I thought that by definition a _pet_ peeve was your single most
prominent peeve. How can you have more than one most prominent peeve? If you
have multiple peeves of equal prominence with no peeves above those
aformentioned peeves of equality, would that not indicate that you do not, in
fact have a "pet" peeve but merely a smattering of peeves? (Is a groups of
peeves a flock, herd, brood, pack, pride or gaggle?)
pet adj: preferred above all others and treated with partiality; "the favored
child" [syn: favored, favorite(a), favourite(a), preferred]
I guess someone could go through life always picking the peeve that's
currently got him peeved as his "pet" peeve, but that seems to be a terribly
fickle and not entirely a fair way to treat one's peeves. Peeves, however
annoying they may be, need love and attention like any other pet. They are not
suited to being treated like herded animals such sheep or cows. Many a man who
has attempted such a thing winds up becoming chronically annoyed, irritable or
contrary. Colloquially referred to as being "peevish" amongst those in the
peeving world...
(Just nit-picking the pickers of nits, with due respect and humorous
intent.)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:42:31 -0500, Flak Magnet <flakmagnet72@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I thought that by definition a _pet_ peeve was your single most
I believe that the collective noun for a group of peeves is a "snit".
> pet
I hope to be known as "curmudgeonly" in my old age, rather than "grumpy". I
also hope to be accorded the title of "eccentric", which I much prefer to
"that weird old guy with all the toy soldiers".
Alas, I fear that I am doomed to disapointment. And my chronic mistreatment of
my peeves -- up to and including unlicensed and unrestrained peeve
breeding --
is only going to make things worse.
> (Just nit-picking the pickers of nits, with due respect and humorous
It's only fair. It is, indeed, natural law! If I'd corrected someone's
spelling, for instance, I'd have been bound to make a spelling error or three
myself.
Thus is the balance maintained.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:42:31 -0500, Flak Magnet <flakmagnet72@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I thought that by definition a _pet_ peeve was your single most
But you can have more than one pet (eg a dog, a hedgehog, and a hamster)
simultaneously, right? So "pet" merely designates a higher but not necessarily
exclusive status. A "noble" peeve, so to speak, as opposed to lesser or
"common" peeves. The next step up, however, is not a "peeve" but a "pain", as
in "a royal pain".
[quoted original message omitted]
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:42:31 -0500, Flak Magnet
I, for instance, have a kennel of pet peeves ranging from Socialists to
Carolingians with delusions of Godhood.
John said:
> I, for instance, have a kennel of pet peeves ranging
"Kennel"? That's the most masterful understatement I've seen in quite