February 8th, 2005
|07:27 pm - Once again.|
Once again, newsdroids, please listen up:
The New England Patriots won Super Bowls in 2002, 2004 and 2005.
The correct way to express this is "Three championships in four years."
The incorrect way to express this is "three-peat."
I am sure Tampa Bay would be quite irked to hear that their 2003 win somehow doesn't count.
PS: Oh, and "Dynasty" was a show starring John Forsythe and Joan Collins. Hope this helps.
PPS: Actually, the incorrect way to express anything is "three-peat" because it's incredibly stupid, even when appropriate.
PPPS: You knobs.
Aww, I kinda liked three-peat back when it was the Bulls. Then again, I was only like, ten at the time.
|Date:||February 9th, 2005 04:31 am (UTC)|| |
What about this?
Back in the good old Georgia Tech days, PHYS2102 (the physics class dealing with electrons and circuits and such) was commonly referred to as EMag. Until you failed it, and had to take ReMag. That is, until you failed it again, and had to take 3Mag.
|Date:||February 9th, 2005 06:14 am (UTC)|| |
Re: What about this?
Ok, I like that one.
Back when Pete Sampras was trying for his third Wimbledon win, he told the papers he was aiming for a "three-peat". That wouldn't be acceptable from Billy-Bob Sampras, say, but from Pete Sampras it seems okay.
I think it was acceptable when it was the Jays winning the World Series, too, 'cause once and twice were already exceptional circumstances. Although in honour of the national pastime they really should have said they were trying for a "hat trick".
Another reason to root against twice repeating champions to gain a third title is that the oily Pat Riley owns the trademark to that onerous phrase.http://www.snopes.com/legal/3peat.htm