pure Davy Crockett

[sunsunmoon]

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...verything.html
Coolfootluke wrote in #4:
That "most" is pure Davy Crockett around here (Middle Atlantic, USA), and ...

What does "pure Davy Crockett" mean? Does it mean "very common"?

[probus]

No it doesn't. No need to start a new thread.

See here:

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...verything.html

[birdeen's call]

It's better when new questions are asked and answered in new threads, because this way they are later easier to find.

[Raymott]

It's better if, when someone says something you don't understand in a thread, you ask about it, with a Quote from the person who said it in the same thread. It can appear quite rude to run off and ask someone else when the person who said it is obviously following the thread. Quite rude and thoughtless.

A: It sounds quite X.
B: [thinks] Hmm, what's X? I better go and start a thread to find out. - Wrong response.
B: Excuse me, A, but what do you mean by X? - Right response.

[birdeen's call]

I agree that it may seem rude. I was in this situation several times and always had trouble choosing the right option. I was afraid to appear rude, but at the same time wanted to make my question more usable for others. I think sunsunmoon's solution is good. They said in the original thread they were creating a new thread for this question, so that Coolfootluke could easily find it and answer. Some kind of excuse would have been appropriate and addressing Luke personally too, but, other than that, I think sunsunmoon's way is right.

[Raymott]

I agree that it may seem rude. I was in this situation several times and always had trouble choosing the right option. I was afraid to appear rude, but at the same time wanted to make my question more usable for others. I think sunsunmoon's solution is good. They said in the original thread they were creating a new thread for this question, so that Coolfootluke could easily find it and answer. Some kind of excuse would have been appropriate and addressing Luke personally too, but, other than that, I think sunsunmoon's way is right.

Maybe. I'd think twice before responding again to a poster who did not understand something I said but, instead of asking me, started a new thread to find out. In fact it has happened a few times, and it hasn't impressed me. You say you've been in the situation of the poster. Have you ever been in the situation of the responder trying to help? It takes on a different perspective.
Still, it might not bother Luke. But we now have two threads discussing the same thing.

[birdeen's call]

You say you've been in the situation of the poster. Have you ever been in the situation of the responder trying to help? It takes on a different perspective.

I haven't.

I would find it convenient if there were a consensus on this. If my memory serves me right, I discussed it once with fivejedjon and he expressed a view similar to mine. I hope other members will comment too.

[5jj]

My ageing memory doesn't recall that, BC, but generally I am in favour of new threads for new questions.

However, this one is slightly different, in my opinion. I think in a situation like this, I'd stay in the original thread, saying something like, "Sorry if this is going off-topic, but I didn't understand..." This gives the next poster the chance either to answer the question briefly, without causing confusion in the main discussion, or to say, "There are differing views on this. In order not to disrupt the main topic, I have opened a new thread here."

I don't think anybody would be offended by this.

[Barb_D]

And by diverting the flow of the thread to ask about something like Davy Crockett, you can be accused of "hijacking' the thread, so there is no easy answer. I have no problem with starting a new thread.

I know that Vil once vilified me for doing exactly what you are suggesting when I had the nerve to ask for an explanation of something someone said in a response in his thread. Apparently he owned the thread and it was considered a high crime for anyone else to learn anything else except what he wanted to know.

The answer to your question, now that everyone is (I hope) finished scolding you about thread etiquette, is that Davy Crockett was a frontiersman when the US was expanding westward. The idea is that frontiersmen did not use refined English, and would have a lot of "ain't" and double negatives in their speech, and that their manner of speaking would be colloquial and not standard.