.

utilize=use, term=word, authors=writers, many times=repeating... see? yuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you are bolstering my point (for which I am very grateful), even here we find distinctions:

term=word...............not all words are terms.
many times=repeating....if something is repeated once, then the former would be utterly incorrect.

My point is that there are differences, subtle as they may be.

Your point is also very legitimate. Phonetically, we seems to find a bit of verbal variation to be more aurally palatable (or at least less monotonous), which is definitely a worthy concern when writing.

Having descended into utter off-topicality, I will now cease and desist.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My Professional Writing professor made a point of mentioning how "utilize" is a completely worhtless word. It means exactly the same thing as "use". It just sounds fancier.

She thought people who used "utilize" were confused as to how to properly use the English language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "Professional Writing professor" was wrong.

The verb form of the word use simply means to employ, regardless of the general efficiency of said employment.

The word utilize, on the other hand, has a connotation which clearly involves proper employment.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right that there is a difference between the two words.

However, "use" is the better verb for your sentence.

As a side note, if the verb "utilize" really did have a connotation of "proper" employment (which it doesn't), the presence of "properly" in your sentence would be redundant.

As I have a degree in English literature from a very prestigious university, this discussion is hereby concluded.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right that there is a difference between the two words.

However, "use" is the better verb for your sentence.

As a side note, if the verb "utilize" really did have a connotation of "proper" employment (which it doesn't), the presence of "properly" in your sentence would be redundant.

As I have a degree in English literature from a very prestigious university, this discussion is hereby concluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept what you have said, and defer to your knowledge of these things about which we discuss.

Humor me for just another moment or two, though, please.

Was the Professional Writing professor wrong?

If my intent (intention?) was to posit that utilize implies not merely the act of attempted employment, but to actually, oh, say, extract from a thing that for which the thing was designed, would I be any closer?

Lastly, is there any validity to the other poster's opinion that as a matter of good form alone it makes sense to vary your vocabulary, particularly when using/utilizing words which are close enough in meaning as to be only negligibly different connotatively?

I am sincerely curious.

[-Skeme-]

This is the WPT forum, right?

[MicroBob]

I hadn't considered the difference between 'use' and 'utilize'...but there are a couple others that do bug me.
I admit to not knowing what the technical differences are between these words but i believe they might be similar in a trying-to-sound-pretentious way.


One is 'differential' and 'difference'.
"There is a 10 second DIFFERENTIAL between the shot-clock and the game-clock."
How is that any different than a 10 second DIFFERENCE between the shot-clock and the game-clock?
It really annoys the crap out of me and the rare sports-caster that actually says DIFFERENCE instead of DIFFERENTIAL truly impresses me.


Another is done by some late-night jazz DJ's types as well as snooty authors at book-readings.
"Miles Davis from the album ENTITLED Snobby-DJ's."
Why is it ENTITLED? Isn't that just a pretentious way of saying TITLED?


Don't feel like going to a dictionary site so feel free to flame-away at ignorance if I'm way off on these.



FWIW - I saw the KTo hand where VVP commented.
I believe it was 4-handed and it looked like a steal attempt AND he was in the big-blind. Calling it a 'real' hand was actually appropriate in this situation.


That zip-and-pip and fluff-and-puff show crap has GOT to go though.

I'm especially picky about my sports-broadcasters having formerly been one. I don't think the excuse that they aren't trained to do it is legitimate. If they aren't good at it then they shouldn't be doing it. And Mike and Vince are just not very good at what they do imo.

[miajag81]

[ QUOTE ]

Another is done by some late-night jazz DJ's types as well as snooty authors at book-readings.
"Miles Davis from the album ENTITLED Snobby-DJ's."
Why is it ENTITLED? Isn't that just a pretentious way of saying TITLED?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not just pretentious; completely wrong. Titled is correct. Entitled should only be used in the sense related to "deserving," like "Phil Hellmuth was entitled to win every poker tournament last year"